Kevin's Watch

Matthew Lynne Mate wrote:The new Lords swore an oath of peace. By swearing this they remove part of their ability to master darkness should it start to claim them. By restraining themselves they limit their ability to master that which would bring them knowledge.

...master darkness?

I can't see that Kevin would have mastered darkness. Maybe Loric.
Kevin's Landwaster tag seems to suggests he tried and failed miserably.

I like to believe Kevin defeated Lord Foul to such an extent that the Oath of Peace was implemented simply to ensure that future Lord's wouldn't have to clean up the mess. It took a long long time to get the soil of Trothguard arable again.

Krazy Kat wrote:

Matthew Lynne Mate wrote:The new Lords swore an oath of peace. By swearing this they remove part of their ability to master darkness should it start to claim them. By restraining themselves they limit their ability to master that which would bring them knowledge.

...master darkness?

I can't see that Kevin would have mastered darkness. Maybe Loric.
Kevin's Landwaster tag seems to suggests he tried and failed miserably.

I like to believe Kevin defeated Lord Foul to such an extent that the Oath of Peace was implemented simply to ensure that future Lord's wouldn't have to clean up the mess. It took a long long time to get the soil of Trothguard arable again.

The way that TCTC was written, it seems to me like the Oath of Peace was implemented because the ritual was seen as a mistake.

I believe I'm accurately paraphrasing Mhoram when he claims that the oath was taken because the new lords didn't believe they were responsible for saving the land. Not that they wouldn't try, but that they recognized it as a monumental task and that no matter what they did, they might fail. The oath was taken in an attempt to accept this apparent futility, and to say that how they fought to defend the land was important morally, and as a way of ensuring that they did not extend themselves against foul to such extremities that they served despite.

I believe that their relationship with the 7 wards reinforced this belief. Mhoram, or another lord, relates two ideas, IIRC (and I've included some related thoughts):
-If Kevin created the wards and he desecrated the land, the wards can't be counted on, and for that matter neither can Kevin.
-> Elena believes that the experience of committing the desecration strengthened Kevin, and for this reason summons Kevin with the 7th ward.
->More directly concerning the 7th ward, we know that Kevin did not drink, because he did not know to what purpose its power should be put (in order to be potent and also not serve despite). This can be used to critique the idea that Kevin was a master of the knowledge he passed down; we can't be sure that he understood all the uses that his own wards could be put to. Still, it also weakens the idea that the wards could be used to save the land.

-It seems likely that if the lords can't even master the 1st (and later the second) wards, they will not succeed where Kevin failed, barring the introduction of other actors (chiefly Covenant).
->I don't think the argument is absolutely sound for one reason, which is that I'm not sure Foul's subversion of the land is as sure as when he was among the lords in revelstone. Well, we really don't know enough about that time. It is still persuasive, however.

We also eventually learn that the oath of peace conflicts with kevin's wards. I don't remember if there's an indication that any of the lords suspected this. But because of the aforementioned reasons, I think they would have mostly or entirely striven to keep the oath even if they were sure that it limited their power.

I don't think the lords believe that the oath of peace allows them to master darkness in the sense of eliminating foul from the land, or preventing his victory over it, but I do think they believe it will guide them towards resisting it in the best possible way, and not contributing to its efforts.

Holsety wrote: We also eventually learn that the oath of peace conflicts with kevin's wards. I don't remember if there's an indication that any of the lords suspected this. But because of the aforementioned reasons, I think they would have mostly or entirely striven to keep the oath even if they were sure that it limited their power.

I don't think the lords believe that the oath of peace allows them to master darkness in the sense of eliminating foul from the land, or preventing his victory over it, but I do think they believe it will guide them towards resisting it in the best possible way, and not contributing to its efforts.

On the second: as accurate and succinct as I've seen. Bravo.

On the first: I think you're correct that none did until Mhoram's insight [kept secret, then later shared with the rest]. And IIRC, in the second chron's we get a "flashback?"...or maybe it was at the very end of the first...where they swore exactly what you say: if we cannot use the Ward's/Kevin's Lore without risking Desecration, we will take another path even if it costs us.

Vraith wrote:

Holsety wrote: We also eventually learn that the oath of peace conflicts with kevin's wards. I don't remember if there's an indication that any of the lords suspected this. But because of the aforementioned reasons, I think they would have mostly or entirely striven to keep the oath even if they were sure that it limited their power.

