Sauron's loyalty after the First Age

[Mumriken]

You seem to make much out of the; Morgoth wanted chaos and destruction and Sauron wanted order. One could say that Sauron's being and Morgoth's being are slightly different. Before time Sauron was a servant of Aule the smith. But unlike Aule Sauron wanted things for himself. I discussed this in another thread but Aule is really the moral absolute in Arda since he created the dwarves then was willing to give them away. He created much and gave it all away. Not wanting to own things is at least in Tolkien's universe moral excellence. But Sauron wanted to own things and therefore turned to Morgoth because he admired his power and saw that through him he could order things and make himself OWN things. He wanted power and got it through Morgoth.

Now Morgoth didn't want things, he was already the most powerful being in Arda and had no need for things. He wanted to destroy what didn't derive from his music. Now Morgoth was eventually thrown out of the world. Now here Sauron had two choices to give up his power and control and return to Valinor. Or stay true to who he is or wanted to be...of course he is selfish and I bet if he could snap his fingers and all morgoth's power would be his he would. Howerver when Morgoth was captured and thrown out of the world I don't think Sauron was very pleased. All beings in our world and in the fictional are attached to someone. We need others...it's clear than Sauron needed Morgoth to become what he wanted to become. To be powerful and have control over others and order things to his liking.

So yes at the time of Morgoth's capture Sauron was loyal to him. Not out of fear but out of admiration for Morgoth and his ways of doing things. He stayed loyal to the very end and as far as I understand it he asked for pardon out of fear...for he saw the power of the valas. But now comes the big suprise, he didn't abandon Morgoth's ways. He deceived Numenor into worshipping Morgoth and later sail towards Valinor and later be crushed by the valas. TWO PARTS:

-Order
-Morgoth's way of achieving order

The only part of his being that isn't "loyal" to morgoth is that unlike morgoth he wanted order. However he chose Morgoth's ways of achieving order. Now that is being loyal to Morgoth in my opinion, since he could not free morgoth. Achieving his sense of order while destroying numenor and killing I don't know how many elves dwarves and men. He is being more loyal to Morgoth than to any other being in Arda by doing this. Loyal to himself?? What does that even mean, he even called himself the second Morgoth. Now if that isn't being loyal to morgoth I don't know what is. He would rather have Morgoth at his side than being alone that is for sure. The only reason he made the rings was because he could not win by force alone...while morgoth could.

I find the encounter Sauron's spirit had with Aule in lord of the rings most interesting. You know when Aule plays around with the ring? It's like Aule laughs at his old pupil...anyway if in your world the only way Sauron could show his loyalty towards sauron is to force slaves into worshipping him while elven cities are being built and slowly moving towards to east...then I'm not sure what you're thinking with. I think I'm done with this thread, I feel like I'm repeating myself now to no effect.

[Zigûr]

To me, following someone's methods does not constitute loyalty. Faithfulness to their cause or leadership does. In my opinion, judging by the Professor's exploration of Sauron and Morgoth's motives, Sauron shared Morgoth's methods but did not employ them in faithfulness to Morgoth or Morgoth's cause, but rather in the pursuit of his own self-interest. When it comes to loyalty, it appears to me that the intentions are crucial. Whether or not he would prefer to have Morgoth still around is pure conjecture which conflicts substantially with Professor Tolkien's suggestions that Sauron ultimately considered Morgoth to be a failure and viewed his absence as a great opportunity for personal aggrandisement.
Nonetheless I agree that the discussion appears to have run its course and I apologise if I have been repetitious.
Sadly an issue of semantics was not really what I was expecting to be the issue of this discussion. Also, I apologise that this thread has been a source of any difficulty.

[Mumriken]

Well then it's impossible for ANYONE to be loyal at all. Because all beings in our world and in the fictional have their own motives. Sauron was no slave to morgoth, he chose willingly to work with him. Also I find this notion of Sauron wanting order and Morgoth wanting chaos very...well unimportant. I mean let's imagine Morgoth sat in the void looking into the world at what Sauron was doing. Would he think:

"OH look, he is making those orcs stand in orderly lines...he isn't being loyal to me!!...look how he destroys numenor trying to achieve order and not destruction...he is so disloyal to me!!"

