Kevin's Watch

Just some of my favorite moments of Mhoram's, or about him.

"All right. So you're right. Tell me, just where the hell do you get hope?"

Slowly, the Giant rose to his feet. He towered over Covenant until his head nearly touched the ceiling. "From faith."

"You've been dealing with humans too long - you're getting hasty. 'Faith' is too short a word. What do you mean?"

Foamfollower began picking his way among the flowers. "I mean the Lords. Consider, Covenant. Faith is a way of living. They have dedicated themselves wholly to the services of the Land. And they have sworn the Oath of Peace - committed themselves to serve the great goal of their lives in only certain ways, to choose death rather than submit to the destruction of passion which blinded High Lord Kevin and brought the Desecration. Come - can you believe that Lord Mhoram will ever despair? That is the essence of the Oath of Peace. He will never despair, nor ever do what despair commands - murder, desecrate, destroy. And he will never falter, because his Lordship, his service to the Land, will sustain him. Service enables service."

Covenant gripped the Lord's gave, and said, "Tell me something, Mhoram. How did you get away - when that Raver caught you - near Foul's Creche?"

Mhoram answered with a conscious serenity, a refusal of dismay, which looked like danger in his gold-flecked eyes. "The Bloodguard with me were slain. But when <I>samadhi</I> Raver touched me, he knew me as I knew him. He was daunted."

When Lord Amatin spoke again, she emphasized her words intently. "Amok, what are you?"

Without hesitation, Amok replied, "I am the Seventh Ward of High Lord Kevin's Lore."

His answer threw a stunned silence over the whole gathering. Both Elders gasped, and Corimini had to brace himself on Elena's shoulder. A burst of wild emotion shot across Elena's face. Mhoram's eyes crackled with sudden visionary fire...."

"Do Callindrill and Verement live?"

"Yes. I saw their fire. Can you reach them? They don't have any of that High Wood."

Mhoram smiled grimly. "What message shall I give?"

Now Troy studied Mhoram. He felt oddly vulnerable without his sunglasses, as if he were exposed to reproach, even to abhorrence, but he could see Mhoram acutely. What he saw reassured him. The Lord's eyes gleamed with hazardous potentials, and the bones of his skull had an indomitable hue. The contrast to his own weakness humbled Troy.

He paused again, weighing his words before he said, "Many of you have known Lord Mhoram longer than I have. You know what kind of man he is. He'll succeed. You know that."

"No one may be compelled to fight the Despiser. He is resisted willingly, or not at all. Unbeliever, I release you. You turn from us to save life in your own world. We will not be undone by such motives. And if darkness should fall upon us, still the beauty of the Land endures. If we are a dream - and you the dreamer - then the Land is imperishable, for you will not forget.

"Be not afraid, ur-Lord Thomas Covenant. Go in Peace."

With his new might, he gripped the <I>krill</I> and pulled it easily from the stone. Its edges were so sharp that when he held the knife in his hand 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."

He was alone against them.

He retreated to the center of the hollow, hunted swiftly around the rim for some gap or weakness in the surrounding horde. He found none. And though he sent his perceptions ranging as far as he could through the air, he discovered no sign of the Warward; if the warriors were still alive, still fighting, they were blocked from his senses by the solid force of the trap.

As he grasped the utterness of his plight, he turned inward, retreated into himself as if he were fleeing. There he looked the end of all his hopes and all his Landservice in the face, and found that its scarred, terrible visage no longer appalled him. He was a fighter, a man born to fight for the Land. As long as something for which he could fight remained, he was impervious to terror. And something did remain; while he lived, at least one flame of love for the Land still burned. He could fight for that.

His crooked lips stretched into an extreme and perilous grin; hot, serene triumph shone in his eyes. "Come, then!" he shouted. "If your master is too much a coward to risk himself against me, then come for me yourselves! I do not wish to harm you, but if you dare me, I will give you death!"

"My friends - people of the Land - Thomas Covenant once inquired of me why we so devote ourselves to the Lore of High Lord Kevin Landwaster. And now, in this war, we have learned the hazard of that Lore. Like the krill, it is a power of two edges, as apt for carnage as for preservation. Its use endangers our Oath of Peace.

"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 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."

ahh thos are indeed fond of my dear dear freind mhoram.
He is my fav lord of them all and my 3rd fav character =)
The part i thougt he truely shined in was when he gained the power to perserve. I thought that was truely him.
ASS KICKER WITH A HUGE FLAMING STAFF!

Ah, Mhoram! Not only one of my favorite characters in TCTC, but imo one of the best wizards ever anywhere! And part of what makes him so fantastic is that he's a genuinely good man--in fact, a wonderfully good one. Very hard to make someone like that real and vivid. Yet Donaldson does!

Once Mhoram became High Lord, I knew that hope for the Land now lived in more than Covenant alone.

Ahem... I really hate to say this here, because I love Mhoram as much as the rest of you. So let me just mention first that my favorite scene from TCTC is "Lord Mhoram's Victory"...

Fist and Faith, your final quote: I've always seen that bit as a sort of failure of Mhoram. To (grossly) paraphrase: "we have defeated evil, so let us now be pacifists and learn no more the skills of war", etc. But did not that error aid the Despiser in bringing about the horror of the Sunbane?

