If Sauron and his armies had conquered Middle Earth, what would they have done with it?

[Ngugi]

Melkor nor Sauron was at their origin evil, because evil do not exist in a vacuum: evil is a result of intent, action and consequence.
These Dark Lords are only evil because of what they chose to do, they had both repeatdely chances to chose otherwise, but they did not repent or swayed from their paths that intended to impose full control and domination of others, without any respect for anyone else but themselves.
Industrialization is a symptom of the evil, as in, lack of respect for living things, not the reason why they are evil.
Repeatedly (throughout the years this is), the reasonings that are presented, without arguments for why Sauron's rule would be good, but with arguments why (though actually hardly why) we should ignore the facts and apperent terrible and selfish acts commited at hand. That, indeed, is as reasonable as these arguments, if presented to a judge by a defense lawyer;
"Your honour, my client did intentionally murder another man just to get his money. But when he was a five years old he did not care for money. We should not judge him for the murder, therefor."
and
"Your honour, my client did intentionally murder another man just to get his money. But everyone else in the world are not perfectly good. We should not judge him for the murder, therefor."

I do not oppose the theories as part of a fun "What if"-scenario, but honestly, if meant to be taken as a serious alternative, they remain as much founded in Middle-earth as the Smurfs, since and because of they do not care to adress the moral implications of the acts Sauron commited or why he chose to do so. I presume the very topic usually arise from to a modern [healty] scepticism towards the labling of 'good' and 'evil' [I'm of old a semi-relativist, so that's nothing new], but it misses the point that evil is not an entity in itself but the result of an ethic.
Tolkien to not present these labels out of the blue, to have an 'easy story', but they are founded in a moral concern for what is done, why is it done and what are the consequences? Without an actual moral debate in favour of an alternative ethics (such as arguments for why everyones freedom should rightfully be subjected to anothers will no matter what, or why life has no value comapired to the subjective will of a Dark Lord, or even for that nothing at all have any value) it has no actual weight to it.

Tolkien is really infuriating sometimes. In some private letter he confirmed that female Orcs existed, but he doesn't mention them once in his books. Instead he's just super ambiguous about their origins. I wish for once he would have not tried to be all mysterious and just given us a concrete explanation for the origins and reproduction of the Orcs.

Oh yes, Tolkien is certainly vauge and unclear on many, many topics, but do not confuse lack of knowledge for lack of answers.
Tolkien was very clear on that Orcs reproduced just like the Children [Elves and Men; and Dwarves, if considered his adopted Children] a.k.a mommy daddy baby, and they could and would have intercouse with humans to breed:

There must have been orc-women. But in stories that seldom if ever see the Orcs except as soldiers of armies in the service of the evil lords we naturally would not learn much about their lives. Not much was known.
- letter to Mrs Mundby, 21st Octber 1963

For the Orcs had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Ilúvatar; and naught that had life of its own, nor the semblance of life, could ever Melkor make since his rebellion in the Ainulindalë before the Beginning: so say the wise.
- Silmarillion; Of the Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor
(also in/from HoME 10; Grey Annals)

Finally, there is a cogent point, though horrible to relate. It became clear in time that undoubted Men could under the domination of Morgoth or his agents in a few generations be reduced almost to the Orc-level of mind and habits; and then they would or could be made to mate with Orcs, producing new breeds, often larger and more cunning.
There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men...
- HoME 10; Myths Transformed; X; Orcs

etc.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I never made the claim that Sauron was good, just that he wasn't necessarily evil. Or, at least, didn't start out that way, just like Melkor.

I don't mention this as an excuse for their actions, but rather, I feel it is an important distinction. Dragons, for instance, Morgoth created them specifically for war, and to be evil. They are, by default, evil. But Melkor is not, something drove him into being evil, unless he was created with the specific intent of Eru to be evil, in which case... What the hell, Eru?

I look at it from the same perspective any civil war. Sure, Melkor may have rebelled because of his ambition, but I find it very unlikely he just sat up one morning and thought, "Today I will wrest the throne of heaven away from God." Like the Ainur, I think Eru is imperfect. Much more powerful, and wise perhaps, but not perfect, and subject to his own faults and failings.

The book says Sauron and Morgoth are horrible and evil and would destroy everything and Eru is great and just and wise and loves everyone.

Maybe the book is biased?