I think not, I think he would be pleased. Even if Sauron unlike Morgoth wanted order it doesn't matter. By forcing the numenoreans to worship morgoth and later naming himself the second morgoth he shows his admiration and loyalty to the devil who has been thrown out of the world and therefore Sauron no longer could serve...to become the second morgoth would be the most loyal thing he could possible be doing towards morgoth. That Saruon wanted some order and Morgoth wanted chaos is irrelevant, I also find it hard to imagine Morgoth or Sauron even thought of themself as order and chaos.

It's only to us who read the stories they appear in that way. Therefore I don't think it matters to the characters at all that one represents a form of order and the other a form of chaos. In the end Sauron remained a servant of morgoth and not to the other side. That is all that matters...I think the person who wrote sauron was loyal to morgoth before you edited it was right. Maybe you should change it back eh? Spreading misinformation we are I think...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

I find the encounter Sauron's spirit had with Aule in lord of the rings most interesting. You know when Aule plays around with the ring?

??? What on Earth are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Mumriken

if in your world the only way Sauron could show his loyalty towards sauron [sic] is to force slaves into worshipping him while elven cities are being built and slowly moving towards to east...then I'm not sure what you're thinking with.

Must I repeat myself? Mumriken, there is nothing in Zigur's posting to warrant the insults you've been directing at him. Stop it.

[Mumriken]

Nerwen could you please stop whatever you're doing. Not sure what you're thinking with isn't an insult. Just a way to point out that I don't agree with him. This conversation is civil, you are just sensitive.

??? What on Earth are you talking about?

Well my personal belief is that Tom's Aule. See "Gandalf on Bombadil" for more info on that...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

That is all that matters...I think the person who wrote sauron was loyal to morgoth before you edited it was right. Maybe you should change it back eh? Spreading misinformation we are I think...

Just a hunch– and you don't have to answer if you don't want to– Mumriken, were you, by any chance "the person who wrote sauron was loyal to morgoth" in the Wikipedia article. Is that what this is all about? A Wikipedia edit-war?

Anyway, whether that's so or not, your position is not, to my mind, so very self-evident that no right-thinking person could fail to agree with it– as seems to be your own belief. While you've made some valid points, much of your case appears to rely on simply stating that you're right and other people are wrong.

Edit: X'd with Mumriken.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

Nerwen could you please stop whatever you're doing. Not sure what you're thinking with isn't an insult. Just a way to point out that I don't agree with him. This conversation is civil, you are just sensitive.

No, you've been very rude and aggressive throughout– bizarrely so, given how abstract the topic is.

Well my personal belief is that Tom's Aule. See "Gandalf on Bombadil" for more info on that...

Surely a word of explanation was in order, then?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

to become the second morgoth would be the most loyal thing he could possible be doing towards morgoth.

In my opinion Sauron's masquerading as Morgoth more comes across as potentially "blasphemous" (although I realise we are talking about the bad guy here) than a show of loyalty. If he was so loyal to Morgoth would he be pretending to be Morgoth? Wouldn't he have just kept claiming to be his representative? I guess that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but it doesn't seem like Sauron did any of these things because he thought Morgoth would approve. That's what matters - what did Sauron think about what he was doing? Did he consider it a tribute to Morgoth or did he now only care about himself?
As we have already seen, Professor Tolkien considered Sauron encouraging the Númenoreans to worship Morgoth something he did out of convenience, not out of respect for his former master.

I think not, I think he would be pleased.

This doesn't matter. Sauron's loyalty is dependent upon Sauron's intentions alone, not whether or not Morgoth would be pleased. That's incidental. Was Sauron trying to please Morgoth? The evidence doesn't seem to suggest that Sauron cared. If he cared, he would be loyal, but it doesn't seem that he cared any more about Morgoth beyond as a phantom he could use to scare and manipulate people. That doesn't mean he's disloyal, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it means he was still trying to do what Morgoth wanted.