After "Lord Mhoram's Victory" I always assumed that now that the lords understood how the oath of peace limited them, they would change their ways - not abandon the oath, perhaps, but modify it: allow a degree of strong emotion when it is needed. That is how Mhoram defeated Satansfist, after all, and how he could use the Krill. So I thought that Mhoram's insight would allow the lords to quickly master all of Kevin's lore (and then perhaps modify or limit it).

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.

Go here, a thread all about Mhoram on Ahira's Hangar (by yours truly!) and also a brief bio.

I make my own Vow here and now! I Vow to change Drinny's view of this issue. I goal well worth any effort. (And I hope you'll all think it's worth reading this sort of long post!:))


It was not a weakness or failing of any sort for Mhoram to make that decision. In fact, it was brave beyond brave. He discarded immense power, not knowing what the result of that act would be, but trusting that the Lore of the Old Lords was not the only possible answer. And trusting that the motive was good, and would therefore lead to a good end.

Let's take it from the top. The Lords were stumped. From Prothall:

"Ah, my friends! Handservants, votaries of the Land - why have we so failed to comprehend Kevin's Lore? Which of us has in any way advanced the knowledge of our predecessors? We hold the First Ward in our hands - we read the script, and in much we understand the words - and yet we do not penetrate the secrets. Some failure in us, some false inflection, some mistaken action, some base alloy in our intention, prevents. I do not doubt that our purpose is pure - it is High Lord Kevin's purpose - and before him Loric's and Damelon's and Heartthew's - but wiser, for we will never lift our hands against the Land in mad despair. But what, then? Where are we wrong, that we cannot grasp what is given to us?"

And Mhoram:

"And there are only five Lords. Of those, two are old, at the limit of their strength, and none has mastered more than the smallest part of Kevin's First Ward. We are weaker than any other Earthfriends in all the ages of the Land. Together we can hardly make scrub grass grow in Kurash Plenethor."

The problem, the failure, the weakness, as we now know, was the Oath of Peace. It did not merely make them reluctant to use the aspects of Kevin's Lore that are geared toward harm and destruction, it made it impossible to use <I>any</I> part of the Lore fully. The people's reaction to the Ritual of Desecration was not merely some lines that they recited and gave some half-hearted effort to follow. It went all the way to their minds, hearts, and souls. They were not the same creatures as the Old Lords, and were unable to use their Lore. Just as people can't breath under water, they were unfit to use the system that was designed by people who were willing to kill.

When Mhoram figured it out, he knew that Kevin's Lord had to be abandoned. The only other choices were to continue to struggle with a system that they knew wouldn't work well, or abandon the Oath of Peace - abandon themselves. This was not an option.

And there is no part-time Oath, no way to allow such things when the need arises, but not at other times. The fear is that that road will change you in horrible ways, and possibly lead to another Desecration. If you kill out of hate once, you will find it easier to do again. The situations that justify such measures will become less and less, and you will eventually find yourself executing people for what you would have originally considered small infractions.

So Mhoram made his decision. If he had discovered the conflict before Foul came back, he would have begun finding new Lore then. Since Foul was there, he had no choice but to fight with the only weapon currently available, Kevin's Lore. There was no other option but to take the risk:

"We must retain our knowledge of who we are, or we will despair as Kevin Landwaster despaired, in Desecration. Yet we must also retain this knowledge of power, or we will have failed to do our utmost for the Land. Perhaps the future Lords will find that they must turn from Kevin's Lore - that they must find lore of their own, lore which is not so apt for destruction. We have no time for such a quest. Knowing the peril of this power, we must cling to ourselves all the more, so that we do not betray the Land."

When it was all done, they proved fortunate enough, strong enough, to have avoided despair and desecration. Maybe they weren't pushed as far as Kevin had been. The betrayal Kevin felt when he learned that one of his Lords was Foul, combined with all the havoc Foul was able to wreak because he <I>had</I> infiltrated so deeply, may have been more than the New Lords had to go through. But a large part of the reason the New Lords didn't desecrate was because of all that their Oath meant, and all that they were because of it. And Mhoram knew that it was a risk even then, a risk that he would not have taken except in the most dire need. He knew that they couldn't continue to use it as Kevin used it without risk. It was made by and for people who were willing to do things they weren't. And using it that way would <I>make</I> them willing.

So now it's time to start that quest for new lore. The problem of finding new lore is not so bad. Not in our world, and certainly not in fiction and fantasy worlds. Surely, Earthpower is the source of all power in the Land. But a different lore could be a different approach. Here's a quote from Robert M. Pirsig's <U>Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance</U> (which, btw, is a book that I <B>highly</B> recommend):

"Well, it's quite a bootstrap operation. It's analogous to the kind of hang-up Sir Isaac Newton had when he wanted to solve the problems of instantaneous rates of change. It was unreasonable in his time to think of anything changing within a zero amount of time. Yet it's almost necessary mathematically to work with other zero quantities, such as points in space and time that no one thought were unreasonable at all, although there was no real difference. So what Newton did was say, in effect, 'We're going to <I>presume</I> there's such a thing as instantaneous change, and see if we can find ways of determining what it is in various applications.' The result of this presumption is the branch of mathematics known as the calculus, which every engineer uses today. Newton <I>invented</I> a new form of reason..."

