Why Does Good Suck So Much?

[Nikkolas]

Hello everyone. I just finished reading The Silmarillion for the first time and the thing that struck me as "the moral of the story" is that good guys are really, really dumb and selfish.

The Valar of course are "the goodest" and their bias towards Elves is plain from moment one. They actually go so far as to aid the half-elven Eärendil while letting the equally brave and selfless Amandil to die.
In fact, it seems they are so lazy and egotistical that they demanded someone come begging their assistance. Even as Morgoth threatened to subjugate and destroy all teh Children of Iluvatar, they didn't move until someone came crawling to them.

And what of their servants, the Maiar? No less selfish and unhelpful. In regards to Morgoth, let us not forget Queen Melian. Remember how she protected the Kingdom of Doriath and provided haven for those who wished to escape Melkor's evil?

Well, once her husband died, she said "screw you everyone" and left. With her magical protection gone, the entire kingdom and its helpless populace were left at the mercy of the Dark Lord.
Can you say worst queen ever?

Speaking of her husband, this really just enforces the idea of "good is stupid". With the threat of Morgoth dominating the lands, the Elves and Dwarves go to war among themselves. Even as the shadow of death lays on their doorstep, they insist on petty squabbles.

Getting back to the Maiar, we can't forget Sauron. Remember him? One of the strongest, most dangerous beings on Middle-earth? Second-in-command to Morgoth? What did the Host of the Valar do?
Why, they left him behind! And never once attempted to send someoen to recapture him.

It seems tha the idea that the Fall of Númenor is all Man's fault is a blatant misdirection. It is the Valar's continued failing that doomed them. They left Sauron on the world. They left The Enemy here to poison helpless Men, Elves and everything else.

So...yeah. I'm just rather embittered by the story's attempt to make the Valar seem noble and pure and good. They were anythg but. In fact they seem scarcely less flawed than Melkor or Feanor.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Hello everyone. I just finished reading The Silmarillion for the first time and the thing that struck me as "the moral of the story" is that good guys are really, really dumb and selfish.

First of all, I must say that the title of this piece is rather over the top. I would say that it might be wise to lighten the tone (saying "suck" is a bit much) before someone does it for you.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

The Valar of course are "the goodest" and their bias towards Elves is plain from moment one. They actually go so far as to aid the half-elven Eärendil while letting the equally brave and selfless Amandil to die.

I'm not altogether sure Amandil was left to die. I don't have the Sil nearby, but if you'd provide the quote it may prove helpful. From my recollection, I believe Amandil's fate was unknown.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

In fact, it seems they are so lazy and egotistical that they demanded someone come begging their assistance. Even as Morgoth threatened to subjugate and destroy all teh Children of Iluvatar, they didn't move until someone came crawling to them.

Never been a fan of the Valar's actions, but I can't assume they were "lazy". The Doom of Mandos played a large part in their inaction.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

And what of their servants, the Maiar? No less selfish and unhelpful. In regards to Morgoth, let us not forget Queen Melian. Remember how she protected the Kingdom of Doriath and provided haven for those who wished to escape Melkor's evil?

Well, once her husband died, she said "screw you everyone" and left. With her magical protection gone, the entire kingdom and its helpless populace were left at the mercy of the Dark Lord. Can you say worst queen ever?

Hmmm..."screw you everyone"? Again, laying it on a bit thick, aren't you? The only reason she shed her Maiaric persona and appeared in mortal raiment was because of her love for Thingol. Has it ever occurred to you that Melian was deep in mourning and perhaps incapable of retaining her protection around Doriath? The traumatic death of a husband or wife can be debilitating, perhaps even for a Maia.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Speaking of her husband, this really just enforces the idea of "good is stupid". With the threat of Morgoth dominating the lands, the Elves and Dwarves go to war among themselves. Even as the shadow of death lays on their doorstep, they insist on petty squabbles.

I have never perceived Thingol as being particularly "good" in the sense of having unassailable qualities. In fact, I don't believe Tolkien was interested in the Eldar being one-dimensional and above reproach. Thingol was greedy, petty and at times evil. A well-rounded character, not some cardboard cut-out.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Getting back to the Maiar, we can't forget Sauron. Remember him? One of the strongest, most dangerous beings on Middle-earth? Second-in-command to Morgoth? What did the Host of the Valar do? Why, they left him behind! And never once attempted to send someoen to recapture him.