Spreading misinformation we are I think...

Sorry, I was kind of misrepresenting myself when I said that. Actually, I was cleaning up a lot of misinformation someone else was spreading, and replacing it with references to published material. The only editing I made on Wikipedia was to alter explicit statements that claimed as fact that Sauron faithfully propagated Morgoth's cult in places other than Númenor without providing any evidence from Professor Tolkien's writing to support it. The fact that we cannot agree on it suggests to me that stating it as cold hard fact would be misleading. I also took the opportunity to make Morgoth's legacy more explicit with annotations referring the reader to the same evidence from Morgoth's Ring and the Letters as has been used here. The article formerly made this claim:

Sauron always remained faithful in his allegiance to Melkor; as Sauron expanded his empire into new lands, with it he would also spread a cult devoted to Melkor-worship, promising that one day he would return from the Void. Temples dedicated to Melkor were built by Sauron's servants throughout Rhûn and Haradwaith, where human sacrifice was practiced.

Where does Professor Tolkien write anywhere that Sauron promised his subjects that Morgoth would return? Where does he even state that he established human sacrifice cults anywhere besides Númenor? Whoever wrote that hadn't provided any references and I certainly couldn't find anything to support it. That was what I objected to. I never wrote anything to say that Sauron became disloyal or that he rebelled against Morgoth or anything of that sort. There was also this:

even by the end of the Third Age, the Cult of Melkor was effectively the "state religion" of Mordor

As far as I can tell this is almost entirely invention on someone's part, and they completely contradict elements of Professor Tolkien's own writing. Consider this from "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age":

In the east and south well nigh all Men were under his dominion, and they grew strong in those days and built many towns and walls of stone, and they were numerous and fierce in war and armed with iron. To them Sauron was both king and god; and they feared him exceedingly, for he surrounded his abode with fire.

Sauron set himself up as god to the Easterlings and the Haradrim, not Morgoth; he wasn't in the weak position he'd been in with the Númenoreans and was an egotist and wanted to be worshipped. What I objected to was what appeared to be someone basically extrapolating Sauron's activities in Númenor to the whole of Middle-earth without evidence and despite evidence in direct contradiction of those claims; this can be the trouble with things like Wikipedia. The main ambiguity I can find is this issue of Sauron pretending to be Morgoth in the Third Age. That kind of muddles the issue of how Sauron was worshipped; perhaps he just conflated himself with Morgoth because the Men of Darkness didn't know the difference.

[Mumriken]

Then you don't have to edit the wikipedia article.

In my opinion Sauron's masquerading as Morgoth more comes across as potentially "blasphemous" (although I realise we are talking about the bad guy here) than a show of loyalty. If he was so loyal to Morgoth would he be pretending to be Morgoth? Wouldn't he have just kept claiming to be his representative? I guess that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but it doesn't seem like Sauron did any of these things because he thought Morgoth would approve. That's what matters - what did Sauron think about what he was doing? Did he consider it a tribute to Morgoth or did he now only care about himself?

As I said Sauron was no slave under Morgoth, and what point would there be in preaching about Morgoth if he was chained outside the world unable to return? I think you have a very narrow view on how to be loyal towards someone. Anyway I'm not going to keep babbling on about this, I have already said what there is to say and it doesn't seem to sink through. We have to agree to disagree...

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

Well then it's impossible for ANYONE to be loyal at all. Because all beings in our world and in the fictional have their own motives. Sauron was no slave to morgoth, he chose willingly to work with him. Also I find this notion of Sauron wanting order and Morgoth wanting chaos very...well unimportant. I mean let's imagine Morgoth sat in the void looking into the world at what Sauron was doing. Would he think:

Not necessarily. As I've pointed out with Sam, it was his loyalty to Frodo which was a factor in his rejection of the Ring. You could say it was Faramir's loyalty in doing the same as well.

Where, simply put, it's very difficult for one evil to be loyal to another evil. I mean would one argue that Orcs had a strong sense of loyalty to Morgoth, or Sauron?