And here's a quote from Ayn Rand's <U>Atlas Shrugged</U>. (Which I give an even <B>higher</B> recommendation!) It was discovered that someone had invented a motor that is powered by the static electricity in the atmosphere. I don't know anything about this, but I gather it would be an extraordinary accomplishment. (Or at least it would have been back then. I don't know if it's ever been done.) <I>Part</I> of the motor and <I>some</I> of the notes were found. Just enough so that they knew it had been done successfully, but not enough for them to make one themselves:

"Did you say it's a matter of technology? It's more, much, much more than that. The pages where he writes about his converter - you can see what premise he's speaking from. He arrived at some new concept of energy. He discarded all our standard assumptions, according to which his motor would have been impossible. He formulated a new premise of his own and he solved the secret of converting static energy into kinetic power. Do you know what <I>that</I> means? Do you realize what a feat of pure, abstract science he had to perform before he could make his motor? ...... He wanted a motor, and he quietly performed a major revolution in the science of energy, just as a means to an end..."

I think that my first idea would have been to try to figure out what the Unfettered had been up to. I get the impression that the Unfettered figured out how to use their unique powers <I>without</I> Kevin's Lore. If it would have helped, they probably would have stayed around, or visited, to get input from other Lore-wise people. I think they were exploring entirely new territory, as far as the means of using the Earthpower goes. I'd try to gather their knowledge. Maybe another Healer will come along, who can benefit from, and expand, the knowledge of the Healer from TPTP.

And I would have concentrated on powers that heal, communicate, guard, grow, and other things that do not attack.

Hmmm, I guess I've talked enough for now.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ya what he said!

that's a very eloquent and well thought discourse, but i would still disagree... to an extent.

the tree damages the stone when its roots seek water through the stone's cracks. the falling stone can damage the insect below it. the insect can weaken the tree limb by boring through it. these things are natural, and only when there's an imbalance can this be considered wrong.

so too does man have capacity for destruction; for his very existence he must consume plant or animal. if the urge towards destruction overbalances the urge to preserve, then something's wrong. however, it is also wrong to deny the existence of that urge.

there's an old zen story something along the lines of...

What do you call a hand that is permanently clenched in a fist?
Crippled.
What do you call the hand that is permanently open?
Also crippled.

meaning that one must be flexible in order to react to one's environment.

Mhoram had a great heart, but in this, I believe, he failed as a seer and prophet.

To play devil's advocate to my own argument, though, I will propose that perhaps no man can see that far, and not taking that path would've led to the lords' downfall sooner. also, Mhoram's exact words were "... any Lore which precludes Peace." Not saying strife or aggression had no place, but that Peace (capital) was far more important.[/quote]

Wow, an amazing post, Fist and Faith. Well Done!

Yes, Mhoram's decision was brave beyond brave. I completely agree. And as Sylvanus adds (playing his own devil's advocate),

perhaps no man can see that far

- so even if Mhoram's act of bravery led to an ill end, he could not be blamed for that.

I agree with the last point as well - Mhoram should not be severely blamed. But still, he did err, I believe. When you said

And there is no part-time Oath

I believe you are making the same mistake. There is a part-time oath, it is called compromise. Life is based on compromise. Absolute pacisifism and absolute war-mongering are both false. Extremisim is correctly argued against in TCoTC: notice the Bloodguard for example (who abandon their charge after being only touched by corruption), and TC's own "oath of peace" after Soaring Woodhelven (to never kill) - he eventually had to rescind that oath, and rightly so.

TC and Mhoram both discovered the need to compromise, to be flexible (I like your zen quote here, Sylvanus)... to fight when needed, and to be peaceful when possible. Yes, there is a slipperly slope here... but such is the life we are given to live.

Mhoram should not have abandoned Kevin's lore, nor should he have abandoned the oath of peace - he should have combined them. Actually, he might have, since we know the lords found another of Kevin's wards before the Sunbane. So they did continue, to a degree, down Kevin's path. It's hard to speculate here, but Mhoram did have the power to fight Kevin's urge to desecrate - he had faith. Where Trell wishes to destroy what he loves - like Kevin - Mhoram on the other hand believes in the Creator, and wisely says (he and Trell are contrasted in this regard in TPTP):

The doom of any creation is upon the head of its Creator. Our work is enough for us.
We need not weary ourselves with the burdens of gods.

- Kevin lacked such faith, and therefore was led to desecrate. But his lore only brings the possibility of desecration; despair is needed to finish the deal. Mhoram's faith kept him from despair and therefore from desecration, making it possible for him to seek a true compromise between Kevin's lore and the Oath of Peace.

But in the final verdict, Mhoram seems to have favored the Oath of Peace more than Lore and Power - the lords after him found only one more of Kevin's Wards: no large success. And no other lore was found to resist the Sunbane. There I see a sort of failure of Mhoram, for not seeing the result of his decision.

I <B>LOVE</B> this site!!

