If someone culd fill me in on this Blood Oath of Vengence-thing?

[Cizak]

So, does it counts as a success even if it isn't the person who swore the oath or one of his/her relatives that destroys the target?

[Snake-Aes]

So, does it counts as a success even if it isn't the person who swore the oath or one of his/her relatives that destroys the target?
Well, I think his oath specified he wouldn't rest till revenge was enacted, but it didn't specify by who.

[theinsulabot]

So, does it counts as a success even if it isn't the person who swore the oath or one of his/her relatives that destroys the target?

yeah. though at the rate Eugene is going, he will be lucky to make the true neutral paradise by the time is through. if roy skirts the edge sometimes, Eugene takes huge leaping bounds over the line and never looks back

[Snake-Aes]

I have the pragmatic view that sometimes we have to do what is necessary, not what is right, which does indeed dwell into evil sometimes.
But Eugene isn't even doing that :/

[Haven]

It does seem to be the case that your family has to be the one doing it. At least, there's been a lot of emphasis on Roy as Eugene's oldest child.

I wonder if the Blood Oath of Vengeance gives some sort of benefit, or if it's just a geass effect that no one puts on themselves unless they're really drunk.

[SPoD]

As far as I can tell, anyone can kill Xykon to fulfill the oath, but Eugene can only contact his oldest child from beyond the grave (as seen in the last page of Start of Darkness). Therefore, he needs to act through Roy even though he doesn't want to.

[Ancalagon]

So, does it counts as a success even if it isn't the person who swore the oath or one of his/her relatives that destroys the target?

Unknown.

But at least Eugene seems to think "anyone killing Xykon" will suffice to solve the Oath (which, technically, is not what he swore; if all his ancestors die without killing Xykon, he might be in big trouble).

[Snake-Aes]

Unknown.

But at least Eugene seems to think "anyone killing Xykon" will suffice to solve the Oath (which, technically, is not what he swore; if all his ancestors die without killing Xykon, he might be in big trouble).

Successors.

[Ancalagon]

Successors.

Errr... of course. If you or anyone else reads something different, you really should visit a doctor to check your eyes. Err... yes... ;)

[SPoD]

Unknown.

But at least Eugene seems to think "anyone killing Xykon" will suffice to solve the Oath (which, technically, is not what he swore; if all his ancestors die without killing Xykon, he might be in big trouble).

Well, the oath says him or his heirs will "enact vengeance" on Xykon. If Roy leads Vaarsuvius to kill Xykon, that's still Roy enacting vengeance even if it's not Roy doing the killing. V wouldn't be there if it weren't for Roy's actions.

It's the same as if someone hires a hitman to kill someone; just because they didn't pull the trigger doesn't mean they weren't getting their revenge.

[Snake-Aes]

Errr... of course. If you or anyone else reads something different, you really should visit a doctor to check your eyes. Err... yes... ;)

Of course.

[Ancalagon]

Well, the oath says him or his heirs will "enact vengeance" on Xykon. If Roy leads Vaarsuvius to kill Xykon, that's still Roy enacting vengeance even if it's not Roy doing the killing. V wouldn't be there if it weren't for Roy's actions.

It's the same as if someone hires a hitman to kill someone; just because they didn't pull the trigger doesn't mean they weren't getting their revenge.

You could argue like that. The problem is that we do not know if the forces behind all that oath-thing do so as well, since it would be legit to argue othervise as well. The wording is very clear.

Of course you could argue that Belkar's prophecy was fullfilled when he gave the ring of jumping to Roy (and many did), but it's a stretch. The same applies here: In principle legit, but a strech, and it depends on the heavenly forces to jugde that - and since they are lawful, I would not trust them into accepting such a strech.

[SPoD]

You could argue like that. The problem is that we do not know if the forces behind all that oath-thing do so as well, since it would be legit to argue othervise as well. The wording is very clear.

Of course you could argue that Belkar's prophecy was fullfilled when he gave the ring of jumping to Roy (and many did), but it's a stretch. The same applies here: In principle legit, but a strech, and it depends on the heavenly forces to jugde that - and since they are lawful, I would not trust them into accepting such a strech.

Well, I happen to believe that when the day comes, it won't be the heavenly forces judging him at all. And their fiendish counterparts will be all too happy to let Eugene in to their realm for a little eternal torture regardless of the wording of the oath.

[jamroar]

Unknown.

But at least Eugene seems to think "anyone killing Xykon" will suffice to solve the Oath (which, technically, is not what he swore; if all his ancestors die without killing Xykon, he might be in big trouble).

