# The True Villain of the Lord of the Rings



## HLGStrider

Every so often someone brings up a thread asking who the true hero of the Lord of the Rings is. Some vote Frodo, others Sam, others (YayGollum...) Gollum, and a few Gandalf or Aragorn. I was thinking tonight. . .who is the true villain of the Lord of the Rings?

The obvious answer is Sauron, as he controls all the little villains. He is the force they are attempting to destroy. He is the one who will destroy everything if he gets the ring. . .

but what about the ring itself? We never see Sauron (not really). We never hear him. He doesn't directly battle the protagonists. The ring, on the other hand, inflict physical harm upon Frodo, corrupts several characters, and compells other characters through greed to do harm. In the end it even turns Frodo against his quest in a way Sauron himself could not. The ring is the more personal villain.

Or what about Melkor, or not Melkor directly, but the force of evil and corruption he introduced into Middle Earth? Could it not be said to be the root of all? That is a greater menace. 

Then we have all the little guys, but I think no Orc or even Sarumen could compete against the three I listed above. 

Which do you think it was? If anyone has another viable idea, I'll add it to the poll. Tell me what you think!


----------



## Hammersmith

Just to be different, I'll say Saruman. Saruman is the villain with the most time in the book devoted to him. He is the fist at the end of Sauron's arm, and had he been successful in gaining the ring would have easily overthrown Sauron. He failed to the exact same degree that Sauron failed, no more and no less. Moreover, he was a traitor to the cause of the White Council. I personally consider a friend turned utterly and murderously treacherous to be a fouler and more dangerous evil than one who has always been a declared and known foe. In addition, of the main good characters killed, Saruman kills two thirds of them indirectly (Theodred, Boromir), while Sauron can only manage Theoden to his credit, and that through an already powerful minion.

No, Saruman is the true puppet master, orchestrating a successful and bold campaign that failed only when he sought his Lebensraum and awoke the sleeping giant to his east (sound familiar??  ) when he aroused the wrath of Fangorn. I think that most of the interesting "what if" questions revolve around him, and how he could have easily triumphed.

Saruman in a heartbeat.


----------



## ingolmo

I think it would be evil as a force. The effects of the evil that Melkor introduced into Middle-earth will always be in effect, even if it is only in memories. I think that the evil of Melkor, which in the third age, was active as a force, compelled Sauron to do evil deeds, and some other characters to make bad decisions and do bad things (Boromir, Denethor...)
Even though I might be getting out of topic here, let me just relive a sentence, though not exactly as it was originally, from Star Wars. It was said by Yoda, the Jedi Master, for those who do not know: Fear leads to Anger, and Anger leads to going over to the Dark Side (evil). I completely believe this statement, though I would like to add the point that greed can also corrupt one to the dark side. I think that Melkor's anger and jealousy agains the Valar was the cause of his evil acts. Gollum's fear of losing the ring made him more and more introvert, and corrupted him to the dark side. The same thing happened to Frodo in Mt.Doom. Boromir, angry against Elrond and the council for not using the ring, got corrupted and he tried to take it by force. So completely, it was those factors, started and powered by the memories and thouhgts of Melkor's deeds in the first age, that were responsible for the tragedies in the second and third age.


----------



## Ingwë

I think the true Villain of the Lord of the Rings is Melkor, because he is the source of the Evil in the Middle earth. He was the Master of Sauron and he was his teacher. He created the orcs and the Balrogs. 
I would say I agree with ingolmo


----------



## Thorondor_

Evil isn't caused (primarily) by Melkor (nor Sauron or Saruman for that matter) but by Eru himself.
I would still say Sauron is the most evil character. I would kind of exonerate Saruman, because the ring could somehow corrupt him, therefore anihilating his free will to a certain degree. I know, he didn't make direct contact with the ring, but, nevertheless...



> Gollum's fear of losing the ring made him more and more introvert, and corrupted him to the dark side


 
I believe that the ring's power itself (and Gollum's weakness towards evil temptations) corrupted him to the dark side, not his fear.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

It was Melkor. He was the original Bad Seed in this whole thing, starting from the very first few moments of the Music of Ilúvatar — just as Tolkien planned it! 