Sylvanus,
You certainly make a valid point. On <I>Northern Exposure</I>, Chris said something along the lines of, "Every act of destruction is an act of creation." (I don't remember if he was quoting anyone. I'll check the tape later today.) And, of course, the reverse is true. Yin and Yang, destruction and creation, light and shadow, etc.
Only in silence the word,
only in dark the light,
only in dying life:
bright the hawk's flight
on the empty sky.
-<I>The Creation of Ea</I>

But I think we disagree on how to view this necessary condition of existence. I'm not entirely clear about your view, so I'll just give mine. We can attempt to do only good. We know that even if our intentions are entirely, purely good, we will nevertheless weaken/destroy some things in the process. But that doesn't mean we should ever give in to any urge to destroy anything. Yes, it is wrong to deny the existence of the urge to destroy. "I would know my shadow as my light. So shall I at last be whole." (Michael Tippett - 20th C. composer) But it is not wrong to attempt to overcome that urge.

That's what Mhoram attempted to do. The Old Lords did not. They said, "We accept that this urge is a part of all of us." Mhoram said, "We accept that this urge is a part of all of us. <I>But we will not give in to it!</I>" This is where I disagree with Drinny. Absolute pacifism is <B>not</B> false. Gandhi was one. And MLK was a follower of Gandhi. The true, absolute pacifist says, "I will not harm another person. Period. <I>And my decision has absolutely nothing to do with you or your actions.</I> I will be true to myself, no matter how you assail me. I will not compromise myself. If you hit me, you do not take my belief from me. If you maim me, you do not take my belief from me. If you are killing me, I will remain a pacifist. <I>You</I> cannot make me <I>not</I> be a pacifist; I will not allow you to make that decision for me. Only I can make that decision for myself, and I will not. It is wrong to harm another, even you who are harming me, and I will not." The pacifist who is killed because he does not strike back does not lose the argument - or himself. He proves his point. "I was a pacifist. I lived in the way I knew was right and good." The fact that he died because of it is unimportant. Everybody dies eventually. But he was himself the whole time. He wasn't what anybody else insisted he should be. Here's Ged/LeGuin:

"But you knew them to be evil men-"

"Was I to join them therefore? To let their acts rule my own? I will not make their choices for them, nor will I let them make mine for me."

You may not agree with this philosophy. I could never be a pacifist either. But that does not make it false.

The reason Mhoram's plan didn't work was not because the philosophy was flawed, but because they didn't know two extremely important things:
1) "And at last the Lords began to believe that Lord Foul would never return, that Covenant had driven Despite utterly from the Earth." Mhoram may or may not have believed Foul was dead, but the Lords after him were too far removed from the wars to know how insidious he was, and that they were NEVER safe. They should have been looking for him always, everywhere.
2) The Staff of Law originally served and represented the Law. But it eventually <I>became</I> the law. When it was destroyed, the Law was destroyed. Before the Staff, the Law fought Foul. After the Staff was destroyed, the Law was so broken that it could not longer limit him, and was even forced to heal him. AND, he was able to warp and sicken the Law to his will, to meet his own ends.

The first point was a mistake. They should have known better. But I don't blame them for the second point. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing? SRD needed something extraordinary to make the 2nd Chronicles, and he found it. I wonder what he'll come up with for the 3rd!

Fist and Faith wrote: But I think we disagree on how to view this necessary condition of existence. I'm not entirely clear about your view, so I'll just give mine. We can attempt to do only good. We know that even if our intentions are entirely, purely good, we will nevertheless weaken/destroy some things in the process. But that doesn't mean we should ever give in to any urge to destroy anything. Yes, it is wrong to deny the existence of the urge to destroy.

I can basically agree with your philosophy here, Fist and Faith, but I still think you are mistaken about a few things which I will try to explain.

Fist and Faith wrote: That's what Mhoram attempted to do. The Old Lords did not. They said, "We accept that this urge is a part of all of us." Mhoram said, "We accept that this urge is a part of all of us. <I>But we will not give in to it!</I>" This is where I disagree with Drinny. Absolute pacifism is <B>not</B> false. Gandhi was one. And MLK was a follower of Gandhi. The true, absolute pacifist says, "I will not harm another person. Period. <I>And my decision has absolutely nothing to do with you or your actions.</I> I will be true to myself, no matter how you assail me. I will not compromise myself. If you hit me, you do not take my belief from me. If you maim me, you do not take my belief from me. If you are killing me, I will remain a pacifist. <I>You</I> cannot make me <I>not</I> be a pacifist; I will not allow you to make that decision for me. Only I can make that decision for myself, and I will not. It is wrong to harm another, even you who are harming me, and I will not." The pacifist who is killed because he does not strike back does not lose the argument - or himself. He proves his point. "I was a pacifist. I lived in the way I knew was right and good." The fact that he died because of it is unimportant. Everybody dies eventually. But he was himself the whole time.

Good argument for the philosophy of pacifism, which I do not follow myself, but I think that it is the wrong argument you are using here. My view of the Oath of Peace is not as a philosophy (pacifism) but as a forcible restraint on creativity/potential. One which the people of the land was willing to accept, certainly, but nonetheless a limit on what they could do. Mhoram made the choice to uphold the Oath of Peace rather than abandon it and risk desecration.

Fist and Faith wrote: The reason Mhoram's plan didn't work was not because the philosophy was flawed, but because they didn't know two extremely important things:
1) "And at last the Lords began to believe that Lord Foul would never return, that Covenant had driven Despite utterly from the Earth." Mhoram may or may not have believed Foul was dead, but the Lords after him were too far removed from the wars to know how insidious he was, and that they were NEVER safe. They should have been looking for him always, everywhere.
2) The Staff of Law originally served and represented the Law. But it eventually <I>became</I> the law. When it was destroyed, the Law was destroyed. Before the Staff, the Law fought Foul. After the Staff was destroyed, the Law was so broken that it could not longer limit him, and was even forced to heal him. AND, he was able to warp and sicken the Law to his will, to meet his own ends.

