Saruman the Good

[ninja91]

What do you think would have happened had Saruman not turned to evil ways in LOTR?

[Rhod the Red]

Well he would have been pretty helpfull, like rallying Rohan instead of Gandalf after returning from death. Rhohan could have arrived earlier with forces.

[tom bombariffic]

would have been a whole different book!

Loads of implications, wouldn't necessarily have worked out though...for example pippin would not have looked into the palantir, thus jeapordising the entire ending!

On balabce thoguh, I'm sure with the help of isengard, it would have worked out in the end though, even though it would have been very different. Something tells me Gandalf and Saruman together would not have been defeated.

bombariffic

[Mithalwen]

However, the orcs who attacked at Parth Galen were Saruman's orcs. Although the breaking of the fellowship seemed catastrophic at the time it was vital for the success of the Quest.

The ring would not have been destroyed without the intervention of Gollum at the last moment. If there had not been the attack at Parth Galen it would have been a different and larger group going to Mordor. My guess is that they would not have got so far as the 2 hobbits alone guided by the duplicitous Gollum.

The other key to the success ofthe quest was the emptying of Mordor of troops at the vital time. While Helms' Deep weakened the Rohirrim it did put them in a state of readiness that by the time the red arrow arrived they were already on their way. Also without the pursuit of the Hobbits into Rohan, Aragorn would surely not have been taking the paths of the Dead as his route into Gondor. The two fortuitous arrivals of the armies of Rohan and the Dead enabled the Captains of the West to hold off the enemy at Minas Tirith and create the diversion at the Black gates.

A good Saruman would not have hadTheoden under a malign influence and without that Eowyn might not have been desperate enough to ride to war and fulfil the Prophecy of Gloprfindel regarding the Witch King (especially since she would nothave met Aragorn).

If Boromir had survived (no orc attack remember!), I can't see Denethor killing himself regardless of what happened of Faramir, This would have shifted the dynamic of the Lords of the West. Denethor would still be influenced by the gloomy visions of hte Palantir and it is not hard to imagine that he would have not supported the attack on the Black Gate as the more positive Imrahil did.


In short ... tom bomabariffic is right it would be a very different book!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

But isn't this just what happened when Gandalf became the White? He pretty clearly states that he is Saruman, or "Saruman as he was meant to be." So when Saruman went evil, he was replaced by Gandalf who became the new/true Saruman: Saruman the White/Good.

Which makes me think. If Gandalf the White really is "Saruman as he was meant to be" then does not this imply that it was Saruman's role to rally Rohan, save Minas Tirith and Crown Aragorn? Maybe this all ties back to Gandalf's other claim that he is "a steward" -- Saruman is properly the white, but he (like the line of Isildur) "has failed" and so his role is taken up by his steward Gandalf.

[Boromir88]

To add a little bit more, if Saruman had not turned to "evil" there would be no reason for Gandalf to recieve a "power boost," and come back after dying in his fight with the Balrog.

As Fordim points out "Gandalf was as Saruman should have been." And if Saruman stayed the right course and had not left the "path to wisdom," then Eru would have no reason to send Gandalf back:

For in his condition it was for him a sacrifice to perish on the Bridge in defence of his companions, less perhaps than for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to 'the Rules': for all he could know at that moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up personal hope of success....

That I should say is what the Authority wished, as a set-off to Saruman. The 'wizards', as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. [...]He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure.~Letter 156

When Gandalf battles the balrog he's putting his entire task, and fate of Middle-earth on the line. In the Fellowship he is the only one who could have stopped the Balrog, but with Saruman turning to bad, he was the only Istari left that could complete the task and help Middle-earth against Sauron. The Istari were sent by the Vala, and when they "failed" (except for Gandalf) Eru took up the plan and enhanced Gandalf's abilities because he was the only one of the Istari that would be able to complete the task. And it was to counter Saruman.

Had Saruman not gone bad, there would be no reason to send back Gandalf, because Saruman would be the one doing what Gandalf had done when he returned as "Gandalf the White."