If I remember, Sauron repented of his evil ways for a time and then felt that old black magic draw him back in. The Valar also forgave Morgoth before he destroyed the Two Trees and murdered Finwe. It seems to me that the Valar could not comprehend true evil -- it was beyond their comprehension. They never considered rebellion as did Morgoth, nor did they isolate themselves in near solitary confinement as Morgoth did, he who nursed grudges and plotted alone.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

It seems tha the idea that the Fall of Númenor is all Man's fault is a blatant misdirection. It is the Valar's continued failing that doomed them. They left Sauron on the world. They left The Enemy here to poison helpless Men, Elves and everything else.

The only thing I fault the Valar in is making the same mistake twice. Just as they convinced the Eldar to travel to Valinor (ostensibly for their own protection), so too did they hallow a place for the Edain, and separated Numenor from the rest of Arda. It was an error the first time, and they learned nothing from it. But again, as angelic beings, they perhaps did not comprehend mortal failings like greed, vanity, hatred and envy. This type of information was not revealed to them by Eru.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

So...yeah. I'm just rather embittered by the story's attempt to make the Valar seem noble and pure and good. They were anythg but. In fact they seem scarcely less flawed than Melkor or Feanor.

I think you've let your hyperbole run amok. The Valar were indeed not perfect, but they did have good intentions and never tried to actively harm the Children of Eru. But as you may have heard, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I'm not altogether sure Amandil was left to die. I don't have the Sil nearby, but if you'd provide the quote it may prove helpful. From my recollection, I believe Amandil's fate was unknown.

And the reason that his mission, as opposed to Eärendil's, was unsuccessful, was the simple fact that Eärendil had already gone to bat for the world in that way. A second time would not be the same, as Amandil himself well knew.

'For,' said [Amandil], 'it may well prove that you will never see me again; and that I shall show you no such sign as Eärendil showed long ago'.

Silm Akallabêth

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm..."screw you everyone"? Again, laying it on a bit thick, aren't you? The only reason she shed her Maiaric persona and appeared in mortal raiment was because of her love for Thingol. Has it ever occurred to you that Melian was deep in mourning and perhaps incapable of retaining her protection around Doriath? The traumatic death of a husband or wife can be debilitating, perhaps even for a Maia.

The Silmarilion itself seems to make that clear:

But now Thingol lay dead...and with his death a change came also upon Melian. Thus it came to pass that her power was withdrawn in that time....

Silm Of the Ruin of Doriath

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I have never perceived Thingol as being particularly "good" in the sense of having unassailable qualities. In fact, I don't believe Tolkien was interested in the Eldar being one-dimensional and above reproach. He was greedy, petty and at times evil. A well-rounded character, not some cardboard cut-out.

Thingol already had some arrogance, as he showed to Beren. Possession of the Silmaril and the Nauglamír imparted him with a fatal greed.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The Valar were indeed not perfect, but they did have good intentions and never tried to actively harm the Children of Eru. But as you may have heard, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

In the end, the Valar were created beings and were certainly capable of error. Also, their job was not to protect the Children of Ilúvatar at all costs, through all circumstances. The Valar were governors under the One, and all that they did, and more importantly, did not do, should be considered in that light.

[Galadriel55]

In Tolkien's works there is no "black and white". There is no perfect character, not even the Valar. There are hardly any completely evil characters. And even they did not begin evil.

There is some good and some bad in everyone. The fact that one is fighting against Morgoth doesn't make him an angel.


Personally, the first time I read The Sil I had a similar reaction, except that it was about Feanor's sons in particular. First Maedhros appeared a sensible enough guy, but then the second and third kinslayings and all that stuff...

And welcome to the Downs!

[Nikkolas]

The problem I take with the Valar is that the narrative does not make note of their flaws. It comments, quite often, on what the failings of Feanor and his sons were. But of the Valar? Constant hyperbole about their splendor and wonderfulness and blah blah blah.