The first point was a mistake. They should have known better. But I don't blame them for the second point. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing? SRD needed something extraordinary to make the 2nd Chronicles, and he found it. I wonder what he'll come up with for the 3rd!

I disagree with you here, the law was not destroyed by the destruction of the Staff. Weakened, yes, but not destroyed. 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.

This explains why Kevin, even in his moment of despair, chose not to use the seventh ward. He enacted the ritual of desecration, yes, but he might have known full well that all the damage he did would be possible to repair with earthpower and time while if he had used the seventh ward he might have destroyed something that could not be repaired.

This tells us that earthpower is not inherently "good" power. We see several examples of earthpower being used for "non-good" purposes in the chronicles. (Blasting Ur-Viles etc.) In my opinion this would mean that ANY lore concerning its use would be either potentially dangerous or relatively impotent.

Another example of the peril of earthpower can be found in TPTP where Trell begins the ritual of desecration within Revelstone itself. Trell is not a lord, he is a gravelingas, but he is still capable of commanding the earthpower sufficiently to enact the ritual. Later I seem to remember Mhoram commenting that the ritual of desecration is one of the simplest uses of earthpower, it requires only despair or something like that.

All these points lead to this: I believe Mhoram was wrong to abandon Kevins lore because it seems obvious that the potential for destruction is not in the lore but in the power itself. To therefore abandon the lore is foolish. Additionally it becomes clear that by abandoning the lore the old lords also abandon any chance that they might have for actually discovering the long term effects the destruction of the staff of law would have.

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.

I hope this does not seem too critical, I have really tried to be objective.

But do we know that Mhoram completely abandoned Kevin's Lore? At some point, obviously, someone did recover another of the Wards.

To me, if there was a failure, it was not giving sufficient warning onward to future generations, so that the later Lords were caught sleeping at the wheel, so to speak. I've always wondered why the Land never had a good universal education system. Why have only one institute of higher learning for all of the Land? The common people of the Land probably just didn't know enough about their own history, other than what might have been preserved in songs/stories (which can be changed/corrupted over time) to even question what was going on when the Council became the Clave...heck, the Lords themselves didn't even seem to question it...

Ryzel wrote:I hope this does not seem too critical, I have really tried to be objective.

Not too critical for my tastes. Not by a long shot! I <I>love</I> taking things to these lengths and detail! Nor is your objectivity in question. There's nothing remotely insulting to me in any of this.


I think it might make things easier, more wieldy, if I divide this into a few parts. This is getting pretty big, so any parts that anybody's interested in continuing will be easier this way.

Part I
Where I simply state the fact that the Oath of Peace and Kevin's Lore are incompatible.

To his horror, Mhoram had come to perceive that the Oath itself was the essential blindness, the incapacity which had prevented the new Lords from penetrating to the heart of Kevin's Lore. When the first new Lords, and all the Land with them, had taken the Oath, had articulated their highest ideal and deepest commitment by forswearing all violent, destructive passions, all human instincts for murder and ravage and contempt, when they had bound themselves with the Oath, they had unwittingly numbed themselves to the basic vitality of the Old Lords' power.

Mhoram had to make a choice. One or the other. And he did what he did because, truly, he <I>didn't</I> have a choice. It wasn't something he debated with himself. He simply would not abandon the Oath. He would not abandon himself.


Part II
Where I try to help everyone see that Mhoram's decision was strong and good in <B>all</B> ways.

To start, it was a practical decision. Kevin's Lore clearly wasn't working for the Oath-bound New Lords. If Mhoram hadn't figured out that he had to be more like Kevin (although desperately holding onto himself in ways that Kevin never did), we wouldn't have had Lord Mhoram's Victory. And even with that, they would not have won without the white gold.

Heck, Kevin's Lore didn't even work for Kevin! Not when it came right down to it. He was <I>much</I> more proficient with his Lore than the New Lords, and he even knew of the ultimate possibility of his Lore, the Power of Command. And he <I>still</I> didn't know how to beat Foul.

So, Kevin's Lore didn't do the job with Kevin's rules, and it barely worked with the Oath. Based solely on practical concerns, the argument to keep using it isn't strong enough.

But, of course, that's not the reason Mhoram decided to find new lore. Nor was he being foolish, weak, stubborn, or naive. His decision came out of an absolute conviction for a way of life that he believed was the best way. It was certainly the best way for him; the only one he would live.

I don't completely agree with absolute pacifism. (Neither does Mhoram, but I'm using it to make the point.) But it's not because I think the aspects I disagree with are wrong. They're just not for me. (Maybe I'm not strong enough for it.) I <B>strongly</B> admire those who can live by those principles. In contrast, I don't agree with the way of life that says to kill all your enemies before they kill you, but I sure find flaw with it!

Mhoram and the people of the Land had no choice. Their convictions were strong, and beautiful, and could not be compromised. Kevin's Lore demanded that they compromise. Drinny, it just can't happen that way. For you and I, yes. Because we don't have those convictions. But not for them. They came from a different history. And because of that history, they evolved spiritually in a different direction than my culture did.

