Kevin's Watch

Cail wrote:Well, in the long run it may have been a good thing, but I don't believe in looking at things that way. The other thing to consider is was it a good thing? What effect did Covenant's actions have on the Haruchai that led to their abomination with the Clave? Did TC's reinforcing their doubt cause them to become more stubborn?

Well Cail, as a rum-swilling Haruchai, you should be able to answer that question... <grinning>

Seriously though, I don't believe that Covenant was responsible for the "abomination" with the Clave.

The Haruchai were stubborn long before Covenant came along. He had nothing to do with the swearing of the Vow, or the Ritual of Desecration. The seeds of doubt were already in place for the Despiser to use. The fact that Covenant helped things along by making Bannor reveal the name of the Seventh Ward on Rivenrock was just icing on the cake.

I don't think the Haruchai were concerned about Covenant when they went back to the Land looking for the Council that no longer existed.

Look, for example, at Covenant's attempt to set things right in WGW - telling Durris that the Haruchai could "serve something that isn't going to fail you" in protecting Revelstone. Who could foresee that would be the seed that created the Masters of the Land, Kevin's Dirt, and the total loss of the Land's history and lore?

I don't think TC was directly or solely responsible, but I certainly think he exacerbated the inherant stubbornness.

I think seeing Dead Kevin brought back from the dead made them live all over again their failing Kevin when he told them to leave before he did the ritual. When Bannor saw him again he just stood there with his jaw on the floor. He saw the futility of serving people that could kill what they love.

I don't think the Bloodguard or other Haruchai were swayed by the authority of anyone --- Kevin, the new Lords, TC --- in making their moral choices. They were guided by their experience and by the Haruchai Code.

The question of whether TC was/was not much responsible for the breaking of the vow, like the question of whether TC was/was not much responsible for the suffering of the Haruchai at the hand of the Clave is not a very meaningful question, *IMHO*.

The Vow was not undermined by Kevin, or weakened by Elena, or subverted by TC. The Vow was defeated by Corruption, and subsequently abandoned by the Bloodguard. The Vow had always been unequal to the power of Corruption, although the
Bloodguard never knew this until they finally had opportunity to do battle with Corruption directly. Once they were convinced of the inability of the Vow to overcome Corruption, the Bloodguard saw that it was a weapon like any other weapon that can be wielded and they abandonded the Vow being guided by the Haruchai Code: a weapon can always be turned on its wielder.
They made the choice precisely so that the Vow would not be turned against the Lords and the Land in the coming war, although how the Vow would have been corrupted I cannot say.

Doubtless knowing the price of the Vow, the Bloodguard were not too loath to part with it, as Bannor tells TC in TPTP.

As to the question of how the Giants tought Kevin to accept the Bloodguard, *IMHO* Kevin decided to accept the Bloodguard when he saw that the Giants trusted them.

-T

Tuvor wrote:The Vow was not undermined by Kevin, or weakened by Elena, or subverted by TC. The Vow was defeated by Corruption, and subsequently abandoned by the Bloodguard. The Vow had always been unequal to the power of Corruption, although the
Bloodguard never knew this

This is my opinion as well, except I would add an important point: Foul chose carefully the time when Bloodguard would learn this about the Vow.

He could have nullified it at any time, but it served him well in so many things. Kevin's Ritual; exposing the Mission in the Sarangrave; the untimely use of Kevin's Seventh Ward; perhaps other things as well. Foul lured the Bloodguard along a long way before he cut them loose of their Vow. Which explains so much of their reaction when the Vow was broken.

Several points where the Vow was undermined have been identified in this thread. The main one is probably the corruption by the Illearth stone:

"Still the High Lord continued. "When First Mark Bannor saw how Korik and his comrades had been corrupted despite their Vow, he and all the Bloodguard abandoned their service. They returned to the mountain home of the Haruchai. He said that they had been conquered by Corruption, and could no longer serve any Vow."

In addition, the events surrounding the Ritual of Desecration, and Covenant's forcing Bannor to reveal the name of the Power of Command have also been mentioned. But there seems to be another cause. Just before the passage cited above, Mhoram says:

"But the Illearth Stone is a terrible wrong in the Land. The three Bloodguard were not forewarned-and the Stone enslaved them. Under its power, they bore their fragment to Foul's Creche. They believed that they would fight the Despiser. But he made them his own." Again, Mhoram forbore to tell the whole story. He could not say to Covenant that the Bloodguard Vow had been subtly betrayed by the breaking of the Law of Death-or that the fine metal of the Bloodguard rectitude had been crucially tarnished when Covenant had forced Banner to reveal the name of the Power of Command."