[Belegorn]

We must keep in mind the difference between some servants and others. Orcs and the like were slaves. Sauron and others willingly flocked to Morgoth, some before and some after entering Arda.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Where, simply put, it's very difficult for one evil to be loyal to another evil. I mean would one argue that Orcs had a strong sense of loyalty to Morgoth, or Sauron?

I think this is the issue. Evidently Sauron admired Morgoth at first, before either of them had wholly fallen into evil, but it would seem to me that as both of them descended into darkness Sauron would have become incapable of this kind of positivity. Professor Tolkien certainly casts doubt upon the "shadow of good" in Sauron's nature by the time of the downfall of Númenor. He "profited by this darkened shadow of good and services of ‘worshippers’" - it had become part of his nature to twist anything, even apparent acts of humility, to his own gain. It's hard to imagine Sauron in the Third Age, who evidently loved no one but himself, still feeling any affection for Morgoth or devotion to his cause.

[Mumriken]

Where, simply put, it's very difficult for one evil to be loyal to another evil. I mean would one argue that Orcs had a strong sense of loyalty to Morgoth, or Sauron?

Lol why can't I give this up xD xD

The reason Sam rejected the ring was because he loved Frodo. This loyalty exists in all beings that are dependent on another being. It's actually a form of love the orcs have for Sauron. Because he gives them what they want, just like Frodo gives Sam what he wants. Sauron was loyal to Morgoth because morgoth gave him what he wanted, power and control. By not turning his back to morgoth even after he was thrown out of the world. Sauron has shown his loyalty to Morgoth. Even if Morgoth is not there to give him power he still honors Morgoth by trying to follow in his footsteps even though he is unable to do so because of not being as powerful as him. Everything he did in the second and third age to some degree served morgoth's purpose. Probably the reason he did not fully destroy the children as Morgoth tried to do was because he simply wasn't powerful enough to do so.

That beings who are "evil" have a hard time being loyal is just a biased view from the people who consider themself to be good.

-Mumriken

xD xD xD

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

Gollum, Shelob etc did not know Morgoth. Also I'm not sure I'd call them evil. Intersting point you raised here btw, Gollum was loyal to the ring and therefore in a way to Sauron. [/B]

what does this fixation with the giving of Rings tells us about the imaginary world of this particular Legendarium? how about our respective, thoughtful choice of Avatar names here? i'll suggest that it demonstrates that we understand precisely the point about languages in the linguistic sense - just as Tolkien himself knew by his fostering of this vision into the empirical world.


would the Timeless entity whom the Noldor tell us names himself Sauron demonstrate a similar Shadowy fealty to 'Melkor' that, say, Ungweliantë did?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

This loyalty exists in all beings that are dependent on another being. It's actually a form of love the orcs have for Sauron.

The Orcs served Sauron out of fear, not love. They fear him (and the Nazgûl) more than they feared their enemies.

Even if Morgoth is not there to give him power he still honors Morgoth by trying to follow in his footsteps even though he is unable to do so because of not being as powerful as him.

If it was written somewhere that Sauron thought he was doing this deliberately to honour Morgoth I would agree with you. I guess I just don't believe that you can be "accidentally loyal". Loyalty in my opinion involves some element of deliberate decision-making.

Probably the reason he did not fully destroy the children as Morgoth tried to do was because he simply wasn't powerful enough to do so.

I'm afraid Professor Tolkien covered Sauron's lack of destructive intent:

the only real good in, or rational motive for, all this ordering and planning and organization was the good of all the inhabitants of Arda (even admitting Sauron’s right to be their supreme lord)

Also:

Sauron had never reached this stage of nihilistic madness. He did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it. ~Morgoth's Ring.

Sauron wanted to rule Middle-earth and its inhabitants. Whether or not he had the power to destroy it/them isn't especially relevant: even if he could, he didn't want to.