Ryzel wrote:This tells us that earthpower is not inherently "good" power. We see several examples of earthpower being used for "non-good" purposes in the chronicles. (Blasting Ur-Viles etc.) In my opinion this would mean that ANY lore concerning its use would be either potentially dangerous or relatively impotent.

I agree with the beginning. But I see no reason for the conclusion of your last sentence. Some of the principles that Kevin's Lore was built on were violent. That's why those who clung to principles of non-violence were unable to use it. Eventually, that lore will lead to destruction. But if a lore was built on the principles of non-violence? Why would that have to be relatively impotent? Why should Mhoram have worried that he couldn't find a non-destructive, yet powerful lore?

Ryzel wrote:All these points lead to this: I believe Mhoram was wrong to abandon Kevins lore because it seems obvious that the potential for destruction is not in the lore but in the power itself. To therefore abandon the lore is foolish.

Again, I disagree. The power can be used for good or evil. It's the choice of the user. Kevin's Lore used it for destruction. That's the choice you make when you use that lore. That's why it was incomprehensible to those who took the Oath of Peace. If you used it, you would eventually destroy. It was inevitable. And if you <B>will not</B> destroy, you are unable to use the Lore. Mhoram would not destroy.

Ryzel wrote: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?

And the outcome doesn't even matter. Here's a better question to consider: Even if you <I>know</I> that you will lose, that you will die, do you die <I>with</I> your principles - yourself - intact, or do you become what you hate so that you can live? Mhoram could not say, "Let's take back the Oath, and start relearning Kevin's Lore, but this time we'll be willing to give in to our violent, destructive passions, our instincts for murder and ravage and contempt." If he had done that, he would no longer be Mhoram. For him, the loss that would come with that starting point is worse than the loss of his life. (And apparently, the other Lords agreed. A majority, at least. And if others in the Land disagreed, and chose to go back to an approach to life that permitted violence, we didn't hear about it.) "In reality as in dreams, what matters is the answer we find in our hearts to the test of Despite."

The unfortunate result of Mhoram's decision was not caused by any flaw in his decision, but by the way they went about it. I think duchess is on the right track. Maybe they didn't "give sufficient warning onward to future generations." Or maybe that's not possible. Things were going SO well, that maybe it would have been impossible to make them take "that old doomsayer, Mhoram" seriously. If later generations could come to believe that <I>aliantha</I> was poison!, then it's no surprise that they became less and less vigilant about a legendary boogey-man who hasn't been seen in millennia. "<I>If</I> he ever existed, he surely must be dead!"

Ryzel wrote:Additionally it becomes clear that by abandoning the lore the old lords also abandon any chance that they might have for actually discovering the long term effects the destruction of the staff of law would have.

<I>That's</I> certainly true. But that idea can paralyze you. You would never be able to do <I>anything</I> if you worried that it might make you unable to detect something that you can't even imagine at the moment. It's one thing to use that rationale to not use some immense, active thing like the Power of Command, but another to use it to not try another path in order to be true to yourself.



Part III
How can the Earthpower be used, if not with Kevin's Lore?

Drinny's idea of allowing "a degree of strong emotion" is fine. They can have as much emotion as they want. They just need to avoid violent emotions. I don't think that the only strong emotions are violent ones; I don't believe that the strongest emotions are the violent ones (although they may be the easiest); I don't believe that the only strong emotions that can accomplish extraordinary things are violent ones. Emotions like love, passion, fascination, and awe have inspired people to put HUGE amounts of time and effort into all kinds of things that are not remotely violent, with sublime results. Writing books, writing computer programs, developing surgical procedures, learning languages, advancing mathematics, composing music.......

Ryzel wrote:Good argument for the philosophy of pacifism, which I do not follow myself, but I think that it is the wrong argument you are using here. My view of the Oath of Peace is not as a philosophy (pacifism) but as a forcible restraint on creativity/potential. One which the people of the land was willing to accept, certainly, but nonetheless a limit on what they could do. Mhoram made the choice to uphold the Oath of Peace rather than abandon it and risk desecration.

I don't know if I understand you. Are you saying that the pursuit of peace (or the refusal to use violence) and creativity/potential are mutually exclusive? It seems like you're saying that. It's true, I suppose, that the Oath of Peace, if practiced fully, would completely prevent any creativity/potential of lore that deals with violence. So no, you cannot fully explore every aspect of humanity that way. Personally, I wouldn't mourn the loss.

But I don't see why it would restrain the creativity/potential of lore in the thousands of areas that do <I>not</I> deal with violence. Would not giving in to my "violent, destructive passions" and my "human instincts for murder and ravage and contempt" make me less able to work with healing, communication, exploring, traveling, teaching, that rock-reading the one Unfettered did, etc, etc? If their lore was based on avoiding violent conflict, they might develop shields that would make a Word of Warning look like a child's toy. And would a Bene Gesserit be able to tell if someone was being posessed by a Raver, even if they never met the person before? A new lore built on peace could go in directions that include people being able to see and understand in ways that the Bene Gesserit do. The non-violent possibilities are endless.



Part IV
Other stuff.