I don't see it. i see a group of very powerful beings who are as flawed as any Elf or Man. In fact I find many of their acts, or thoughts, reprehensible. When Aulë made the Dwarves and was confronted by Eru, he was willing to kill them all. Oh sure he felt bad, but he was willing to commit genocide on his own utterly helpless creations.

What divinely good being would do such a thing?

And thanks for the welcome Galadriel.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

First of all, I must say that the title of this piece is rather over the top. I would say that it might be wise to lighten the tone (saying "suck" is a bit much) before someone does it for you.

Perhaps it was a bit much. My apologies.

Hmmm..."screw you everyone"? Again, laying it on a bit thick, aren't you? The only reason she shed her Maiaric persona and appeared in mortal raiment was because of her love for Thingol. Has it ever occurred to you that Melian was deep in mourning and perhaps incapable of retaining her protection around Doriath? The traumatic death of a husband or wife can be debilitating, perhaps even for a Maia.

Oh it certainly has occurred to me. Just as it occurred to me that Fingolfin was deep in mourning when he went to challenge Morgoth. He needlessly sacrificed his life.

This is a time of war. People are mourning everywhere. Melian is not the first monarch to lose someone she loves.

If she was a true queen and cared about her people, she would not have left them defenseless.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

And the reason that his mission, as opposed to Eärendil's, was unsuccessful, was the simple fact that Eärendil had already gone to bat for the world in that way. A second time would not be the same, as Amandil himself well knew.

And why was it unsuccessful? Why did the Valar and Eru Himself slaughter helpless women and children?
This is not simply a case of "And Man Grew Proud." It's a case of "And Man...were Men and then were used by a being with powers and abilities far beyond their own. A being who is only at large because the gods were inept."

In The Silmarillion I admire most characters like Turin. It is made very clear that he is flawed and yet he is also heroic. There is no pretense of great pureness there.

Speaking of which, I need to get to The Children of Hurin. it goes into greater detail of his life and character, right?

[Galadriel55]

It never says that the Valar are perfect. They are more poweful than the Eruhini. They might be closer to, but definitely not ideal.

The narrative doesn't need to say "however, they sometimes made mistakes". We know that. They do not know the future and the consequences of their actions (since Eru's vision was very unclear), and can err the same way Elves, Men, and Drawves can. The might not be as flawed, but because they have more power, the consequences are bigger.

About Aule: Creating the dwarves in the first place wasn't a very good act. Aside from "mocking Eru", Aule was impatient, he didn't tell the other Valar about his idea, and he didn't even think it through thoroughly. Not very good qualities, are they? When he understood what he's done, he wanted to undo it. In the end, though, we see how any act ultimately turns to good, like Iluvatar predicted in the Ainulindale.

Fingolfin wasn't in mourning, he was in despair. 'Fey'. Also, he thought there is nothing left to live for, so he might as well challenge Morgoth than just be killed by orcs.

As for Amandil... things don't happen twice (hm. I recall this line somewhere in Narnia. Which of the Inklings copied it off the other? ). The world was saved, and history brought to a climax point, by Earendil's voyage. It couldn't happen that way again (if it did, I wonder if the Ainulindale would sound like a record that got stuck and was playing the same thig over and over again... ). The next time history came to a climax, something else had to happen. It just had to.

This is not simply a case of "And Man Grew Proud." It's a case of "And Man...were Men and then were used by a being with powers and abilities far beyond their own. A being who is only at large because the gods were inept."

I don't really understant what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborte a bit?

[Nikkolas]

I'm saying that the entire tale of the Numenorians is obviously supposed to give a message. It's a story of how Men grew mightier, prouder and in all ways superior to any other race of Men to ever live.

Then they grew greedy. They had longer life than any other mortal but they wanted immortality. But it is not simply desire that drove them. Fearing your own death is a natural instinct. If you have longer to think about it, have longer to wait until "The End", the fear will be even worse.

But no matter what their failings, the true Fall of he Numenorians only happened because Sauron was there. And why was Sauron there? Because the Valar allowed him to be. When the Valar stamped out the rest of Morgoth's forces they let slip his most abled and deadly servant.

It is through Sauron's deception and malice that Numenor was undone, not just the Numenorians' own egos.