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I think this is the issue. Evidently Sauron admired Morgoth at first, before either of them had wholly fallen into evil, but it would seem to me that as both of them descended into darkness Sauron would have become incapable of this kind of positivity. Professor Tolkien certainly casts doubt upon the "shadow of good" in Sauron's nature by the time of the downfall of Númenor. He "profited by this darkened shadow of good and services of ‘worshippers’" - it had become part of his nature to twist anything, even apparent acts of humility, to his own gain.

why does "down" tend to connote (theological) Evil, while "up" tend to connote (theological) Good in this Legendarium?

we discover in the Valaquenta that the turning of (conceptual) Darkness to Theological Evil is one of the most loathsome deeds of that Being who is known in the Age of the Lamps by the term Melkor (in Noldoran texts) - that there were times when Darkness had not yet been corrupted with Melkor's Malice and been made Bearer of Fear and Quencher of Lights... that In the beginning, Irmo, Lord of Dreams, used the Embrace of the Soothing Darkness to convey his Visions.....

now, why is that, would you say? does this tell us anything about the use of what you might call an iconic Language, that has its most engaging effects when there is a community of minds that share an interpretive horizon, which is to say have been enculturated with a similar perceptual "toolkit"?

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

The Orcs served Sauron out of fear, not love.

"when one sows Vice, one reaps Orcs" - Elvish proverb

[Mumriken]

Ungoliant was if not above Morgoth at least his equal. Unlike Sauron Morgoth could give Ungoliant little because Ungoliant wanted little. Sauron wanted much and therefore Morgoth had much to give and sauron loved him for it. Now this love might not be the same love you show towards your mother but it's still a form of love.

The Orcs served Sauron out of fear, not love. They fear him (and the Nazgûl) more than they feared their enemies.

Not really, before Sauron the orcs were small tribes with little but no power. Under Sauron many of them gained power. That doesn't mean they didn't fear him but I'd say it was a love/fear relationship. Not so different from the relationship most people have towards their teacher or boss. Just a bit more severe perhaps. Listen to your teacher and you will get good grades, do not listen to him and you will get bad grades. There is a bit of fear in that situation as well...however you love your teacher when he gives you good grades do you not?

If it was written somewhere that Sauron thought he was doing this deliberately to honour Morgoth I would agree with you. I guess I just don't believe that you can be "accidentally loyal". Loyalty in my opinion involves some element of deliberate decision-making.

And Sauron chose to join Morgoth, and he chose not to turn back to valinor after morgoth was captured. He chose to be loyal to Morgoth. He wouldn't be able to show his loyalty better.

Sauron wanted to rule Middle-earth and its inhabitants. Whether or not he had the power to destroy it/them isn't especially relevant: even if he could, he didn't want to.

As I said earlier, it doesn't matter if Sauron wanted order and Morgoth wanted chaos. The characters themself didn't think of themself as being order and chaos. It's only you who think of them that way therefore by "being order" Sauron didn't turn his back to Morgoth. However by destroying Numenor and doing what he did in the 2nd and 3rd ages he showed his loyalty to Morgoth.

The only way he could have been disloyal to morgoth would have been to go back to valinor. You must understand that all humanoids be them fictional or not need other people. If someone gives you something you want you like them, even "evil" beings are capable to love eachother. You might not recognize it as good because you consider them evil. If Tolkien thought Sauron was truly evil, well that is a biased position. Morgoth was truly evil, but Sauron...no I don't think so. If Sauron was the one thrown out and Morgoth remained I don't think Morgoth would care at all. However in Sauron there is still some admiration and love towards superior beings. Even if love is a strong word to use I think this is the case.

He was loyal to morgoth.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

If Tolkien thought Sauron was truly evil, well that is a biased position. Morgoth was truly evil, but Sauron...no I don't think so.

Well if we can't take Professor Tolkien's word for it I don't know what we can do. While he didn't believe in absolute evil, he thought that Sauron was about as close as you could get:

In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as possible. ~Letter 183.

This suggests to me that Sauron had gone beyond any capacity for a positive emotion like love or admiration. In the same letter he makes this remark:

Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world.