Ryzel wrote:I disagree with you here, the law was not destroyed by the destruction of the Staff. Weakened, yes, but not destroyed.

I suppose "destroyed" is taking it too far:

The tool and its purpose were one.
And she Staff had been destroyed.
That loss had weakened the very fiber of the Law. A crucial support was withdrawn, and the Law faltered.

For the Staff of Law had been destroyed. The Clave flourished in part because the old severity of the Law, the stringency which matched the price paid to the beauty of the thing purshcased, had been weakened;

And this was possible because the Staff had been destroyed. The Law which had limited him and resisted him since the creation of the earth had been weakened;

Ryzel wrote:Later I seem to remember Mhoram commenting that the ritual of desecration is one of the simplest uses of earthpower, it requires only despair or something like that.

I don't remember exactly which passage you're referring to. But I love what Amok said about it:

"Lord, Desecration requires no knowledge. It comes freely to any willing hand."

Ryzel wrote: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.


Where's an emoticon for *WHEW*?

making me think... what is the Power That Preserves

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.

"No?" the Despiser shouted with glee. "Still?" His laughter expressed perfect contempt. "Groveler, you are pathetic beyond price. Almost I am persuaded to keep you at my side. You would be a jester to lighten my burdens." Still he catechized Covenant. "How is it possible that you can loathe or love where you do not believe?"
"Nevertheless."
"How is it possible to disbelieve where you loathe or love?"
"Still."
Lord Foul laughed again. "Do my ears betray me? Do you-after my Enemy has done all within his power to sway you-do you yet believe that this is a dream?"
"It isn't real. But that doesn't matter. That's not important."
"Then what is, groveler?"
"The Land. You."
Once more, the Despiser laughed. But his mirth was short and vicious now; he sounded disturbed, as if there were something in Covenant which he could not understand. "The Land and Unbelief," he jeered. "You poor, deranged soul! You cannot have both. They preclude each other."
But Covenant knew better; after all that he had been through, he knew better. Only by affirming them both, accepting both poles of the contradiction, keeping them both whole, balanced, only by steering himself not between them but with them, could he preserve them both, preserve both the Land and himself, find the place where the parallel lines of his impossible dilemma met. The eye of the paradox. In that place lay the reason why the Land had happened to him.

heh... if you can't overpower an evil lord, throw koans at him.

Hail, Unbeliever! Keeper and Covenant, Unoathed truth and wicked's bane, Ur-Lord Illender, Prover of Life: Hail! Covenant!
Dour-handed wild magic wielder, Ur-Earth white gold's servant and Lord- Yours is the power that preserves.

I believe this is the inspiration that lead to Mhoram chosing the new way. The more I think about it, the more I think it's like the philosophy behind Aikido. Just because you decide not to do any harm, it doesn't mean you have to accept harm. You can evade, you can fortify yourself, you can heal, and if you're very skilled, you can neutralize those that would act against you with their own force in a way that will not harm them.

besides which, i think i might be guilty of reading too much pacifism into the Oath.

"My friend, killing is always to be abhorred. It is a measure of our littleness that we cannot evade it. But I must remind you of a few matters. You have heard Berek's Code-it is part of our Oath. It commands us:

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 need to kill.

You guys just blow me away

Not entirely on-topic (my apologies) but it has something to do with what I consider to be the utter hopelessness of The Land and probably in line with what Lord Mhoram may have realised - an epiphany of sorts

It's all got to do with the absolutely fist-clenching (for me at least) manner in which Donaldson wrote TCTC. We have this anti-hero who's a despicable criminal and grouchy bar none. Then we have these Lords and The Land and the 7 Wards that hold so much promise but fizzle into nothingness. At times I just want to slap SRD for creating what in many instances is a morbid and depressing saga with just enough light to make you want to go around the next corner....only to find more bleakness. Yet - I'm one that believes that all things and events have a purpose and for Lord Mhoram, it was to change the way things were done.

The sun-bane and the Clave may very well have arisen as a result of the decisions and one can only wonder that maybe in ten thousand more years, Lord Mhoram may well be remembered as the Desecrator - and Kevin would have been forgotten.

I'm rambling - I know

Sylvanus wrote:making me think... what is the Power That Preserves

Gold, shmold. I say TPTP is Giantish laughter!

Sylvanus wrote:heh... if you can't overpower an evil lord, throw koans at him.

ROFL! <I>And the Illearth War came to an end, because the Despiser sat in the corner for two millennia, trying to clap with one hand. Covenant's indignation knew no bounds. He yelled, "By Hell! By Hell!" at Foul, as though each curse were a physical blow. Foul merely sat - his confusion was chains binding his volition. With eyes imploring, as though his need and anguish could force Covenant, he whispered, "Shhhh. I can't hear."</I>

Vain wrote:It's all got to do with the absolutely fist-clenching (for me at least) manner in which Donaldson wrote TCTC. We have this anti-hero who's a despicable criminal and grouchy bar none. Then we have these Lords and The Land and the 7 Wards that hold so much promise but fizzle into nothingness. At times I just want to slap SRD for creating what in many instances is a morbid and depressing saga with just enough light to make you want to go around the next corner....only to find more bleakness.

<B>Very</B> well put! <I>Hey Stephen, you wanna lighten up a little? Sheesh!</I> But this quality is why I said, on the "What do you want to see in the 3rd chronicles" thread, I want to see Kevin in the 3rd Chronicles. I know it's not going to happen.