Also, "his wickedest deed: The interbreeding of Orcs and Men..." Really!? That is his wickedest deed!?

[Bercor]

I don't mention this as an excuse for their actions, but rather, I feel it is an important distinction. Dragons, for instance, Morgoth created them specifically for war, and to be evil. They are, by default, evil. But Melkor is not, something drove him into being evil, unless he was created with the specific intent of Eru to be evil, in which case... What the hell, Eru?

I wouldn't say that, at least in Tolkien's writings, any being, including Dragons, is evil by nature, rather that, as Ngugi said, he can be evil as consequence of his actions. Neither Melkor nor Sauron were necessarily evil, they had the freedom to choose whatever they wanted, and they chosed to reject Eru.

Also, Melkor didn't exactly created the Dragons. Tolkien makes it pretty clear that Eru is the only being in his Legendarium with the capability of creating life and existence, Melkor being only able to corrupt what Eru has created before. Therefore, I think that it's safe to assume that, at least the first few Dragons, were beings inhabited by fallen spirits that Melkor corrupted. The fact that they were corrupted means, of course, that they chose to follow Melkor instead of Eru, and that's why they're evil, not because they're meant to be.

[Roma_Victrix]

Oh yes, Tolkien is certainly vauge and unclear on many, many topics, but do not confuse lack of knowledge for lack of answers.
Tolkien was very clear on that Orcs reproduced just like the Children [Elves and Men; and Dwarves, if considered his adopted Children] a.k.a mommy daddy baby, and they could and would have intercouse with humans to breed:

Hmm...perhaps Tolkien avoided this topic like the plague due to the fact that Orcs interbreeding with humans would have probably necessitated the rape of human women. Otherwise, why would a human woman want to have a sexual relationship with a hideous Orc? Unless of course she was a Dunlending traitor who did it out of spite for Rohan and Gondor. I suppose there's also the possibility of human men having sex with female Orcs, which also puzzles me to say the least. Sauron must have forced them to do this.

[Bercor]

Hmm...perhaps Tolkien avoided this topic like the plague due to the fact that Orcs interbreeding with humans would have probably necessitated the rape of human women. Otherwise, why would a human woman want to have a sexual relationship with a hideous Orc? Unless of course she was a Dunlending traitor who did it out of spite for Rohan and Gondor. I suppose there's also the possibility of human men having sex with female Orcs, which also puzzles me to say the least. Sauron must have forced them to do this.

I suppose that Orcs raping elven and human women was nothing unheard of in Middle-earth, though Tolkien intentionally avoids the subject. For example, Celebrían (Elrond's wife) is said to have been captured and tormented by the orcs (which can be interpreted as rape), aswell as wounded by a poisonous dagger. Elrond was later able to heal her phisically, but the damage in spirit and mind was irreversible, so she left Middle-earth and sailed to Aman.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I believe I saw a quote just earlier today in TATW that said something along the lines of, "The orcs went forth to pillage and rape and war" or some such. It seems to me that Tolkien generally avoided overly graphic descriptions of anything, but it can be assumed that many such things happened. Tolkien never mentions whether the soldiers of Gondor pissed themselves when a horde of trolls crashed into their lines, but it's probably safe to assume they did.

Also, I don't really see a huge distinction. Dragons may be corrupted something, but it's still true that Morgoth created them as they exist now. Same for orcs. If orcs were once men, or elves, it's quite clear they are not anymore. Do you create a table, or are simply corrupting a tree into something else? I don't think it really matters, either way it's not what it once was, and that's because of you.

That's the important factor as I see it. A tree does not choose to be a table, and elves (Or men or whatever) did not choose to be orcs. Orcs are inherently violent, but I don't think they are inherently evil. Dragons, however, are inherently evil I think, in the sense that, they are always self-serving, greedy, unable to have empathy for what they see as "lesser" creatures. They are incapable of doing good.

That isn't the case with Morgoth and Sauron, or the Balrogs or other Maiar that sided with him. They chose to do so. But why? Just greed? Arrogance? Or was it more complicated than that. Take any war and you can see that no side is just utterly evil, even if the leadership is. Perhaps that is the way with the war between Eru and Melkor.

(Of course, I understand Tolkien's intentions were obviously for it to be a black and white, simple story of complete good triumphing over complete evil. But it's more fun to think of it otherwise, in my opinion. Treating it like a history text written by the victors is more fun than treating it like fantasy!)