This is the same quote which includes the note about him pretending to be Morgoth. It doesn't seem to leave much room for Morgoth in Sauron's heirarchy; if he was still loyal, wouldn't he have set up Morgoth as god (even though he was in the void, he could do it in tribute to him or the memory of him) and portrayed himself simply as a disciple? It seems that he wanted the glory for himself. I like to think that Professor Tolkien understood the motivations of his characters better than any of us.
However, in regards to Sauron admiring and admitting the love of superior beings, he wrote this (sorry for the big quote):

there was seen the effect of Melkor upon Sauron: he spoke of Melkor in Melkor’s own terms: as a god, or even as God. This may have been the residue of a state which was in a sense a shadow of good: the ability once in Sauron at least to admire or admit the superiority of a being other than himself. Melkor, and still more Sauron himself afterwards, both profited by this darkened shadow of good and services of ‘worshippers’. But it may be doubted whether even such a shadow of good was still sincerely operative in Sauron by that time. His cunning motive is probably best expressed thus. To wean one of the God-fearing from their allegiance it is best to propound another unseen object of allegiance and another hope of benefits; propound to him a Lord who will sanction what he desires and not forbid it. Sauron, apparently a defeated rival for world-power, now a mere hostage, can hardly propound himself; but as the former servant and disciple of Melkor, the worship of Melkor will raise him from hostage to high priest. ~Morgoth's Ring.

So I guess the Professor leaves it up to us to make up our own minds on the subject. We can look at it in two ways:
1. Sauron promoted Morgoth as a god because he still admired his superiority.
2. Sauron exploited the memory of Morgoth just to make himself powerful; it was pure manipulation and nothing more.
In the end there's some room for both points of view, although personally I find the second one more supportable and consistent with other examples from the texts. I guess the difference here is that I'm relying mostly on scrutiny of Professor Tolkien's writing rather than a broader view of the human condition (in so far as it applies to a non-human fictional character).

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

Ungoliant was if not above Morgoth at least his equal. Unlike Sauron Morgoth could give Ungoliant little because Ungoliant wanted little.

would her Name give to her to the exclusion of her will fealty to 'Melkor', being that he is the Source of Theological Evil - or is this naming process a reflection of the perceptual "toolkit" of Rúmil?

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Well if we can't take Professor Tolkien's word for it I don't know what we can do. While he didn't believe in absolute evil, he thought that Sauron was about as close as you could get

what makes you assume that this Legendarium is a closed, rather than an open code? that it can be translated only in terms of Monotheistic tradition, even if said subcreation clearly reflects in very many ways the unconscious ontology of Tolkien?

for the audience - what is this process and conversation saying to you?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Eäralda Halatiriva

what makes you assume that this Legendarium is a closed, rather than an open code?

I suppose because Professor Tolkien termed it a "sub-creation" and he was the "sub-creator". As such while there are numerous undisclosed elements upon which we can only speculate, there are certain aspects made explicit in notes, letters and such about things which, were they referent to parts of the primary world we would consider subjective but which the "sub-creator" can describe objectively in regards to his "sub-creation". That's at least how I look at it. I know some people hold that only what we read in The Lord of the Rings can be taken at face value (and that not even The Hobbit and certainly not The Silmarillion, let alone other material, can be read as a completely accurate portrayal of the Professor's vision) but I find that to be a limiting notion. As far as I'm concerned if Professor Tolkien wrote it and it's not later contradicted anywhere by something he wrote then within the "sub-creation" of Middle-earth it's objectively true - unless he himself left it open for speculation, of course!

[Eäralda Halatiriva]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I suppose because Professor Tolkien termed it a "sub-creation" and he was the "sub-creator". As such while there are numerous undisclosed elements upon which we can only speculate, there are certain aspects made explicit in notes, letters and such about things which, were they referent to parts of the primary world we would consider subjective but which the "sub-creator" can describe objectively in regards to his "sub-creation". That's at least how I look at it. I know some people hold that only what we read in The Lord of the Rings can be taken at face value (and that not even The Hobbit and certainly not The Silmarillion, let alone other material, can be read as a completely accurate portrayal of the Professor's vision) but I find that to be a limiting notion. As far as I'm concerned if Professor Tolkien wrote it and it's not later contradicted anywhere by something he wrote then within the "sub-creation" of Middle-earth it's objectively true - unless he himself left it open for speculation, of course!

and your speculative suppositions are, well, truthful

but i suppose this is like saying that all Signs can have only one meaning, now isn't it? but i will opine that, all Signs, all codes are infinitely fertile, and fecund, yes? inter-subjectively, naturally.

since when was creativity a one-way street? what would Belegûr have to say on that?

