In a story I am co-authoring with some friends, we have a very important plot element.

In ancient times, two kings of men and elves were endowed with power from the Most High God. This power permitted them to make three swords with an incredible gift: Any time the sword is used, for any purpose, good comes of the use. The swords also have other remarkable (but less spiritual) power, mostly because they were formed out of extremely rare metals, using instructions given directly by the Most High. However, a dark sorcerer used knowledge of the swords gained by unwitting traitors to forge his own. However, because of his power was from the Deceiver and not the Most High, the sword was different in a very important way: Any time the sword is used, for any purpose, evil comes of the use. Like Sauron's Ring, this sword, even when used to accomplish good, twists all that it does so that evil comes of it. Sometimes it even turns against those who take it up and destroys them.

My problem is determining exactly what all that means. With the evil sword (which has a name, by the way) it is clearly similar to the Ring, and will be easy to write about. But the good swords are a bit more tricky. I do know one instance of how they operate, but in general, I'm having trouble.

Here's what I'm trying to decide: If one of these swords (two of which have names, one was lost) was used to murder someone, how would that use be turned to good?

I want to clarify, it is the Most High who turns the actions of the sword to good. It is the Deceiver who turns actions of the dark sword to evil. The power is not of the swords, simply in the swords.

That is a bit tricky, but think about how God has used death to accomplish his will in the past. Through the death of one person, others can be brought to redemption because it reminds them of their ultimate fate. Like the Mosaic Law, death can be used to put the fear of God into the hearts of men. It can also be used to bring judgment upon the murder (i.e., by murdering a man people realize the murder's wickedness and ensure that he is brought to justice whether he otherwise might have escaped his just reward.)

Hopefully that made sense. That's all I can think of at the moment.

Hmm....

That really does sound like the Three Rings and the One Ring, lol.

But that aside...(some clever writing will dodge that bullet nicely, I think) how a good sword used to deal death inappropriately would be turned to good...hmmm!

Perhaps the one who wielded the sword in that instance would never be able to bear that sword again? And then the sword would pass to someone else who would use it aright?

If this is a situation that really is going to occur in the plot, not just hypothetical, then I would say that the effects would be far-reaching.

The one who wielded the sword would be in more trouble. (with greater power comes greater responsibility) The one who was killed is, well, dead, but his death would affect the plot in a good way. Yet at the same time it would have been better if he had lived. There is some missing joy to the conclusion, because he is not there to share it, and there might be a task that he was suited for that he cannot accomplish, and so the one who filled his place cannot do it quite so well.

On one hand, if the rule is 'it always turns to good', then it must do so.

On the other, we don't want to say 'it's okay that the person was killed' because it is only for the Most High to choose who lives and dies.

Okay, there are my random thoughts.

Well, to clarify, while the heirs of the kings can use the powers of the swords to a greater extent, no one is the "bearer" of the sword. Anyone may wield it.

Hm...the problem with this situation is that the sword passing to another would simply be 'punishment', which a person who abused it would eventually receive in the next world anyway. To put in terms used in the Silmarillion "The world is the better for [evil] happening, and yet evil is still evil." So, while not negating the fact that evil has been done, the consequences are altered so that the event leads to greater good than may have happened before. To quote Eru Iluvatar, "...and [Melkor] will see that I can turn even his evil deeds to good, so that he has aided good and not hindered it." (Loose paraphrase, of course.)

That's what I'm shooting for. I'm just trying to figure out exactly how. I do know that in one instance the villain uses a good sword to perform a specif task (yes, I know what the task is), but that action triggers events which ultimately lead to his death.

BTW, main difference between the Three Rings and these three swords, is that the Three Rings are tool of healing, building, and strengthening. The swords are clearly weapons of war: tools created to strike down, destroy, and end. It's just that they strike down, destroy, and end evil.

This is a tricky issue indeed. I think the real question is: what does it mean for something to work for good in the end? Another question would be: how long does it take for the use to yield a good outcome. Think about Joseph, he spent most of his life in Egypt before it finally turned to good. Or how about the fact that it was only after hundreds of years that David's offspring (Jesus) came to redeem the world. Sometimes the good that comes out of something cannot be seen in one lifetime.

For instance: a man is murdered with one of the good swords His wife is widowed and children left fatherless. She remarries and has a son. The younger son is persecuted by the older children and eventually runs away to a nearby city where he enters the life of a thief. Along the course of his thieving career, he kills a competitor thief, whose oldest son is forced to leave his carpenter's apprenticeship for a better paying job as a sword-smith's assistance. Over the course of time, he observes and learns the craft of forging swords, and many years later his swords help protect thousands of lives.

Did good come from the scenario? Eventually, but even that good was at the cost of many lives (the competitor thief, and the soldiers killed by his son's swords). The whole concept of ultimate good is an exercise in Theodicy.

So what you need to think about is the necessity for the reader to see the good worked out by the three swords' use, and also what degree of good comes from their use. Neither of these concepts has to be a concrete absolute. But you might want to be wary of one thing: the idea of the sword's use bringing out good in the end could provide a strong temptation towards deus ex machina. Resist the temptation!

Oh! Sidenote - the evil sword sounds a bit like the cursed sword that Turin had in the Silmarillion (the one he eventually killed his friend with on accident).

In Christ,
Jordan

Don't worry, no deus ex machnia over here. (The villain doesn't need any help to do himself in.)

That's a good thought. Part of the mechanic is that the swords work directly with the user to cause good or evil. If a person uses the swords for evil, then his own actions will turn on him and destroy him. If a person uses the dark sword for good, again, his own actions will ultimately lead to his undoing. (It will be clarified that vengeance is in the hands of the Lord.)

Well, perhaps the person murdered was killed, which stopped that person from unwittingly giving important information to the bad guys which the bad guy would use to crush the good guys.