[Bercor]

Your comparison is flawed, though. Yes, you create a table by transforming a tree into it, because they're both material things. However, you can't create a spirit or life from anything else, it comes ex nihilo, at least in Tolkien's writings.

A tree does not choose to be a table because it is not free, it has no spirit. On the other hand, Orcs and Dragons are free in the sense they can choose to be evil, but are not bound by nature to evilness. Yes, it's unlikely for a Dragon or a Orc to not be evil, but that's because the dominion that Morgoth exercises over his minions and they way they are raised. I'm really curious why you would consider that Orcs are not inherently evil (which I agree) but Dragons are.

In regards to the black and white world, I think that works only on the superior level. While the two main opposed forces in Tolkien's universe are clearly Good and Evil, the individuais that populate the said universe are not so clearly divided. Of course, Morgoth, and later Sauron, represent Evil and can be easily defined so, while Good is represented by "the Powers" (Valar and Maiar) and, ultimately, Eru Illúvatar. However, on an inferior level, all the other characters, ranging from Elves to Orcs, are not completely good nor bad. There's many flaws in both the Eldar and the Edain. The Men that fought for the Dark Lord are said to be manipulated and coerced to fight, I don't think they thought they were fighting for Evil. Even the Orcs, despite having the clear notion of what they were performing, were convinced that their enemies did the same, so, for them, it was fair game.

This is really no surprise, since Tolkien, being a Catholic, believed that our world, in the same superior level, is also black and white, with the fight between God and the Devil.

[Tar-Falassion]

I agree with the idea that Sauron was not fundamentally bad, even during the first part of his "Evil" dominion of Middle-Earth in the Second Age : It is said that after Morgoth's defeat during the War of Wrath he bowed and begged for forgiveness to Eonwë, Herald of the West. And Eonwë ordered him to come back to Aman to be judged by the Valar. But Sauron feared the justice of the Valar and he fled and hid in Middle-Earth. And as centuries past, he sank back in the darkness, and decided to rule all of Middle-Earth.

I also agree on the fact that Morgoth went completely out of control in his nihilistic attempt to unmake Middle-Earth and Eru's creation. Sauron was a follower of Aulë, his passion was in order, not destruction, and although Morgoth perverted order into becoming domination in Sauron's mind, it was still nowhere close to laying waste to all life and lands. Such was the difference of ideology with his master, that I'm not surprised that he did not take part to the War of Wrath.

When Darkness overtook him again and he started building the Barad-Dûr in Mordor, I think he still wanted to dominate Middle-Earth for keeping order in all lands -under his dominion of course, but order still. And that's why I think that he worked with the Elves of Eregion in the creation of the Rings of Power, after his failed attempt to seduce Gil-Galad. He knew that the Elves were longing for preservation of their lands, so their objectives converged; and as they were the most powerful race of the free peoples, they were the perfect agents for Sauron. Plus the Elves had an excessively proud and egoïstic nature, as they wanted both to experience power that Middle-Earth grants them, but at the same time live in the same bliss that only the Undying Lands could give them (they want to both have the cake and eat it, you see). So they were the perfect prey, and it was easy for Sauron to make them work for him.

You see, I think that at this time, more than 15 centuries after Morgoth's demise he started to really understand Morgoth's folly - this can be seen in the way that the Cults of Darkness that he implanted in Middle-Earth evolved over the course of the Ages : at first Sauron presented himself as Morgoth's Herald, and I think he genuinely wished to serve him, and find a way to make him come back to Arda. But as time passed, Sauron figured out that he was perfectly content with his old master out of the way, although he still pretended to serve him. In the end, the Dark Cults didn't even try to spread the worship of Morgoth, as Sauron identified himself to these cults, and eventually the Dark Religion worshipped Sauron, no longer Melkor.
And on the other side, having seen what devastation the Valar wrought on Middle-Earth during the War of Wrath, and how they let him create pockets of Morgoth cultists all around Endor without moving a toe, he might have ended up thinking that the Valar had forsaken Middle-Earth as a whole, and were content with living in Aman, far from everything ...
So he might have seen himself as the only one capable of achieving real order, in order to heal this world marred both by Morgoth's destructive madness and by the Valar's careless vision of justice. But power can only corrupt, and just like what happened with his master, absolute power corrupts absolutely; in the end, he forgot that he wanted to be the one to bring order to Middle-Earth in order to make it a better place, and just wanted to bring order to Middle-Earth, and by extension, dominate it.