The Valar are as much to blame as anyone else for allowing his evil to endure and spread across the land.

we see how any act ultimately turns to good, like Iluvatar predicted in the Ainulindale.

I always liked that passage.

'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilъvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'

My interpretation of that dialogue is Eru created Melkor to be evil. Being evil was his purpose in creation. It's why I don't think Morgoth is truly evil in the modern sense that evil is a choice. He never really had one.

[Galadriel55]

Morgoth wsn't created to be the "base drum" of the ainulindale that covers all other sounds. He chose to do so. In the beginning, he wasn't evil.

Yes, Sauron helped destroy Numenor. However, the Numenorians chose to listen to him and follow his instructions. Moreover, all Sauron did was speed up the decline. He wouldn't have been able to do so if there wasn't a good fertils soil to plant on.

Some of the major virtues in the legendarium are pity and forgiveness. Those who do not understand them...

Originally Posted by The Voyage of Earendil and the War of Wrath

He thought that he forever estranged the Noldor from the Lords of the West, and that content in their blissful realm the Valar would heed no more his kingdom in the world without; for to him that is pitiless the deeds of pity are strange ad beyond reconing.

And look what happened to Morgoth!

We see many characters achieve certain wisdom through forgiveness/pity. Bilbo, Frodo, Faramir, Turin to some extent, etc. Eonwe forgave Sauron when he surrendered. Just like the other beings in Arda, he couldn't predict what this would cause.

[Nikkolas]

You cannot tell me that the Numenorians would have started sacrificing people to Morgoth had Sauron not come....

They also would not have attacked Valar. In fact, Ar-Pharazôn flat out refused to do so even as Sauron encouraged him. He did not dare it until he was at death's doorstep and thus had pretty much lost all reason in place of fear.

As for Melkor, he was born of Eru's mind. Eru Himself made Melkor to be willfull, fearful and proud. There's also the theological paradox present of whether free will can even exist if we are created by an omnipotent and omniscient being. Because even as we type these posts, this was foretold and destined to happen at the beginning of existence. Therefore free will cannot really exist.

But that really tangles up Tolkien's ideas with Christianity and that is a really heated debate I don't want to get into.

[Galadriel55]

Definitely a heated debate, which I would not like argue about in this thread. However, it can be boild down to this: If there is free will, there is choice. If there is no choice, what's the point of free will?

Numenorians might not have started sacrificing people in the name of Morgoth (since they didn't know who he is), but weren't they doing it already, without naming him and doing a special ceremony? Elendili were put to death for disagreeing, anyone who spoke Elvish was severely punished (I don't remember if it was a death penalty, though)... In other words, whatever Morgoth would want them to do, just without he ceremonies.

Maybe without Sauron Pharazon wouldn't have rebelled against the Valar. But his son, or grandson, or great-grandson (etc) would have. The reason Pharazon didn't go right away was because of elemental fear. How many generations would it take for the fear to decrease enough?

[Nikkolas]

I don't remember them sacrificing people before Sauron suggested it. Then again I could be mistaken.

Anyway, it's entirely possible (and probable) that Numenor would have gotten itself sunk eventually. But what-ifs are not important. It remains that Sauron did poison the people against the Valar. It is Sauron who pushed them to madness and death and evil.

He is only there because the Valar allowed him to be. The Valar's failing is a cause of the death of Numenor is all I'm saying.

I am enjoying this discussion though.

[Galadriel55]

I'm glad that your head is still intact from my babbling.

What I was talking about is not "official" sacrifices to someone specific (ie Morgoth), but rather murder that is ordered by the king that make Morgoth's dream (chaos etc) come true.

The Valar rarely interfere with the outside world. Not because they don't care. Because they leave a choice to the Eruhini. They sent the istari - you might think "big deal, 5 old wizards!" but it's more than that. It's a way to assist ME without completely controlling it.

Sauron came to Numenor because Pharazon took him there.

At the end of the 1st age, Sauron was left alive because of pity, as I said before. Later on, the Valar did not interfere in the world's affairs for a long time.


I'm trying to say something more complicated than my brains can hold. I'm confusing myself, and probably going in circles with my arguments. Gonna go hang my brain on a clothsline for a while to air out.

[Nikkolas]

I understand your points. ^^

I suppose you could look at them having "traitors" executing as the first step to sacrifices.