Barley


----------



## Greenwood

Your question was who is "the true villain of the *Lord of the Rings*"? To that question, I think the answer must be Sauron. Melkor/Morgoth does not appear in LOTR. He is not even mentioned, except indirectly. The Ring is merely an extension of Sauron. Saying the Ring is the villain is the same as saying Sauron is the villain. Saruman, the Nazgul, orcs, etc. are all merely puppets to one extent or another of Sauron. Saruman and Denethor are both corrupted by Sauron through their palantirs. We never meet Sauron directly, but he is the villain behind everything else.


----------



## HLGStrider

The idea of Melkor as an option isn't so much him as a person, but him as a force, as the first corruption in Middle Earth which continues to this day. Thorondor's theory is off topic, but it has been discussed elsewhere, that the cause of evil isn't Melkor but Eru, but I think the Melkor theory is stronger. 

Hammersmith makes a good case. Another option for the poll.


----------



## Alatar

Greenwood said:


> We never meet Sauron directly, but he is the villain behind everything else.


But Evil powers him.
Evil as a force, made the haradrim, the easterlings and gollum, fear and so to the dark side, Frodo is not on a quest to destroy sauron, but to destroy evil so that "those that come after may have clean earth to till.".


----------



## Greenwood

Alatar said:


> Evil as a force, made the haradrim, the easterlings and gollum, fear and so to the dark side, Frodo is not on a quest to destroy sauron, but to destroy evil so that "those that come after may have clean earth to till.".


Frodo's quest is to destroy the Ring and hence Sauron. All evil did not disappear from Middle Earth with the destruction of Sauron and it was not expected to. Sauron corrupted the Haradrim and the easterlings, neither he nor evil made them.


----------



## Alatar

The point of deatoying the ring is not to destroy sauron, gandalf could destroy sauron with the ring, they want to destroy sauron and the ring and so get rid of any dark lords.


----------



## Arat Macar

There are some good arguments here but, as is often the case, I see two issues being argued as one and the clarification is in the definition of "villain" which is the word used in the initial question. If we define villain as "a scoundrel in a story or play" (webster's online) then the options are many from gollum to Sauron and our task is to rate them for "trueness" whatever that means. It is a different line of questioning all together to look for the ultimate source of true evil. It is fairly easy to say that "evil" is behind every villain and it influences our heros from time to time as well.

In this light I choose to respond to who is the true scoundrel in the story TLOTR. Although I really like Hammersmith's argument, and because I believe, in the end it must come down to either Saruman or Sauron, I choose Sauron. Granted that he is not actually featured directly in the book much of the time, he is the one that is dreaded most and who caused most of the pain, sorrow, death, and unrest in Middle Earth. I credit Saruman's fall to the influence of true evil and to _Sauron's_ influence on him as an entity. Don't forget how Sauron was working Saruman through the Palentir.

Think about it this way, If Elrond, Gandalf, and Aragorn could have pushed a button and immediatly eliminated one enemy from the safety of Rivendell at the time of the counsel of Elrond, is there any doubt who's button they would push even if it ment they still had to campaign against Saruman, dodge orks, and destroy the ring.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

Greenwood said:


> Your question was who is "the true villain of the *Lord of the Rings*"? To that question, I think the answer must be Sauron. Melkor/Morgoth does not appear in LOTR. He is not even mentioned, except indirectly.



That may be true, but without Melkor, Sauron would never have been. But I am looking at LOTR as the continuation as it were, of The Silmarillion (with The Hobbit as the transitional segue). I see Sil/Hobbit/LOTR as one continuous saga, all interconnected. In fact, I believe you will see references in both The Hobbit and LOTR that connect with each other and with The Silmarillion. 