I will say if Saruman had not gone "bad," it probably would have made the people's of Middle-earth's lives a lot easier.

[Mithalwen]

It did make me think that if Gandalf returned in order to be Saruman as he should have been if Faramir walked out of the woods of Ithilien to be Boromir as he should have been. There was a thread a year or so ago about how various charaters were foils for others I think... perhaps I should try to find it and resurrect it..

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Aren't we missing a rather obvious point...? If Saruman had not fallen and decided to emulate Sauron, then there would have been NO ill-effect of the War felt in the Shire. The lessons that the hobbits learned from that essential episode would have been lost -- in effect, the Quest of the Ringbearer would have been, in this case, an utter waste since his return would have had no impact of any sort on his world; it would have been allowed to run on, uninterrupted and happily oblivious to the dangers which surrounded and threatened it.

Without Saruman the Bad, there would have been no need to fight to reclaim the Shire (so Merry and Pippin's abilities as warriors would have been mere vainglory -- like Boromir -- rather than active principles of defense and self-sacrifice for a beloved homeland -- like Faramir), no need to redeem it (so Sam's hard fought wisdom would have found no ground in which to plant the seed of what he had learned and brought back), no chance for the hobbits to prove that they are worthy of such a paradise as they've been given (Frodo would not have been able to seal their victory over the bad with an act of profound mercy).

[Mithalwen]

You are presupposing that in the changed circumstances all the hobbits would have survived and the war was won.....

[Lalwendë]

Well, that's a pretty big 'what if' question! Saruman not going 'bad' would just about alter the whole story! Which just goes to show how pivotal he is to the plot.

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

But isn't this just what happened when Gandalf became the White? He pretty clearly states that he is Saruman, or "Saruman as he was meant to be." So when Saruman went evil, he was replaced by Gandalf who became the new/true Saruman: Saruman the White/Good.

Which makes me think. If Gandalf the White really is "Saruman as he was meant to be" then does not this imply that it was Saruman's role to rally Rohan, save Minas Tirith and Crown Aragorn? Maybe this all ties back to Gandalf's other claim that he is "a steward" -- Saruman is properly the white, but he (like the line of Isildur) "has failed" and so his role is taken up by his steward Gandalf.

I often wonder about the issue of Gandalf the White being 'Saruman as he was meant to be'. Of course, on one level it simply means that Gandalf has been given the status of leader of the Istari in Middle-earth as Saruman has revealed his treachery. But it also makes me wonder if this really is the same Gandal? He might be a Gandalf with a changed mission and changed status (even a changed personality as Bethberry pointed out a few weeks ago), but is he Gandalf at all?

Is this Gandalf the same Gandalf the Grey who came from Valinor or has a "New Gandalf" been sent back?

'Gandalf," the old man repeated, as if recalling from old memory a long disused word. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf."

It is as though a wizard is simply a blank page to be written on, or perhaps more like an Etch-a-Sketch! The picture of the wizard is drawn and then it is shaken up to remove it and a new wizard can be drawn in that space. I think this is something about the mysterious nature of the Maiar, that a form taken can be altered in this way; it means that there is no reason why New Gandalf could not resemble Saruman in some way.

[Anguirel]

My main reaction is that a Saruman as unambiguously gleaming white as his robes would be a deadly dull character. Like Gandalf the White but without the advantage of being "known" to the reader.

A possibility I can imagine would be a Saruman still treacherous, but in a way that did not exclude helping fight Sauron. My Saruman would probably have agreed to help Gandalf with his Ring-lore after the defeat at Helm's Deep and remained an unknown, Machiavellian quantity, his motives hard to tell, his voice seducing both sides, trusted by no-one.

It would be quite ironic to have a "good" Gandalf the Grey and an "ambiguous" Saruman the White.

Fordim, I like your idea of Saruman's original role but am not sure how it would be constructed. Mandos, after all, said of Gandalf "not as the third..."-but perhaps the rallying and crowning would be Saruman's role as planned by Manwe?