Descendants, not ancestors. How do these words keep getting conflated?

Sorry. It's a pet peeve of mine.

[theinsulabot]

actually since i believe the exact wording was "exact vengeance" one could argue that roy's party keeping the dorukan gate qualifies as vengeance, as it was certainly worth more then a purely cosmetic crown and a brief chuckle out of killing some random archmage.

not saying i believe that, but an interesting train of thought

[jamroar]

Well, the oath says him or his heirs will "enact vengeance" on Xykon. If Roy leads Vaarsuvius to kill Xykon, that's still Roy enacting vengeance even if it's not Roy doing the killing. V wouldn't be there if it weren't for Roy's actions.


Well, it might not necessarily be Roy or any of the OOTS that gets the pleasure of offing Xykon.

[factotum]

The woman Eugene was spending time on the cloud with (Violet) also had a Blood Oath over her, and she was allowed to go up to the mountain only when one of her descendants fulfilled the pledge. (Her great-great-granddaughter sundered the sword that devoured her father's soul--see #486). It remains unknown what would have happened if someone OTHER than her direct descendant had destroyed the sword, though.

[Optimystik]

The woman Eugene was spending time on the cloud with (Violet) also had a Blood Oath over her, and she was allowed to go up to the mountain only when one of her descendants fulfilled the pledge. (Her great-great-granddaughter sundered the sword that devoured her father's soul--see #486). It remains unknown what would have happened if someone OTHER than her direct descendant had destroyed the sword, though.

The wording of the oath is probably what would matter in cases like that, and Eugene's Oath was open enough to allow for another hand to slay Xykon.

[veti]

We seem to be glossing over the fact that it's called a "blood oath".

I don't think the word "blood" is just there for dramatic effect, I think it means the oath is binding on all of Eugene's blood, i.e. his descendants. So until it gets fulfilled (lifting the self-inflicted "curse"), they don't get into Celestia - or, probably, any other lawful afterlife - unless they've spent their lives in a good-faith attempt to fulfil the oath.

Speculation: Of course, if Roy's offspring, or Julia, or Eugene for that matter, turned out to be Lawful Evil, they might prefer to keep the oath unfulfilled, to keep themselves out of the Big Fire Below.

As for who-can-fulfil-it - it seems arbitrary to say that it has to be one of your own blood who wields the whatever-it-is that does the damage. (In that case, Eugene would be motivated to stop V from succeeding, which clearly he isn't.) I'd guess that anyone can fulfil it; but the chances are that it will be one of your descendants, because they're more committed to it than most people.

[with an e]

We seem to be glossing over the fact that it's called a "blood oath".

I don't think the word "blood" is just there for dramatic effect, I think it means the oath is binding on all of Eugene's blood, i.e. his descendants. So until it gets fulfilled (lifting the self-inflicted "curse"), they don't get into Celestia - or, probably, any other lawful afterlife - unless they've spent their lives in a good-faith attempt to fulfil the oath.
One could certainly interpret the blood part to refer to the fact that the oath entails spilling blood for spilled blood--as in killing or annihilating someone.

[theinsulabot]

We seem to be glossing over the fact that it's called a "blood oath".

I don't think the word "blood" is just there for dramatic effect, I think it means the oath is binding on all of Eugene's blood, i.e. his descendants. So until it gets fulfilled (lifting the self-inflicted "curse"), they don't get into Celestia - or, probably, any other lawful afterlife - unless they've spent their lives in a good-faith attempt to fulfil the oath.

Speculation: Of course, if Roy's offspring, or Julia, or Eugene for that matter, turned out to be Lawful Evil, they might prefer to keep the oath unfulfilled, to keep themselves out of the Big Fire Below.

As for who-can-fulfil-it - it seems arbitrary to say that it has to be one of your own blood who wields the whatever-it-is that does the damage. (In that case, Eugene would be motivated to stop V from succeeding, which clearly he isn't.) I'd guess that anyone can fulfil it; but the chances are that it will be one of your descendants, because they're more committed to it than most people.


the blood oath was however not binding on roy, though it wasnt a non-issue. as he himself was not the actual person who made the oath, and he literally gave his last breath trying his hardest to fulfill it, they gave him the pass anyways. likely the oath, does bind descendants, but it doesnt weigh as harshly on them as it does on Eugene

[Red XIV]

One could certainly interpret the blood part to refer to the fact that the oath entails spilling blood for spilled blood--as in killing or annihilating someone.
Which could be problematic for Eugene too, since Xykon has no blood to spill. :smalltongue:

[Name_Here]

the blood oath was however not binding on roy, though it wasnt a non-issue. as he himself was not the actual person who made the oath, and he literally gave his last breath trying his hardest to fulfill it, they gave him the pass anyways. likely the oath, does bind descendants, but it doesnt weigh as harshly on them as it does on Eugene

I don't think so the Deva in 491 made it very clear that Roy died fulfilling the oath while Eugene died ignoring it and that was the reason one was allowed upt he mountain and the other remains a crotchety old man.