How did the breaking of the Law of Death weaken the Vow over and beyond it being the result of Covenant forcing Bannor to reveal the Power of Command?

And for that matter, why was the revelation of the Power of Command a threat to the Vow? Was it because one Lord (Kevin) had commanded "don't reveal it (until the right conditions are met)", while (ur-!) Lord Covenant and Lord Elena had commanded "reveal it even if the right conditions have not been met"? Or is it because following the latter command led to the downfall of a Lord?

I don't think the latter is a valid reason for thinking the Vow weakened. Lords had died before, as a result of their own decisions and the assistance of the Blooduard. The Bloodguard need feel no guilt if Elena misused the power that became available to her as a result of the Bloodguard revealing the name of the Power of Command.

I always figured that by revealing the Power of Command, Bannor was in effect handing the Lords a weapon to use — and weapons are against the Haruchai code. The disastrous use that Elena made of it only proved (from the Bloodguard's point of view) what a bad idea weapons really were — and the Bloodguard held themselves responsible.

As for the connexion with the Law of Death, that's a bit tougher. All I can offer is a hunch. The Vow effectively made the Bloodguard immortal. Maybe when the Law of Death was broken, the implications of immortality were changed somehow; the bargain between the Haruchai and the Earthpower could no longer be fulfilled in quite the original way.

This would be rather like what happened in the music industry when CDs came out. In those days, recording artists got a certain royalty rate for LPs, another for singles, and another for cassettes. These rates varied from one artist to another, but they were specified in each artist's contract. Along came the CD, and nobody had any language in their contract to cover it. Artists thought they should get the same percentage as they got on LPs. Some of the labels thought they should pay no royalties at all. It took a lot of litigation, a lot of court decisions, and a whole lot of bad blood before the issue was settled. It seems like a small change in the conditions surrounding the contract, but it changed the whole meaning of the agreement. Maybe something like that happened to the Vow.

But Bannor had already used a weapon. In LFB Bannor used TC's ring and the Staff of Law to call the Fire Lions. The Vow was corrupt way before anyone had heard of TC.

Cail wrote:But Bannor had already used a weapon. In LFB Bannor used TC's ring and the Staff of Law to call the Fire Lions. The Vow was corrupt way before anyone had heard of TC.

Hmm... Why do you say that the Vow was corrupt before anyone heard of TC? (The example you give involves TC, as you point out!). And I wouldn't count that as using a weapon, exactly.

But I don't see what the Vow has to do with not using weapons, anyway (admittedly, I don't have the books here with me at work to check). I just thought eschewing weapons was a <i>preference</i> of the Haruchai/Bloodguard (was there really a "Haruchai code"?). And they don't seem to mind other people, including the Lords, using weapons. Finally, I think it is stretching it quite a bit to say that the Power of Command was a weapon.

So it would seem that it is the conflict between two High Lords' orders (Kevin's vs. Elena's/Covenant's), and the fact that the resolution of that conflict that Morrin and Bannor decided on (i.e., obeying E/C) led to disaster (including breaking the Law of Death), that was the cause of the weakening of the Vow at Rivenrock.

The Vow precluded use of weapons and lore. The Power of Command is clearly lore.

The Vow was corrupt the second that it was sworn. You cannot give perfect service to imperfect people. Kevin sending the Bloodguard away so that he could perform the RoD is proof positive of that. Had the Blodguard refused his command, they would have been guilty of refusing service.

Variol Farseer wrote:
As for the connexion with the Law of Death, that's a bit tougher. All I can offer is a hunch. The Vow effectively made the Bloodguard immortal. Maybe when the Law of Death was broken, the implications of immortality were changed somehow; the bargain between the Haruchai and the Earthpower could no longer be fulfilled in quite the original way.

No, I don't see it like that.
The "connection" to the LoD is only what the Bloodguard *did* to break the Law of Death.
The breaking of the LoD didn't pysically effect the Vow in anyway, imo.
I think that's just reading to much into it.

Cail wrote:The Vow precluded use of weapons and lore.