[Raynor]

Mandos, after all, said of Gandalf "not as the third..."

That was Varda

[Anguirel]

Blimming indistinguishable faceless Gods. I'm sure Mandos said something...

[Mänwe]

A query such as this produces a great list of suppositions, thus here is my two pennies worth.

Gandalf's sacrifice would not even have been needed. They would not have passed through Moria but continued on their original journey through the mountain pass.

The events consequently at Amon Hen would have been a totally different affair. I would suggest perhaps even the entire fellowship would not have "broken". Frodo's admiration and love for Gandalf would have given cause for him to stay and not to leave.

Building on the point raised about the palantir, Aragorn would not have revealed himself through the palantir to Sauron. Thus Saurons attack on Gondor would have been delayed.

The list I am sure would be rather long if we all took the time to think of every possible angle. A concertina effect of occurences is bought to mind here.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Blimming indistinguishable faceless Gods. I'm sure Mandos said something...

Mandos said not the first to Feanor.... Mandos says a lot - not a lot of it cheerful

[Sardy]

Also, Saruman would have used his extensive Ring-lore for GOOD. Since we know he constructed some sort of ring for himself (open to much speculation) he might've devised something for use against the Enemy. Or at the very least, his knowledge of the Ruling Ring, the Nine, the Seven and the Three (not to mention other lesser rings) could very possibly have been used against Sauron in ways we can ony imagine: whether Saruman knew of alterntive ways to destroy the One, flaws in or aspects that could be exploited in the design of the rings themselves, and so on...

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Sardy

Also, Saruman would have used his extensive Ring-lore for GOOD. Since we know he constructed some sort of ring for himself (open to much speculation) he might've devised something for use against the Enemy.

Perhaps, though making a ring to battle Sauron might fall under the category of attempting to use the Enemy's tools, a strategy of which the author would most likely not have approved.

[Sardy]

Originally Posted by Celuien

Perhaps, though making a ring to battle Sauron might fall under the category of attempting to use the Enemy's tools, a strategy of which the author would most likely not have approved.

Yes, but we're speculating on a GOOD Saruman, here---a plot device of which the author most assuredly DIDN'T appove...

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Sardy

Yes, but we're speculating on a GOOD Saruman, here---a plot device of which the author most assuredly DIDN'T appove...

Quite true, though I think that the mere act of making a ring for the purpose of challenging Sauron would have required turning bad, or at least ambiguous. To defeat Sauron at his own game, a desire for power would almost certainly come into play. The ring's power has to include something to allow its bearer to have the ability to control others into taking action, and something to give sheer power greater than Sauron. The story takes on a different moral theme if Saruman makes a 'bigger and badder' ring to defeat Sauron. Instead of the weak triumphing through adversity because they clung to the right path, it becomes a battle of wills of the great and mighty. It's a slippery slope for Saruman to then have lust for power and control emerge after the use of power that would have been required to defeat Sauron through the use of a ring. Thus, I can't imagine a good Saruman even considering making one.

Now, using his ring lore for good is an entirely different matter, and one that good-Saruman could certainly have been helpful with...

[Sardy]

Originally Posted by Celuien

Quite true, though I think that the mere act of making a ring for the purpose of challenging Sauron would have required turning bad...

Possibly. But I tend to think that there is much, much more to ring-lore and craft than just making an evil ruling ring. I think that Sauron's use of "evil" in designing his ring was a bit of an enigma. Surely the Three were not evil, nor any (or at least most) of the lesser rings crafted by the elves (and others?). I would assume that the many lesser rings that existed were (for the most part) not evil (or perhaps we would've heard more about them?)

What I'm getting at is that to design a ring-weapon might have gone against Tolkien's vision (though when dicussing and imagining alternate strategies and story-lines, I also think t's fair to consider alternate philosophies, ideals, strategies than Tolkien's, etc.) But if Saruman did posses the extensive ring-lore that he boasted (and, indeed, aligned himself with the good), either alone or with the elven-smiths, he could very consivably have crafted a ring to RESIST (as opposed to challenge) Sauron. Or a ring to of light powerful enough to usurp the One Ring's dark power... and so on...