As for the rest, the Valar's actions are a bit erratic. Sometimes they don't want to interfere, and sometimes they do. If they had a single uniform policy of non-interference, I could respect that. But think of it from the perspective of a Numenorian.

"You helped the Elves and Men and everyone else! Why won't you help us?!"

i could not even begin to blame them for being bitter. The inaction of the Valar, and the completely monstrous act of sinking Numenor, make the controllers of the fates of Arda look quite malevolent or at least not benevolent.

As for Sauron, he at least had noble intentions. His design was to rule the world because only through dictatorship could order and peace be achieved. It's understandable that he would think this way given the chaos he's seen. Unfortunately for him he overestimated his own ability to right all the wrongs of the world.

[Galadriel55]

NOTE: the Valar didn't sink Numenor. Eru did.

The Valar (and Eru) didn't act until Pharazon completely decided that he wants to wage war against Valinor. There were warnings for him while he still was in Numenor. He didn't heed. He was given a last chance, and he almost took it - just before he stepped onto Aman - but pride was stronger. It's his pride that killed him.

I have to agree that the Valar are fairly inconsistent, with other issues as well. For example, they give Tuor immortality when they can't give it to Beren.

I guess that they think they are too uninvolved, so they stick their noses in, decide that they are messing around too much, go back into seclusion...

[Nikkolas]

Well I've quite enjoyed our little discussion. But I have a throbbing headache and can't really stare at my computer screen. I'll respond tomorrow I guess.

Been nice chatting with you.

[tumhalad2]

Nikkolas - a fascinating and thought provoking response to The Silmarillion - perhaps my favourite of Tolkien's works.

I think there is a great deal of truth in what you say about the Valar. The question is, is there the interprative space within the text itself to allow for a reading of them that emphasises their negative qualities, as opposed to their positive ones. Given that the metafictional conceit of The Silmarillion is that it was written by Elves (or Numenoreans through Elvish traditions) we must be cautious when answering this question: naturally the Elves (or the High Elves, at any rate) are predisposed to think highly of the Valar. Nonetheless, I think it is certainly reasonable to assign some degree of blame to the Valar, say, for allowing Sauron to continue inhabiting Middle-earth, or to Melian for abandoning Doriath.

One aspect of The Silmarillion that has really grown on me is the sheer selfishness of the motivations of the characters who oppose Morgoth. Unlike Gandalf, characters like Feanor or even Hurin don't oppose him because he is "evil": they oppose him because he is either a threat to their status (Morwen and Hurin are very concerned for Turin partly because he is the "heir" destined to inheret wide lands) or because he commited a crime against property (stole the Silmarilli). Unlike the War of the Ring in the Third Age, the Wars of Beleriand, pitting the Noldor and the Sindar against Morgoth, are offensive in their design; their goal is not merely to overthrow Morgoth because he is an existential threat, like Sauron.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

And why was it unsuccessful? Why did the Valar and Eru Himself slaughter helpless women and children?

Amandil's voyage was in vain because the Valar had already accepted such an embassy once before. Every time Men and Elves got in a bind, should they have had the fallback of running to the West for protection? No. That, ultimately, was not the purpose of the Valar.
It can be argued that the "gifts" given to the Edain by the Valar, their proximity to the Undying Lands and their extended lifespan, contributed to the fall of Númenor. However, you can't reasonably accuse the Valar and the One of murder because of it. What Ilúvatar did in destroying the island had to be done, as Ar-Pharazôn and his army could well have wrought death and ruin in Valinor.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

This is not simply a case of "And Man Grew Proud." It's a case of "And Man...were Men and then were used by a being with powers and abilities far beyond their own. A being who is only at large because the gods were inept."

The Númenóreans made choices, some to follow the King's Men (and ultimately, Sauron), and some to hold fast to reverence for the Elves, the Valar, and Ilúvatar. That Sauron was not strong enough to sway all the people of Númenor is obvious. The King's Men followed him of their own free will. If the Faithful were capable of resisting, so were the others.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Speaking of which, I need to get to The Children of Hurin. it goes into greater detail of his life and character, right?