[ericgrau]

She let Roy in based on effort, not success. That's why Roy & Eugene were so surprised. The oath keeps only Eugene and his offspring from the afterlife, but it's fulfilled if anyone kills Xykon.

[Lukraak]

Descendants, not ancestors. How do these words keep getting conflated?

Sorry. It's a pet peeve of mine.

Hey, don't rule out some constructive timetravelling.
Hmmm actually, WOULD that count if the oath specifically says me or my descendants?

[Morquard]

Does anyone else think that an Oath that binds someone who never ever made it, is unfair and doesn't strike you as very lawful?

Why should Roy's grandchildren be kept out of Celestia because some old fool they never even met made some stupid oath and then was too lazy to fulfill it.

Its like a man kills someone to finance his boy's (3 years old at the time) college fund, and the court rules the child guilty as well, because the father did it for him, so the boy is to blame.
Everyone would say thats stupid, right?

Whats so different with an oath that binds people that aren't even born yet?

Ok, "I won't rest till I or my descendants enacted terrible vengence on Xykon" is fine.
Eugene stays a ghost till he (unlikely) or one of his kids or their kids etc, kills Xykon (well kill-kills).
But it wouldn't really punish any of them. If they kill Xykon, good for Eugene and he's ready to move on. If not... well shouldn't have taken the oath in the first place then.

[Name_Here]

Does anyone else think that an Oath that binds someone who never ever made it, is unfair and doesn't strike you as very lawful?

Why should Roy's grandchildren be kept out of Celestia because some old fool they never even met made some stupid oath and then was too lazy to fulfill it.

Its like a man kills someone to finance his boy's (3 years old at the time) college fund, and the court rules the child guilty as well, because the father did it for him, so the boy is to blame.
Everyone would say thats stupid, right?

Whats so different with an oath that binds people that aren't even born yet?

Ok, "I won't rest till I or my descendants enacted terrible vengence on Xykon" is fine.
Eugene stays a ghost till he (unlikely) or one of his kids or their kids etc, kills Xykon (well kill-kills).
But it wouldn't really punish any of them. If they kill Xykon, good for Eugene and he's ready to move on. If not... well shouldn't have taken the oath in the first place then.

The Blood Oath is an ancient form of Magic formed of nothing more than Raw belief and the very make-up of magic. If the gods were to deny the blood oath's power by allowing in the oath-breakers they would literally unmake existence.

Pure fanwank probably not even close to true. but yeah the blood oath is meant to seem unfair and stupid.

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Except the Blood Oath doesn't affect Eugene's decendants, only Eugene! Roy didn't make the deal, so he's not bound by the oath in regards to getting into Celestia, nor anyone else in the Greenhilt bloodline.

Eugene just said that to make Roy think that, but the deva made it pretty clear to me that Roy is his own man, responsible for his own actions, and his own results.

I'm also of the opinion that "the clock stops" once you die. It doesn't matter how much of a jerk Eugene is after he dies, he's only graded on what he did while still alive. So he can be as rude, sarcastic, mean-spirited (no pun intended! :smallbiggrin:), and a jerk as he wants, once Xykon is eliminated, Eugene is free to enter Celestia.

[theinsulabot]

I don't think so the Deva in 491 made it very clear that Roy died fulfilling the oath while Eugene died ignoring it and that was the reason one was allowed upt he mountain and the other remains a crotchety old man.


but he didnt die fulfilling the oath. he died attempting to fulfill the oath. hell in his own words he doubts he even did anything to slow X down.

[pjackson]

Does anyone else think that an Oath that binds someone who never ever made it, is unfair and doesn't strike you as very lawful?


It is Lawful if the person making the oath has the legal authority to do so.
Different legal systems vary in how much authority the head of a family has.
It is not unreasonable for there to be a legal system in a fantasy world that allows such an oath.

Issues of fairness involves bring Good into the issue, but not all laws are good.



Why should Roy's grandchildren be kept out of Celestia because some old fool they never even met made some stupid oath and then was too lazy to fulfill it.


As has been proved by Roy's case they would not be.