So in a way, Sauron may be seen as a true fallen hero, one who believed in his convictions until the end. (after all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions) He is a Darth Vader to Morgoth's Palpatine.

Can we really see Sauron as evil ? In some ways, as he doesn't really gives a choice to the Free Peoples - submit to his vision of order, or be erased from existence - and acts much like a dictator in his own right. Plus, he doesn't really use the fairest of weapons in his wars - armies of Orcs, tortured creatures bred from the twisted, sadistic and nihilistic attempts of Melkor to create a grotesque parody of Eru's creation. Or Nazgûl, Kings of Men kept alive by the power of their Rings and bound to him by Necromancy (not what you expect from a benevolent ruler). And his very presence has been showed to have horrible effect on the environment - even though Mordor is an dry, arid and barren place in normal time, Sauron's return in these lands have made it even more desolate than they were beforehand - and it is even suggested that Sauron's presence has an effect even on the Earth itself, as shown by Mount Doom's activity (extinct during Sauron's captivity on Numenor, then active when Sauron has created himself a new physical form, then inactive for thousands of years during Gondor's watch, and goes full Mustafar again when Sauron comes back before the War of the Rings). And the southern part of Mirkwood is also presented as a sick, twisted place, full of shadows and dark trees. So nature itself suffers from his presence, which is quite the hint for a malevolent nature.


So in the end, what would Sauron and his armies have done to Middle Earth after its conquest ? Well, I guess that Sauron would have been content with ordering it and dominating all of its people - it was his one goal ultimately, even if he forgot why he wanted to rule. On the other hand, Sauron has been nearly constantly at war with the Free Peoples, and it's true that not much is told of what his rule would look like in times of peace. You see, he sees Orcs as cannon fodder for his wars against Elves and Elf-Friends, so once all Men of Middle-Earth are under his dominion, I have few doubt that he would no longer have any use for these brutal creatures that live only to kill, rape and pillage, and are unable to truly appreciate peace. In the end, he might even order armies of Men to hunt down all of the Orcs that still roam the Earth.
And who knows, Darkness is fed by brutal emotions like anger, rage, jealousy, frustration. Such emotions are always experienced when at war, and Morgoth himself was one big ball of hate and malice during his war on the Eldar. Sauron was full of cruelty too for the Elves and Dwarves that subsisted and resisted him on Middle-Earth, and for the Numenoreans and their successor realms. A man can dream, but if all of Middle-Earth comes under his rule, that all his ennemies (Dwarves, Elves, Elendili, Orcs) are gone from Endor, and that no wars trouble his Empire anymore, Darkness might perhaps leave him, and he might remember why he wanted absolute power, and might try to rebuild Middle-Earth for his subjects and for himself - as unlike Morgoth, he wouldn't have been content with ruling over a world of ashes.


But then again, like many said before me, read HoME Morgoth's Ring, it explains in great details the fundamental differences between the Black Enemy and Sauron, and why Bauglir's evil greatly differs from Sauron's

[Bercor]

So in a way, Sauron may be seen as a true fallen hero, one who believed in his convictions until the end. (after all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions)

The thing is, you can say that about almost all of the cruelest men in history. From Robespierre to Hitler, most believed in their convictions till the end.

In my opinion, the simple fact of having strong convictions and stand by them is not meritorious by itslef, if such convictions are not good.

[Tar-Falassion]

The thing is, you can say that about almost all of the cruelest men in history. From Robespierre to Hitler, most believed in their convictions till the end.

In my opinion, the simple fact of having strong convictions and stand by them is not meritorious by itslef, if such convictions are not good.

Of course, I completely agree with you on this one, but my point is that Sauron, much like all these men, brought terrible things in pursuit of a seemingly noble objective. And in my opinion, this makes them very different from Morgoth, who brings evil and destruction just for the sake of it. I just wanted to distinguish the difference of "evilness" between them two, certainly not to justify or excuse their deeds.

[Bercor]

Fair enough .

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Your comparison is flawed, though. Yes, you create a table by transforming a tree into it, because they're both material things. However, you can't create a spirit or life from anything else, it comes ex nihilo, at least in Tolkien's writings.