I don't think the lords believe that the oath of peace allows them to master darkness in the sense of eliminating foul from the land, or preventing his victory over it, but I do think they believe it will guide them towards resisting it in the best possible way, and not contributing to its efforts.

On the second: as accurate and succinct as I've seen. Bravo.

On the first: I think you're correct that none did until Mhoram's insight [kept secret, then later shared with the rest]. And IIRC, in the second chron's we get a "flashback?"...or maybe it was at the very end of the first...where they swore exactly what you say: if we cannot use the Ward's/Kevin's Lore without risking Desecration, we will take another path even if it costs us.

I believe that was at the end of tPtP, when the Creator shows Covenant how Revelstone is doing.

I wonder whether the new path Mhoram chose would have been successful (in the long term) if the Staff wasn't destroyed.

From the history vision Covenant has in TWL it appears that the new Lords didn't notice that there was a hidden taint taking hold of the Earthpower of the Land, or that it was critically weakened by the Breaking of the Law of Death and the destruction of the Staff. But can we really cast blame on them for that when a Forestall (Caerroil Wildwood) couldn't notice the flaws and dangers either?

Or should we assume that they understood the dangers posed by the destruction of Law and Staff and simply came to terms with the fact that remedying either of those things was beyond their powers and working to achieve utopia within the current system was the best they could do? Also, I have a suspicion that weakening the strictures on Earthpower posed by the Staff and Law of Death made their abilities greater and they needed to do less to achieve the same things so there might have been a strong temptation not to correct these flaws.

We know the new Lords achieved great feats with the tools they developed. How much of it could be attributed to Foul's 'assistance'? His influence must have been very minor at the start so their successes during the first few centuries must have been entirely their own.

I am just coming to the end of TPTP in my reading. Just want to mention that Mhoram shared his knowledge with the Lords and Amatin (iirc) used that knowledge to defend Revelstone.

shoe wrote:Also, I have a suspicion that weakening the strictures on Earthpower posed by the Staff and Law of Death made their abilities greater and they needed to do less to achieve the same things so there might have been a strong temptation not to correct these flaws....We know the new Lords achieved great feats with the tools they developed. How much of it could be attributed to Foul's 'assistance'? His influence must have been very minor at the start so their successes during the first few centuries must have been entirely their own.

Very interesting thought, and one I will keep in mind as I continue re-reading. The more they used their new knowledge and success bred confidence, the more danger. "Despair is Maker-work" (the jheherrin) but despair is also a human characteristic.

shadowbinding shoe wrote:I wonder whether the new path Mhoram chose would have been successful (in the long term) if the Staff wasn't destroyed.

I would compare it to learning how to drive when there are no driving laws. There's no pesky rules to learn to obey, and you can drive however you want to. So learning is "easier", but not necessarilly "better". Add driving laws, and it's more of a chore learning how to drive, but in the end, you're a better driver for it.

Or think of painting or music. There's training. And there's also learning the rules. By adhering to the rules, you can get a more beautiful result.

Or consider a game with lots of rules (chess) vs a game with no rules (Calvinball). Is chess a poorer game for having rules?

Donaldson is consistent in that he considers rules to be both limitations, and also a framework that makes things possible.

So: I think that, had they the Staff, things might have taken longer, but they would also have been done more correctly in the end. Fewer misunderstandings, no shortcuts that look okay but are actually harmful, etc. Mhoram would have succeeded in the end.

After all, the only limit Mhoram imposed on the new Lore was that it support Peace. That's less of a proscription against what you can do as it is about why you are doing it.

So was the Sunbane a result of lore without Law?

wayfriend wrote:I would compare it to learning how to drive when there are no driving laws. There's no pesky rules to learn to obey, and you can drive however you want to. So learning is "easier", but not necessarilly "better". Add driving laws, and it's more of a chore learning how to drive, but in the end, you're a better driver for it.

Just as if you drove in Nigeria!!

deer of the dawn wrote:So was the Sunbane a result of lore without Law?

Yes. And made worse cuz some Law wasn't just "absent," it was broken.
But [though I'm not going to repeat a bunch I said in another thread]...it was also necessary.