CoH is basically a melding of the Silmarillion generalisation of Túrin's tale and the much more detailed Narn in UT.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

As for Melkor, he was born of Eru's mind. Eru Himself made Melkor to be willfull, fearful and proud. There's also the theological paradox present of whether free will can even exist if we are created by an omnipotent and omniscient being. Because even as we type these posts, this was foretold and destined to happen at the beginning of existence. Therefore free will cannot really exist.

But that really tangles up Tolkien's ideas with Christianity and that is a really heated debate I don't want to get into.

If you haven't already done so, check out this thread, which delves into that subject.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

As for Sauron, he at least had noble intentions. His design was to rule the world because only through dictatorship could order and peace be achieved. It's understandable that he would think this way given the chaos he's seen. Unfortunately for him he overestimated his own ability to right all the wrongs of the world.

You're joking, right? That's why he sacrificed innocent people in Númenor, then? And why he made the Rings of Power? With them Sauron enslaved Nine Men, basically overwriting their innate humanity, turning them into undead slaves who had absolutely no will of their own. And let's not forget his impaling Celebrimbor's body on a pole and using it for a banner. If that isn't a sign of noble intentions, what is?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Unlike the War of the Ring in the Third Age, the Wars of Beleriand, pitting the Noldor and the Sindar against Morgoth, are offensive in their design; their goal is not merely to overthrow Morgoth because he is an existential threat, like Sauron.

And for that reason the Valar turned their backs on the Noldor: their war wasn't just.

[Nikkolas]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Amandil's voyage was in vain because the Valar had already accepted such an embassy once before. Every time Men and Elves got in a bind, should they have had the fallback of running to the West for protection? No. That, ultimately, was not the purpose of the Valar.
It can be argued that the "gifts" given to the Edain by the Valar, their proximity to the Undying Lands and their extended lifespan, contributed to the fall of Númenor. However, you can't reasonably accuse the Valar and the One of murder because of it. What Ilúvatar did in destroying the island had to be done, as Ar-Pharazôn and his army could well have wrought death and ruin in Valinor.

If he is so powerful (and certainly if he is omnipotent), Eru could have easily defeated the King's Men and not destroyed Numenor. Their entire fighting force vanquished, what threat were the poor women and children on the island to the Valar?

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

You're joking, right? That's why he sacrificed innocent people in Númenor, then? And why he made the Rings of Power? With them Sauron enslaved Nine Men, basically overwriting their innate humanity, turning them into undead slaves who had absolutely no will of their own. And let's not forget his impaling Celebrimbor's body on a pole and using it for a banner. If that isn't a sign of noble intentions, what is?

I was thinking of this quote when it comes to Sauron's motivations:

"[Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co- ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. (It was the apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first attracted Sauron to him.)"
Myths Transformed

There are also other quotes about how Sauron's tyranny started out with noble intentions.

Was what Sauron did evil? Certainly. That doesn't mean Sauron believed it was wrong. To him, enslaving the world was the only way to help it.

Free will breeds selfishness and evil. If you could min control the human race to only think and act for the whole and not for themselves, you could very readily eradicate evil. It's just a price too great for some to fathom.

And thanks for the link to the Morality thread. Great read so far.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

There are also other quotes about how Sauron's tyranny started out with noble intentions.

Was what Sauron did evil? Certainly. That doesn't mean Sauron believed it was wrong. To him, enslaving the world was the only way to help it.

Free will breeds selfishness and evil. If you could min control the human race to only think and act for the whole and not for themselves, you could very readily eradicate evil. It's just a price too great for some to fathom.

But some might argue such an act would be, in itself, evil. Are "mind-controlled" people, with no will of their own, even people at all?

I don't think Tolkien meant that Sauron's initial good intentions included enslaving everyone. That was surely a product of Sauron's later corruption– though no doubt he still presented it to himself in the same terms you do. But then, I rather suspect real-world dictators are often pretty good at kidding themselves, too.

As for your contention that Morgoth had no choice but to be evil– well, your argument there rests on a belief in absolute determinism (which you apparently later reject– see the above). Unfortunately for you, that would apply equally to every other character– including the "good" who "suck so much"– making the entire discussion null and void.

In general: Nikkolas, what you seem to be getting worked up about, basically, is that the characters aren't completely black-and-white. Is that really a problem?