A tree does not choose to be a table because it is not free, it has no spirit. On the other hand, Orcs and Dragons are free in the sense they can choose to be evil, but are not bound by nature to evilness. Yes, it's unlikely for a Dragon or a Orc to not be evil, but that's because the dominion that Morgoth exercises over his minions and they way they are raised. I'm really curious why you would consider that Orcs are not inherently evil (which I agree) but Dragons are.

In regards to the black and white world, I think that works only on the superior level. While the two main opposed forces in Tolkien's universe are clearly Good and Evil, the individuais that populate the said universe are not so clearly divided. Of course, Morgoth, and later Sauron, represent Evil and can be easily defined so, while Good is represented by "the Powers" (Valar and Maiar) and, ultimately, Eru Illúvatar. However, on an inferior level, all the other characters, ranging from Elves to Orcs, are not completely good nor bad. There's many flaws in both the Eldar and the Edain. The Men that fought for the Dark Lord are said to be manipulated and coerced to fight, I don't think they thought they were fighting for Evil. Even the Orcs, despite having the clear notion of what they were performing, were convinced that their enemies did the same, so, for them, it was fair game.

This is really no surprise, since Tolkien, being a Catholic, believed that our world, in the same superior level, is also black and white, with the fight between God and the Devil.

Well, it is as you said. They are evil due to the way Morgoth holds his dominion over them.

In many places, orcs are not under the direct control of Sauron. Like, the Misty Mountains orcs. Here we can see that they move away from evil, and more into simple savagery. Orcs are savage and violent by nature, but savagery and violence aren't really the key to being evil. Dwarves can be savage and violent, and men can definitely be savage and violent. Im not sure elves can be savage, but certainly violent!

Though I have seen nothing to directly redeem an orc, I have seen evidence that suggests, if given a chance, orcs need not be inherently evil. Inherently violent, perhaps, but of course violence can be used for good. I.E. The War of the Ring.

Nothing we know of dragons would suggest they are capable of anything but evil. Orcs, despite their violent nature, are capable of empathy, clearly. They band together, they get revenge for their fallen comrades, they forge things, build things, all require teamwork and cooperation towards a mutual goal. Even when Sauron isn't leading them, even just following their own chiefs, they are capable of forming a society, albeit a primitive, savage one. In time, perhaps they can evolve socially to be less violent.

But dragons don't do any of that. They don't care for anything but themselves. They hunger for power and riches and are content to be nothing but a horrible nuisance, when they aren't being controlled by a higher power. That is the distinction I see between them. Perhaps "Good" and "Evil" aren't the correct terms. Maybe "Moral" and "Immoral" would be closer to what I mean. Orcs are capable, at least slightly, of working with one another for the benefit of their own society as a whole. Dragons are not, so far as we know.

When orcs are led by Sauron, in Mordor, they do evil. But the Misty Mountain orcs? They are savage and violent, but they are no more evil than a savage, violent human tribe that raids it's neighbors. Bad, perhaps, but not evil.

Of course, I completely agree with you on this one, but my point is that Sauron, much like all these men, brought terrible things in pursuit of a seemingly noble objective. And in my opinion, this makes them very different from Morgoth, who brings evil and destruction just for the sake of it. I just wanted to distinguish the difference of "evilness" between them two, certainly not to justify or excuse their deeds.

But see, this was my point all along, I suppose. Maybe, perhaps, Morgoth wasn't just destroying things for the sake of it. Maybe he was doing just as Sauron was doing, but on an entirely different scale. Just as you say of Sauron, I am not excusing his actions. Whatever his goal may have been, he still did evil things. But perhaps it was not as simple as just "He was very arrogant." Even on the highest level, it may not have been as black and white as it seemed.

After all, history is written by the victor, and the followers of Eru were certainly the victors. Perhaps all of Rome's enemies weren't heathen savages who had to be conquered for the safety of the noble republic?

[Bercor]

So, if I am understanding this right, you're saying that Dragons, unlike every other being in Tolkien's universe, are not free to choose between good or evil, in fact, they have to be evil. Am I correct?

If so, you would have to explain what is in the dragons that makes their spirit not able to do good. We already established that, if the first dragons are indeed inhabited by fallen spirits, they, at least, have the freedom to choose between good and evil, as they choose to follow Melkor. Why would their brood by any different? This is really strange, especially considering that even their spirit would have to be created by Eru, since Melkor is unable to do it.