Vain wrote:Yet - I'm one that believes that all things and events have a purpose and for Lord Mhoram, it was to change the way things were done.

The sun-bane and the Clave may very well have arisen as a result of the decisions and one can only wonder that maybe in ten thousand more years, Lord Mhoram may well be remembered as the Desecrator - and Kevin would have been forgotten.

Wow!! What a thought!

Vain wrote:I'm rambling - I know

Some damned fine rambling.

And now, if you'll all excuse me, I want to say more about the main topic. I have a little problem. I'm not bothered when people disagree with me. If not, we wouldn't have had this thread going like this, and it's the most fun I've had in a while! But I <I>am</I> bothered if people don't <I>understand</I> me. I'm not sure if I've made my view clear enough, so I want to try this analogy. It's not really that long.
*clears throat*
Think of the Earthpower as gunpowder. There are many ways to use the Earthpower/gunpowder. For example, there's Kevin's Lore/guns. But that way is based on violence. When someone comes along who <I>will not</I> be violent, they have a problem. It's extremely difficult to, for example, plow a field with a gun. Digging the barrel into the earth isn't very effective, and neither is shooting bullets down to create craters. People who will not be violent cannot use guns for other things.

They <B>can</B>, however, use the gunpowder in other ways. Like fireworks. Now gunpowder is intended and used for beauty, to bring joy, and laughter. All of which can be healing.

Earthpower/gunpowder - Kevin's lore/guns - Mhoram's vision of new lore/fireworks.

I know this is not a perfect analogy. It's a little bit simplistic. I'm sure Kevin could use his Lore to grow scrub grass like you never saw scrub grass grow in your life! I'm not sure there is a perfect analogy for this situation. Since the gun was made with violent intent, and Mhoram would not be violent, he couldn't even use it as a... I dunno... doorstop. But it's the best analogy I can think of at the moment.

i get you, F&F. we're like this (makes eye to eye gesture)

excellent analogy. reminds me of Einstein who said, "If I knew they were going to do this, I would have become a shoemaker” about the atomic bomb.

in fact, i see a strong resemblance to Einstein in Mhoram. i recommend to everyone to read The World As I See It by him.[/i]

Sylvanus wrote:i get you, F&F. we're like this (makes eye to eye gesture)

Where's the emoticon for that? (heh)

Sylvanus wrote:in fact, i see a strong resemblance to Einstein in Mhoram. i recommend to everyone to read The World As I See It by him.[/i]

Mhoram wrote a book?? (another "heh")

Actually, Vain, if regular humans still exist in the Land after that much time has passed it wouldn't be too much of a surprise if Mhoram IS viewed as a desecrator of some sort. There were reasons the Raver chose Mhoram's name to corrupt as part of the Clave...and Donaldson does like to give us back beautiful things broken...

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

First:

Fist and Faith wrote:

Ryzel wrote:This tells us that earthpower is not inherently "good" power. We see several examples of earthpower being used for "non-good" purposes in the chronicles. (Blasting Ur-Viles etc.) In my opinion this would mean that ANY lore concerning its use would be either potentially dangerous or relatively impotent.

I agree with the beginning. But I see no reason for the conclusion of your last sentence. Some of the principles that Kevin's Lore was built on were violent. That's why those who clung to principles of non-violence were unable to use it. Eventually, that lore will lead to destruction. But if a lore was built on the principles of non-violence? Why would that have to be relatively impotent? Why should Mhoram have worried that he couldn't find a non-destructive, yet powerful lore?

Reading this again I would have to say that you are correct in saying that the argument and the conclusion does not follow. However it might be more correct to say that as earthpower has the potential for violence and destructions within it any lore that did not allow that kind of mindset would never be able to fully use the potential of the earthpower. This might as you say not be a great loss.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Ryzel wrote:All these points lead to this: I believe Mhoram was wrong to abandon Kevins lore because it seems obvious that the potential for destruction is not in the lore but in the power itself. To therefore abandon the lore is foolish.

Again, I disagree. The power can be used for good or evil. It's the choice of the user. Kevin's Lore used it for destruction. That's the choice you make when you use that lore. That's why it was incomprehensible to those who took the Oath of Peace. If you used it, you would eventually destroy. It was inevitable. And if you <B>will not</B> destroy, you are unable to use the Lore. Mhoram would not destroy.

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.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Ryzel wrote: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.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Ryzel wrote:Good argument for the philosophy of pacifism, which I do not follow myself, but I think that it is the wrong argument you are using here. My view of the Oath of Peace is not as a philosophy (pacifism) but as a forcible restraint on creativity/potential. One which the people of the land was willing to accept, certainly, but nonetheless a limit on what they could do. Mhoram made the choice to uphold the Oath of Peace rather than abandon it and risk desecration.

I don't know if I understand you. Are you saying that the pursuit of peace (or the refusal to use violence) and creativity/potential are mutually exclusive? It seems like you're saying that. It's true, I suppose, that the Oath of Peace, if practiced fully, would completely prevent any creativity/potential of lore that deals with violence. So no, you cannot fully explore every aspect of humanity that way. Personally, I wouldn't mourn the loss.

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 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.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Ryzel wrote: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.)

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.