Can you point me to the place in the books where this is revealed? I don't recall it.

Thanks.

I don't have LFB with me, but it's very explicitly explained there. TC askes Bannor about protecting the Lords without weapons, Bannor replies, "We suffice.".

Cail wrote:I don't have LFB with me, but it's very explicitly explained there. TC askes Bannor about protecting the Lords without weapons, Bannor replies, "We suffice.".

You mean this?:

SRD wrote:"You still don't trust me," [Covenant] said in a spent voice.

Bannor shrugged. "We are the Bloodguard. We have no use for white gold."

"No use?"

"It is a knowledge-a weapon. We have no use for weapons."

"No use?" Covenant repeated dully. "How do you defend the Lords without weapons?"

"We"-Bannor paused as if searching the language of the Land for a word to match his thought-"suffice."

Covenant brooded for a moment, then swung himself out of the oriel. Standing in front of Bannor, he said softly, "Bravo."

"Having no use" for weapons does not, to my mind, establish that it was part of the Vow.

In fact, this passage suggests that eschewing weapons is a tradition of the Haruchai, in place before the Vow (and therefore presumably not part of it):

SRD wrote: When Bannor stood before him, Covenant reviewed quickly what he knew about the Bloodguard. They came from a race, the Haruchai, who lived high in the Westron Mountains beyond Trothgard and the Land. They were a warlike and prolific people, so it was perhaps inevitable that at some time in their history they would send an army east into the Land. This they had done during the early years of Kevin's High Lordship. On foot and weaponless-the Haruchai did not use weapons, just as they did not use lore; they relied wholly on their own physical competence-they had marched to Revelstone and challenged the Council of Lords.

But Kevin had refused to fight. Instead, he had persuaded the Haruchai to friendship.

In return, they had gone far beyond his intent. Apparently, the Ranyhyn, and the Giants, and Revelstone itself-as mountain dwellers, the Haruchai had an intense love of stone and bounty had moved them more deeply than anything in their history. To answer Kevin's friendship, they had sworn a Vow of service to the Lords; and something extravagant in their commitment or language had invoked the Earth power, binding them to their Vow in defiance of time and death and choice. Five hundred of their army had become the Bloodguard. The rest had returned home.

And that the Bloodguard can respect others using weapons is supported by this passage:

SRD wrote: But Bannor stepped over to the dead wolf and pulled Grace's rope from around its neck. Holding the cord in a fighting grip, he stretched it taut.

"A good weapon," he said with his awkward inflectionlessness. "The Ramen did mighty work with it in the days when High Lord Kevin fought Corruption openly."

But perhaps this is the passage that you have in mind, Cail:

SRD wrote: "Why in the name of your Vow or at least simple friendship didn't you tell the High Lord about Amok when he first showed up?"

Bannor's gaze did not waver. In his familiar, awkward, atonal inflection, he replied, "Ur-Lord, we have seen the Desecration. We have seen the fruit of perilous lore. Lore is not knowledge. Lore is a weapon, a sword or spear. The Bloodguard have no use for weapons. Any knife may turn and wound the hand which wields it. Yet the Lords desire lore. They do work of value with it. Therefore we do not resist it, though we do not touch it or serve it or save it.

"High Lord Kevin made his Wards to preserve his lore-and to lessen the peril that his weapons might fall into unready hands. This we approve. We are the Bloodguard. We do not speak of lore. We speak only of what we know."

But this doesn't really suggest that in helping Elena/Covenant to acquire the Power of Command, the Bloodguard somehow betrayed their Vow.

Did a Bloodguard at one point in the first Chronicles use a weapon, or am I imagining that?

High Lord Tolkien wrote: The "connection" to the LoD is only what the Bloodguard *did* to break the Law of Death.
The breaking of the LoD didn't pysically effect the Vow in anyway, imo.
I think that's just reading to much into it.

Doesn't this passage seem to suggest that the Vow was corrupted not just by what the Bloodguard did to break the Law of Death, but the breaking of the Law itself?

SRD wrote: Again, Mhoram forbore to tell the whole story. He could not say to Covenant that the Bloodguard Vow had been subtly betrayed by the breaking of the Law of Death-or that the fine metal of the Bloodguard rectitude had been crucially tarnished when Covenant had forced Banner to reveal the name of the Power of Command.