[Mumriken]

1. Sauron promoted Morgoth as a god because he still admired his superiority.
2. Sauron exploited the memory of Morgoth just to make himself powerful; it was pure manipulation and nothing more.
In the end there's some room for both points of view, although personally I find the second one more supportable and consistent with other examples from the texts. I guess the difference here is that I'm relying mostly on scrutiny of Professor Tolkien's writing rather than a broader view of the human condition (in so far as it applies to a non-human fictional character).

Why choose Morgoth and not anyone else to put forth as a false god for people to worship? Not only that but his actions all speaks for loyalty towards morgoth. However I do think with the ages passing some of the loyalty was forgotten, he became more consumed by his own being so to speak.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Mumriken

However I do think with the ages passing some of the loyalty was forgotten, he became more consumed by his own being so to speak.

This thought struck me as well. It doesn't seem unreasonable to view it as a gradual process: Sauron the loyal lieutenant in the First Age, then in the Second Age despite lacking a master he's still very influenced by Morgoth; he's not yet completely dominated by his own pride. Then by the Third, having expended so much of his own potency on himself and his policies, he's much more self-absorbed - the point at which:

his ‘plans’, the idea coming from his own isolated mind, became the sole object of his will, and an end, the End, in itself ~Morgoth's Ring

Everything decayed "in the wearing of the swift years of Middle-earth" - even the villains.

[Mumriken]

Seems like we have come to an agreement then. Peace

[Sarumian]

An interesting thread. Let me add my 2 cents.

If we compare loyalty to gravity, would a moon remain loyal to a planet if the planet has gone? Probably, the moon would still carry many traces of it's former master's influence and would even consist of the same combination of substances, but it is no more a satellite. It is no more kept in and directed by it's former master's gravity. Then everything depend on what exactly you mean by 'loyalty'.

May I also rise the question if Stalin was loyal to Lenin? After Lenin's death Stalin ran an official quasi-cult of Lenin with a pyramid, containing Lenin's mummified body in the middle of Moscow. Stalin always presented himself as a defender of Lenin's ideas and attitudes against various opportunists (such as Trotsky). However, Stalin followed Lenin's ideas in his own interpretation, quite opportunistic sometimes. Moreover, Lenin died, loosing his battle against his "dedicated disciple".

On May 25, 1922, Lenin suffered a stroke while recovering from surgery to remove a bullet lodged in his neck since a failed assassination attempt in August 1918. Severely debilitated, he went into semi-retirement and moved to his dacha in Gorki. Stalin visited him often, acting as his intermediary with the outside world.[2] During this time, the two quarrelled over economic policy and how to consolidate the Soviet republics. One day, Stalin verbally swore at Lenin's wife for breaching Politburo orders by helping Lenin communicate with Trotsky and others about politics;[2] this greatly offended Lenin. As their relationship deteriorated, Lenin dictated increasingly disparaging notes on Stalin in what would become his testament. He criticised Stalin's rude manners, excessive power, ambition and politics, and suggested that Stalin should be removed from the position of General Secretary. One of Lenin's secretaries showed Stalin the notes, whose contents shocked him.[2] Before Stalin could mend any bridges, Lenin suffered a heart attack on March 10, 1923 which left him completely incapacitated.

Rise of Joseph Stalin in Wikipedia, providing the generally accepted interpretation of the affairs.

Did Stalin respect Lenin as a politician? Yes. Did he serve Lenin's cause with dedication? Yes. Did he usually support Lenin in his disagreements with other Party members? Yes. Did he keep Lenin's reputation extremely high after Lenin's death? Yes.

