Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Edena_of_Neith" data-source="post: 453619" data-attributes="member: 2020">Covenant versus Frodo:  Expediency does not excuse CovenantI could apply this kind of logic (expediency) to great leaders and military generals everywhere (but in the fantasy world only, since we do not want the Real World discussed on the ENBoards.)  Let us use Lord of the Rings as an example:  We all know that Frodo is a good person.    We know that Frodo is noble, altruistic, wise, understanding, and extends mercy to Gollum.  But what if Frodo was like Covenant?  What if Frodo, in an insane rage like Covenant's, rapes Rosie Cotton (the young hobbit lass that Sam danced with, and ultimately married.)  What happens then?  Do we say that Frodo, as Ring Bearer, should be exempt from justice for this, because only he can take the Ring to Mount Doom and destroy it? (this assumes nobody else can be trusted with the One Ring, obviously, which WAS the case in the book and the film.)  Should Sam, who loves Rosie, shut up and leave Frodo be?  Should Merry and Pippin, turn the other way and pretend this did not happen?  Should Aragorn ignore it in the face of his own crisis?  Should Gandalf come to the rescue of Frodo (after the hobbits have thrown him in prison awaiting trial on a capital crime), and smash his way into Michel Delving, and extract Frodo by force?  Should Barliman Butterbur (the news would have reached Bree ahead of Frodo, since serious crimes of this sort were unheard of in the Shire) allow such a felon to stay in his Inn?  Should the people of Bree even welcome such a felon and his companions into their town?  Should the elves of Rivendell welcome Frodo and help him?  One could argue that Frodo is not a fit bearer for the Ring (as his crime shows) and it should be taken from him by force, and given to another Ring-Bearer.  BUT ...   Who?  Who?  There is nobody else.  That was made clear in the books.  Anyone else would fail, for they would be either too strong (and the Ring would tempt them to fall) or too weak (and the Ring would consume them.)  So, one might argue that Frodo must continue to be the Ring-Bearer, in spite of the crime, and hope he manages the impossible ... to put the Ring in the Fire.    Yet, can you imagine Sam, Pippin, and Merry looking the other way?  Gandalf breaking Frodo out of jail?  Barliman welcoming Frodo into the Prancing Pony?  The men of Bree, welcoming Frodo into their town?  Aragorn, befriending Frodo.  The elves, welcoming Frodo and wishing to help him?  In effect, this is what the Lords of Revelstone, and the others in the know about Covenant, DID do.  An equivalent, in LOTR, would be for ALL of the above actions mentioned to come true (i.e., Sam does look the other way, Gandalf does break Frodo out of jail, Barliman does welcome him, etc.)  It is unimaginable that the characters of Lord of the Rings would have tolerated such behavior on the part of Frodo (just as it is unimaginable that Frodo would actually commit such a crime.)  They would not tolerate it, even if this risked the loss of Middle Earth to Sauron.  So, why is it that Covenant is tolerated, in a situation akin to the one in LOTR (the situations are comparable.)  Why is it, that Covenant can be tolerated for henious crimes, when such crimes would not be tolerated in LOTR?  Why can't Covenant be held to the standards Frodo was held to?  Frodo was just as frail and mortal as Covenant.  Frodo faced the same impossible odds Covenant did.  Frodo faced a situation ever bit as unreasonable and unfair (to Frodo himself) as Covenant did.  Covenant's Unbelief and leprosy are not adequate excuses.  Heck, Frodo - were he to somehow go temporarily insane and commit such a deed - would never make excuses for himself, and would submit himself to justice at once.  Why is it tolerable for Covenant to commit crimes where others can not, would not, and certainly should not?  - - -  When I posted my Give Your Players Carte Blanche post - which was meant as humor - everyone laughed themselves silly, and rightfully so.  I made the ridiculous argument that characters who save the world should be given the right to do ANYTHING they want, such as take all the treasure of the kingdom, kidnap and sleep with the queen, be above all the laws, and otherwise be above the system in all ways.  While the king and everyone else could only watch, and do nothing.  What else, argued I, was a more worthy reward for those who saved the entire world?  It would seem the Lords of Revelstone would not be laughing, were they to have somehow read my humorous thread.  They would take it seriously.  They would implement it.  Implement it they did, when they excused Covenant.    Covenant, could do anything he wanted, had total Carte Blanche, because he was going to save the world.</blockquote>

Verification