[Nikkolas]

As I said, I have no problem with a bit of grey. Turin was my favorite "hero" in The Silmarillion precisely because he broke from the mold and was atypical. Flawed undoubtedly, heroic certainly, and perpetually ruled by a curse that is apparently both created without and within. His character is transparent and we can plainly see his positive and negative traits.

Does this happen with the Valar? No. The narrative takes a clear direction that they are "too good and too pure". I don't buy that. I want them held accountable for their mistakes. I want their flaws to be highlighted as much as the flaws of Feanor or Turin.

And well, yeah, I guess my idea that free will doesn't really exist - at least when it comes to the Valar - does kind of shoot in the foot my condemning of them. Well this is why I've never been much of a debater.

And by "enslavement" I just meant conquest. Sauron's goal was to subjugate all people under his will as he believed he was the only one who could provide order to a world that desperately needed it.
I didn't mean he'd put elves and men in chains and have them bought and sold or anything like that.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Does this happen with the Valar? No. The narrative takes a clear direction that they are "too good and too pure". I don't buy that. I want them held accountable for their mistakes. I want their flaws to be highlighted as much as the flaws of Feanor or Turin.

I get the feeling that Tolkien was maybe heading in that direction. I haven't really had the opportunity to read much of the History of Middle-earth series. Those who have: do earlier or later depictions of the Valar (say in the Book of Lost Tales) make them more morally culpable, within the text itself?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Does this happen with the Valar? No. The narrative takes a clear direction that they are "too good and too pure". I don't buy that. I want them held accountable for their mistakes. I want their flaws to be highlighted as much as the flaws of Feanor or Turin.

They are "too good, too pure", but not flawless: that comes from the fact that they are, after all, limited in some way. They are prone to ire or bad judgement. Even to failure. Remember Aulë and the Dwarves (the difference between Melkor and Aulë is that Aulë is capable of seeing his mistake and even though he does not like it, he is willing to accept some punishment for it - which he does not get). I have read all the posts above, but only in a cursory way, so I am not sure if somebody hasn't mention that (but if they didn't, it surprises me, as that's the first thing that would come into my mind) - remember the first wars before the coming of the Firstborn. It created so much of a mess that the Valar never dared to repeat such a thing again, only when it was really clear that there is no other way (the War of Wrath). I think here is the answer to most of the questions you have raised in the first place (as in, why not interfere at Númenor etc.).

Also, there is the thing with how Valar (as well as Elves and all the sort of "magical" things) gradually wane and get away from Middle-Earth, get detached more and more, and by the coming of Third Age, they just send Istari, and even later, it seems the link is broken whatsoever, because there are no more Elves or any contact with Aman (at some point, the ships stopped coming from Aman, and later, they even stopped leaving for Aman). And it is sort of also more burden of responsibility growing for the Children - not having the Valar fix every problem, but Eru technically giving them increasing freedom throughout the ages, which they have to sort of learn to use (as implied e.g. by Gandalf's words to the Hobbits at the end of RotK, etc).

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

If he is so powerful (and certainly if he is omnipotent), Eru could have easily defeated the King's Men and not destroyed Numenor. Their entire fighting force vanquished, what threat were the poor women and children on the island to the Valar?

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

I know I'm going into the "what ifs", but let's pretend that it happened. Eru killd Pharazon's army, but leaves Numenor. The result? A few generations later they bring a bigger army to avenge Pharazon.

He allowed the Faithful to escape. He didn't kill everyone.

As for Sauron's noble intentions, everyone thinks they are good and noble and all that stuff! If you'd ask him "are you evil?", he'd say "of course not!" What else would you expect him to say? Not that he would waste time talking about that subject...

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

If he is so powerful (and certainly if he is omnipotent), Eru could have easily defeated the King's Men and not destroyed Numenor. Their entire fighting force vanquished, what threat were the poor women and children on the island to the Valar?

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

Tolkien said the supremely bad evil in his tale was the domination of free will. This is what Morgoth and Sauron represent in their rebellion against Eru.