Did Stalin undisputedly implement suggestions of handicapped Lenin in the last months of his life? No. Can we think he really wanted Lenin to recover? No. Did he have most of Lenin's associates eliminated in "purges"? Yes. Did he revised Lenin-Trotsky cause of world-wide Communist revolution, working out a "Leninist" Socialism-in-one-country theory of his own? Yes.

So was Stalin loyal to Lenin? It, again, depends on what do you mean by loyalty.

Was Sauron loyal to Morgoth after the 1st Age? I think, Sauron was loyal to himself. He was loyal to his own essence shaped under Morgoth's patronage, but no more personally to Morgoth.

[Mumriken]

You think but I and Zigur now know...let it rest. I want to get away from this thread.

[Findegil]

An interesting thread, even so it some time created too much heat.

A view remarks:
Melkor never wanted chaos. Has plans had an order of there own. The chaos resulted only in the fact that his plans did not harmonise with that of Eru. (At least not at fist, if we look to the discribtion of the end of the music of the Ainur, we see that Eru's themes had gained at that point a flexibility that made them take up the music of Melkor into their own fabrication, a win - win - situation even so the Melkor party seemed not to understand that.) Thus the question if Sauron in the second age spreaded chaos or tried to establish order doesn't matter at all.

And Melkor never wanted any evil things to exist, evil was only what arrived out of the friction between Melkors theme in the music and that of Eru. Nonetheless Melkor did chose willfuly to be in oposition to Eru (ceeping his own theme up after Eru tried to mend the music), which is an evil deed.

For me at least it seems clear that Tolkien wrote his legendarium in such a way, that being in opposition to Eru would be an eroding state. It brought Melkor down from the being with the highest potential benath Eru himself to a faint shadow of its former self that could be brought down be pure physical force, and that the Valar (with Eru's agreement) even could banish from Ea (without a great destruction that they had feared ealier in the history of Ea). Sauron it brought down from one of the Maiar of highest rank to a ghost unable to make his will effectiv in the physical world at all. Saruman as a last example it brought down from being the highest of the order of the Istari to the same state as Sauron, a ghost with out any influence.
The point is, that the more you become fixed in the state of opposition to Eru, the more you lose your own abilities (and creativity might be the most important ability in this). Melkor as the prime example does become even nihilistic, he tries to destroy everything that comes from other ideas then his own (which in the end is the whole Ea, since he was nowhere alone in its creation). But even if Melkors motives at the end of the first age were nihilistic, his actions were not fully so. He still used the creations of others to further his cause.

Ainu like Sauron did know that Eru exists and that Melkor is a created being of their own order. How could they follow Melkor at all? Well, Melkors ideas were not evil, they were just diffrent. And remember that Eru smiled at first. Melkor was created as a (sub-)creator. For lesser Ainur to tune their music to his would be okay at first as ist was for other Ainu to follow some of the other later Valar like Ulmo or Aule. It seems from the example of Gandalf that it was even okay to wander with your music from one leader to the next, and way should it be other wise? Only after Eru had shown his distast for the theme of Melkor, to play it further would bring them in oposition to Eru.

Now one important motive that Melkor had for changing the theme of Eru, was to make his own role in the music more important. This selfish motive seems to be the one taint that anybody who joined him shared (evil in Tolkiens legendarium is none coopeartive). And we see this over and over again when charachters of evils attitude are at the point of no return, it is their selfishness that kicks them over the brink.

The unanswered (and by tzhe way also unasked) question of this thread is: Is there a difference between being loyal to Melkor and being evil?

If we look to the music of the Ainur alone the answer seems to be no. But if we take all the letters and stuff that we have on Saurons motives, that doen't seem to be true to me any longer. In essence you might be in opposition to Eru but not loyal to Melkor any more, even so Melkor might have been the rout course of your opposition to Eru. That is Melkors theme was not based on the opposition to Eru, it just became that by chance. But what an Ainu played could be not in tune with Erus theme and not in tune with Melkors theme.

Respectfuly
Findegil