Now, if you're going to say, as you already did, that nothing we know of Dragons would suggest that they are capable of anything but evil, then that is simply lack of information or lack of occurrence, and, by itself, does not prove not that such thing is impossible. From fact that we are not told of an example of a good Dragon does not follow that Dragons can't be good. With that reasoning, then, if we didn't had the story of Melkor's fall and were to analyze only his later actions, one could also argue that Melkor is inherently evil, which, here I agree with you, it's not true.

[orclover5]

Tolkien was catholic...his books, all of them, like Catholicism, represent a battle between good and evil. All evil protagonists have a chance to be good, all good protagonists have a chance to be evil, it is all probability. Galadriel had a chance to be like Feanor, who did many evil things, and could be considered on his way to evil. In fact she was left in middle earth because it was assumed she would become like Feanor. Tolkien always interplays every characters inside evil with outside influence that can lead to evil. Simarils, Rings, jewels, power, and influence all lead to most characters facing dilemmas and most giving in....Only one character ever gave up the ring freely after extended use, only one Wizard returned to Aman, no men, or dwarves, ever overcame the influence of a ring of power, and only one numenorian king had the strength and humility to come out of the shadows and lead without hope. And the noldor were completely destroyed because of their rejection of the west and their desire to be rulers. The reason the lotr is the second most read book in world history is because the only heroes are those who do not desire to be heroes, and that fight the desire for power, and understand their own weakness, all the while hoping that a greater good is pulling for them...this is basis of most world religions...humility and grace, and hope that something outside of us is looking out for us, even if it is within us, ...and although most atheists would see this as weakness it is this precise humility that allows our world to have any good despite our constant desire for ego gratification and the failures that accompany this fruitless pursuit. We all have rings in our lives, many will fall: ignoring our kids, fighting and divorcing our spouses, living through alcohol, porn, video games, letting work steal our time, ambition pushing us away from loved ones....and this is why the book continues to be powerful, and the lore is inexhaustable even though it can be uneven, and inconsistent.

[orclover5]

Of course, I completely agree with you on this one, but my point is that Sauron, much like all these men, brought terrible things in pursuit of a seemingly noble objective. And in my opinion, this makes them very different from Morgoth, who brings evil and destruction just for the sake of it. I just wanted to distinguish the difference of "evilness" between them two, certainly not to justify or excuse their deeds.

Sauron is a slave of morgoth, his pursuit of power is a continuation of morgoths, and no doubt when he had covered all middle earth with his power he would have led an armada against the undying lands, and when they were conquered he would have released morgoth who was his god...and Sauron would again have been a lieutenant...it is better to think of Sauron as a wraith, much like the witch king...the witch king could lead an entire nation in Angmar but was enslaved to Saurons will...if you are a wraith to evil things, then you are evil. You think Sauron is not evil because his main skill for thousands of years was flattery and deceit, and he fooled many, that is his main power... his greatest victories....the rings, ringwraiths, and the destruction of numenor were all caused by his deceits, and as a creator of armies and a general he was subpar and was defeated by the numenorians twice, the last alliance, in angmar 1000 years later, and finally in the war of the ring... Morgoth created balrogs, dragons, and engines of destruction while leading wars that last 100s of years with subtlety and power...they cannot be compared. but both are evil.

[DrDragun]

I think Sauron understood that the Undying lands were beyond his means to conquer, or any other mortal race for that matter. He tricked Numenor into this exact ambition in order to have them destroyed. Eru Iluvatar had already shown that he would intervene directly with foreign hosts invading there.

[Ngugi]

A vivid and good debate ongoing here I see. Beg your pardon for not participating as initiated and intended, but I'll not be forum active, bare critical moderation duty I'm charged with, for an undisclosed time ahead. My only contribution is the tip for all who desire to endulge in JRR's own concerns on the topic of good, evil and the large grey between to perhaps formost check out HoME 10: part 3, 4 and especially 5.

regards N'

[Tar-Falassion]

I have to disagree with some of the things you stated, orclover

Galadriel had a chance to be like Feanor, who did many evil things, and could be considered on his way to evil. In fact she was left in middle earth because it was assumed she would become like Feanor.