With more knowledge of, and experts in, ring-lore active in Middle-earth, who knows what magical powers there might've been to behold? Perhaps even a magic ring arms race...

[ninja91]

well, there are obviously many different happenings that would not have occured. you all got me thinking! thanks!

[Lalwendë]

It's not entirely clear exactly what made Saruman go 'bad'. It could have been looking in the Palantir, it could have been his lust for the Ring. It could simply have been his proud nature. Either way, one thing caused him to reach that point and I think that this was his thirst for Ring Lore, which he came to regard as all-important in his own way of approaching the mission he had been set.

In contrast, Gandalf went out into the world and mixed with the people, and in this way he learned of what the Ring could do, and he also learned of its whereabouts. Saruman just learned as much Ring Lore as he could and retreated to Orthanc trusting that information would come to him.

Anyway, this is a roundabout way of getting to the point. I think that if Saruman had by chance not gone 'bad', his Ring Lore would have been the downfall of Middle-earth. Of course the Ring would have found its way to him as the others on the White Council would have deferred to his impressive knowledge and sought his advice and help. Even if Gandalf and Galadriel would have refused to touch the Ring, I think Saruman would not have resisted; his 'knowledge' would have deceived him and he would have attempted to deal with it. And there he would have been caught.

[Huinesoron]

Reading over this thread, I was intrigued by all the focus on how things would have changed if there was no attack at Parth Galen. But the actual big change happens much earlier: when Gandalf is not imprisoned by Saruman, but is free to return directly to the Shire once the Nazgul's mission becomes clear.

He would get back sometime in August, and if his goal is to protect Frodo and the Ring, his #1 best choice is to pull Frodo up onto his own horse and ride straight for Rivendell. Come September, Frodo is safe in the House of Elrond (with no companions!) while the Nine are still hunting for the Shire. They've exhausted the possibilities of the Vale of Anduin, and with no Wormtongue to point them in the right direction, they would... I guess try the far side of the mountains, on the assumption that Gollum probably met 'Baggins' while he was crossing the range? Which means they would reach the region of Rivendell on about the 23rd September.

Since this is still a novel, the Nine would feel that the Ring was in Rivendell (perhaps Bilbo steals it and puts it on), so Frodo's first encounter with the Shadow is when the Black Riders lay a siege of terror around Imladris. Glorfindel et al could drive off any they managed to chase down, but they're not likely to allow themselves to be caught against a river when they've got so much maneuvering space. And as soon as Sauron gets word of it, he's going to send them backup...

I think the only plan here is to slip Frodo out while the powers of Rivendell keep up the defence. The High Pass is impassable, and the open countryside south of Rivendell is, er, a terrible plan, so... they send him north with a single elf as guide (Gandalf has to stay - the Nine know he's there!). He can link up with the Rangers and the Sons of Elrond, who I think are out scouting at this point, and then try to sneak up through the Ettinmoors and old Angmar, pass north of Gundabad (out of which an army may well be marching south!), and journey east through the dragon-haunted wastes north of the Grey Mountains. It's not a terribly safe plan, but it may be the safest available, and it at least has the advantage of being unexpected.

This being a novel, I guess Frodo passes through Erebor and down the River Running, picking up and losing allies along the way. He'll eventually have to try and enter Mordor from the north - or maybe even the east! This version of the story probably requires him to ride a few horses...

You can twist even this version wildly just by changing some assumptions (maybe Gandalf and Saruman drive the Nazgul back from Rohan, and they never go west at all!). I think my point is that stories are fragile - the instant you make a change, it ripples against everything around it. Asking what would happen if the Fellowship didn't break, as if they'd still have formed, and still gone through Moria, is a bit like saying, "If Bilbo had never found the Ring, what would Frodo have thrown into Mount Doom?" - it misses all the differences that come before that point.

hS