If Eru were to take away free will and stamp out all rebellion, he would be no different from Melkor or Sauron. Eru allowed free will into all his creations, and this means all of Eru's creations were capable of varying degrees of what Tolkien called the "Fall." The guarantee of free will is the only thing that separates Eru from Melkor.

As far as the genocide, not seeing it. Elendil was instructed to gather all the Faithful and their family on to the ships. And The Silmarillion, from what I recall, is explicit in, the Faithful, including women and children, were on the ships leaving Numenor.

[Nikkolas]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

As for Sauron's noble intentions, everyone thinks they are good and noble and all that stuff! If you'd ask him "are you evil?", he'd say "of course not!" What else would you expect him to say? Not that he would waste time talking about that subject...

That actually reminds me of a thread I made elsewhere about why Sauron and the other Maiar chose evil. I can understand why Men serve Morgoth for they have precious little sight. But a Maiar like Sauron should know the cosmic working of things. He should know about how good will always triumph.

To my great surprise, I found a thing by Tolkien discussing pretty much that exact same thing. Seems Sauron deluded himself into thinking Eru an impotent god and etc..

Originally Posted by Boromir88

As far as the genocide, not seeing it. Elendil was instructed to gather all the Faithful and their family on to the ships. And The Silmarillion, from what I recall, is explicit in, the Faithful, including women and children, were on the ships leaving Numenor.

Genocide is defined as-
"The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

It doesn't mean he sent out to stamp out every last one of them.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

That actually reminds me of a thread I made elsewhere about why Sauron and the other Maiar chose evil. I can understand why Men serve Morgoth for they have precious little sight. But a Maiar like Sauron should know the cosmic working of things. He should know about how good will always triumph.

He wanted power that he could not achieve through the "good" Valar's methods.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Genocide is defined as-
"The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

It doesn't mean he sent out to stamp out every last one of them.

It's usually a good idea to use context and think of The Silmarillion (or any story) on its own terms and not slap modern definitions, or inflammatory analogies, on it.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

In context, the Akallabêth is a retelling of an admixture of the biblical flood story and the Greek Atlantis (or as Tolkien called it Atalantë -- Quenyan for "Downfallen"); therefore, it contains Plato's reverence for the advanced culture of the Atlanteans, and the biblical references to the antediluvian world with its wickedness and blood sacrifice, as well as Noah and the faithful's redemption, and the destruction of the Gibborim and Nephilim, giants, warriors and conquering heroes of great renown (great descriptors of Numenoreans at the time).

Tolkien was a masterful synthesizer of world myth, so you have to take the events in context to an overall synthesized cosmology of Middle-earth. Some posters want to take bits and pieces of the mythos and blow them out of proportion, rather than looking at the tale macrocosmically, or even in a historiographical sense, dragging post-modernistic literary and psychological views that are frankly not germane to the manner in which the story was written.

[Rumil]

Hi all,

interesting thoughts from Nikkolas, welcome to the Downs!

I think Morth has made a telling contribution, that the Downfall of Numenor was based on various legends. And it is of course a morally repugnant act by Eru, no matter whether you are 'within' or 'outside' the book setting. Unless of course all those too young to consciously choose Sauron/Melkor-worship were somehow packed onto Elendil's ships, which seems unlikely. However, this does follow the patterns of some of our oldest legends. Eru is indeed a vengeful God it seems.

The Valar, to be fair, though wise and powerful, are neither omniscient or omnipotent. They get things wrong, make mistakes and errors of omission, fail to judge character well etc etc. Somewhat like the Olympian Gods they are a bit 'human'. Maybe thats what gives them some character. As Legate says they see the need to avoid intervening in Middle Earth after they nearly destroyed the place in their original war against Morgoth before the awakening. Torn between desire to help and fear of destruction, they don't always make the best decisions.

The infighting of the Noldor and Sindar bizarrely makes me think of 'The Great Escape', the bit where Bartlett is trapped by the Gestapo wishing him 'good luck' in English and he automatically replies in English and thus gets caught. Every time I watch it I hope he's not going to fall for it! Much like every time I read the Sil, I'm muttering ' nooooo! don't be so damned stupid yet again!', Turin makes me think of Basil Fawlty, the amazing talent he has for doing exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time.

Elves are too remote from mortals, the Valar even more remote, and Eru is ultimately remote.