It might be considered to be a minor thing, but Galadriel was never "left in Middle-Earth". In fact, after the end of the War of Wrath she was offered the same choice that her people was : to return to the Undying Lands. She refused, however, because of her pride, as she still wanted to live and rule among the Free Peoples of Middle-Earth. But the offer was never taken back, and since she was a Firstborn, she could have sailed to Aman any time she wanted. And if you think about it, most, if not every Noldor, had the potential to become another Feänor, as they had the same fire burning inside of them, and the same destructive hatred for evil. Yet every Noldor was given the choice to come back to Valinor. It is not our abilities that show what we truly are, it is our choices (ok, I pulled a Dumbledore on this one )

The reason the lotr is the second most read book in world history is because the only heroes are those who do not desire to be heroes, and that fight the desire for power, and understand their own weakness, all the while hoping that a greater good is pulling for them...

That one makes me wonder if you actually read the Lord of the Rings, since Aragorn is nothing like what you said - in the Fellowship he is well past 80 years old, and unlike in the movie he strongly intents to reclaim his rightful heritage, and has prepared during his whole life -more than 60 years - for the day he would at last sit on the Throne of Gondor (especially since becoming King of Gondor was Elrond's prerequisite for marrying his daughter). Unlike in the movie trilogy, he doesn't have any doubts about his legitimacy, and often reminds his companions that he is the Heir of Isildur and his claims should not be taken lightly (such as when he gazed in the Palantir, he stated that the Orthanc Stone was him by right).
The same might be said of Gandalf, who in the movies is depicted as an always worried and troubled wizard, under tremendous stress, while in the books he is much calmer, always trusting in fate and never shows as much emotions as Ian McKellen does. He is confident in his own power, and knows that his role is to guide the Free Peoples to victory.
At last, in the movies Frodo is much more doubtful than in the books - his will waver so many times when you compare it to the book's version, that it is truly a wonder that he managed to actually travel all the way to Mount Doom - while the books never depict him crumbling under the Ring's influence such as when the movies show him at Weathertop when facing the Witch-King, in Henneth Annûn under Faramir's threats, or in the Winding Stairs of Cirith Ungol. Only after entering Mordor proper does the Ring pulls actual doubts in Frodo's mind.

And I doubt that characters such as Hobbits, who seem to have forgotten everything of Eru and the Valar, or the Rohirrim who turned to the veneration of their ancestors, knew of Eru and some of the Valar but did not worship them, would ever "hope that a greater good is pulling for them". The Rohirrim are the representation of men who believed in nothing but their own strength, and hobbits are an unknown part of this, since we don't really know in what they believe (except their family trees )

Sauron is a slave of morgoth, his pursuit of power is a continuation of morgoths, and no doubt when he had covered all middle earth with his power he would have led an armada against the undying lands, and when they were conquered he would have released morgoth who was his god

That part would be especially tricky, since Eru has removed the whole Continent of Aman from the Circles of the World during the destruction of Nùmenor, and after that only Elves could ever sail upon the Straight Road to reach the Undying Lands.
And even if there was a physical mean to reach them, I highly doubt that Sauron would risk to provoke the wrath of the Valar and Eru AGAIN. During the Second Age, Sauron has come to believe that the Valar had forsaken Middle-Earth, and he has forgotten their true power. So when Sauron had Ar-Pharazôn lead a Numenorean invasion of Aman, he intended to have the Numenoreans destroyed, but he truly was terrified by the calamity that the Valar unleashed on the Blessed Island and Middle-Earth - especially since it caused his body to be unmade, as well as his ability to assume a fair shape (and we might supposed that many other powers were taken from him during the Akallabêth).
Therefore I think that if Sauron has learned anything from this, it is that even with the Ring at his finger again, he cannot oppose the will of Manwë.

...and Sauron would again have been a lieutenant...it is better to think of Sauron as a wraith, much like the witch king...the witch king could lead an entire nation in Angmar but was enslaved to Saurons will...if you are a wraith to evil things, then you are evil.

Sauron is absolutely nothing like the Witch-King for a very good reason : he still has his free will. Sauron is a fallen Maia, exactly like Balrogs, and they CHOSE to follow Melkor in the age of the Lamps. During the Wars of the Jewels in the First Age, Sauron showed a lot of independance from Morgoth's will, as he did not return to his master after his defeat to Huan at Tol-in-Gaurhoth, and since he did not take part in the War of Wrath.
On the other hands, the Witch-King, like his fellow Nazgûl, is a mere human, and his soul and will were bound entirely to Sauron's by his possession of his Ring of Power, and in the end the Nine didn't even have a sense of individuality or free will
left.
Plus, even for the slightest moment, Sauron showed some sign of repentance after the fall of Angband, as he bowed to Eonwë and asked for forgiveness - even though he still was too much afraid from the justice of the Valar to follow Eonwë back to Valinor, and fell back to the Shadow. This is a huge proof that he still has his entire will and independance.
Furthermore, even though Sauron was servant to Morgoth, in the following Ages he was perfectly happy to substitute himself to Morgoth in the Shadow Cults that emerged millenia later in Middle-Earth, and ended up erecting cults to himself, and no longer to Melkor (in the Third Age, older Melkoric cults were even turned down by Sauronic fanatics). So after spending so many centuries as the One Dark Lord, I don't think Sauron would give the Dark Throne back to a being uncapable of returning to claim it. That Sauron's will was not tied to Morgoth's the way that the Nazgûl's were to Sauron's, and the subsequent independance, is the reason why Sauron is still capable of AMBITION. Sauron has no reason to defy the Valar to release his old Master from the Door of Night, he IS the Dark Lord and he wants it to stay this way.

You think Sauron is not evil because his main skill for thousands of years was flattery and deceit, and he fooled many, that is his main power... his greatest victories....the rings, ringwraiths, and the destruction of numenor were all caused by his deceits, and as a creator of armies and a general he was subpar and was defeated by the numenorians twice, the last alliance, in angmar 1000 years later, and finally in the war of the ring... Morgoth created balrogs, dragons, and engines of destruction while leading wars that last 100s of years with subtlety and power...they cannot be compared. but both are evil.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say : I did not think that Sauron is not evil, indeed I'd be the first one to praise his talents of deception and seduction. I was explaining his downfall to Darkness, which is very different from Morgoth's because of their motivations. And that is what makes Sauron truly a lesser evil than Morgoth : Sauron advocates peace through tyranny, absolute order through absolute submission to his power - evil notions indeed, but which still aspire to peace and order. Morgoth aspires to nothing but destruction, he advocates death to all that is not his, he desires twisting and unmaking of all the creations of his "brothers and sisters". He is a nihilist who relishes in suffering and chaos, while Sauron's subconscient motivation, even if he forgot it, is to bring back order to Middle-Earth.



So in the end, I will only say this :

...

What is wrong with your boldwriting lock, man ?

[DrDragun]

A vivid and good debate ongoing here I see. Beg your pardon for not participating as initiated and intended, but I'll not be forum active, bare critical moderation duty I'm charged with, for an undisclosed time ahead. My only contribution is the tip for all who desire to endulge in JRR's own concerns on the topic of good, evil and the large grey between to perhaps formost check out HoME 10: part 3, 4 and especially 5.

regards N'

I suppose we can grant you a short leave of absence, but the place just wont be the same

[Infidel144]

It might be considered to be a minor thing, but Galadriel was never "left in Middle-Earth". In fact, after the end of the War of Wrath she was offered the same choice that her people was : to return to the Undying Lands. She refused, however, because of her pride, as she still wanted to live and rule among the Free Peoples of Middle-Earth. But the offer was never taken back, and since she was a Firstborn, she could have sailed to Aman any time she wanted. And if you think about it, most, if not every Noldor, had the potential to become another Feänor, as they had the same fire burning inside of them, and the same destructive hatred for evil. Yet every Noldor was given the choice to come back to Valinor. It is not our abilities that show what we truly are, it is our choices (ok, I pulled a Dumbledore on this one )

Saying "Galadriel was never "left in Middle-Earth"" is overly strong. That is a late change, and not in keeping with what Tolkien actually published, implicitly in LotR, and especially and explicitly in RGEO:
"The question Sí man i yulma nin enquantuva? and the question at the end of her song (Vol. I, p. 389), What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?, refer to the special position of Galadriel. She was the last survivor of the princes and queens who had led the revolting Noldor to exile in Middle-earth. After the overthrow of Morgoth at the end of the First Age a ban was set upon her return, and she had replied proudly that she had no wish to do so."
The Road Goes Ever On, Namarie