Barley


----------



## YayGollum

Dang. Lots of other have made points that I would have. Sure, Sauron is the obvious choice, which is not a good point for debating that he isn't the main villain. Other people have tossed all kinds of great points for why he is. The One Ring doesn't count, because, as someone has already pointed out, it is just another part of Sauron. Evil as a force or Mel is too boring. 

Same thing as calling Eru the main villain in that The Lord Of The Rings story. Sure, you could come up with all kinds of good points. Sure, all of these crazy Tolkien Middle Earthish stories go together, but this question is asking who the main villain is for this one story. Eru would have to be the ultimate evil in the entire series, though. An achingly evil and gigantic and bored and omnipotent crazy thing ---> "Garn. Am bored. Shall make puppets. Dance, puppets, dance! Hm. Look at what they're doing to each other. That's entertainment! Where's some popcorn?" 

Also, although the evil Saruman character is composed primarily of large gobs of pure evil (mostly due to his evil power of messing with other people's brain, just like the evil torturer Gandalf), I wouldn't call him the book's main villain. You could toss all kinds of achingly evil examples of achingly evil actions that the guy made, but the number and the intensity of the evil still can't make him the main villain. The focus of the story is what will do that. 

Anyways, for this The Lord Of The Rings story, the evil sam is the main villain. That vile character is stuck in the story pretty early on in the beginning. Do you wish to write about fear leading to anger, which is, according to Yoda and this ingolmo person, pure evil? The evil sam character had plenty of both, and all for the book's hero (Gollum)! *gasp!* What is wrong with becoming more introverted, by the way? Maybe that wasn't the point of that observation. oh well. 

Look at it from an objective point of view, crazy people. What is the goal of the story? Destroy the Ring. Gollum does that. Never even got any praise or forgiveness for it, did the poor guy? oh well. Poor Smeagol shows up to help the nasssty hobbitses. The evil sam, from the very beginning, mostly based on stories told to him by some senile as well as achingly crazy and morally corrupt old hobbit, closed his brain to the hero. Being pure evil to him during every chance that he had. A constant thorn in some uncomfortable spot on the body of the guy who was always the most obviously pure. Purity versus stupidity. That is a great conflict. The main focus of the story, in my opinion.


----------



## Meselyn

I think the true evil force is the Ring. I mean they all say it's sauron because he's viewed as the dark lord, but who's the one who brings Middle-Earth into his grip before Isildur played his part? That's right, the ring. The ring is the true evil force.


----------



## Hammersmith

Hammersmith said:


> Just to be different, I'll say Saruman.


 
Saruman? The villain? Nonsense! Some doddering old fool who can't keep his own slaves under control, incapable of abducting a pair of hobbits whose natural ability for getting into trouble should make them as easy to snare as some sort of fish in a cylindrical container of hoops and staves? Rubbish!
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Elgee. But when people agree with my crazy ideas I feel I need to make up some new ones!


The same goes for the rest of the poor options. Sauron? Please. The muppet doesn't even have depth perception, and we're supposed to fear him? Melkor? He's chilling in deep space with those three bad guys from the Superman movie. The ring? A lump of gold, a tool to be used by the true villain. Yet in this form, it is easily the best of a bad lot. Now although the ring has been seen to "act" intuitively, imagine how truly and purely evil it would be if its malice was made manifest. If it controlled a being with the same cold, gold brain as itself.

It does.

To find out who, we must depart from evil and study good. No matter who you are (unless you're Yaygollum), Gandalf is always seen amongst the top few good characters. Now who else could combat the greatest good except the greatest evil? The Witch King of Angmar. Now there's one evil dude. A slave to a ring that is the slave to the One Ring, he's as close as we can get to a character completely given over to that shiny little circlet. Where he strikes, he nearly dooms the Fellowship and the chance of good overcoming, with his evil blow against Frodo. He is not some impatient blaggard like Sauron, who sends his forces against his enemies without due preparation; the Witch King bides his time, shadowing the Fellowship and gaining the best chances of all in the books of destroying the hope of good.

Saruman was killed by his own cowed servant. Sauron (technically) by Gollum, a shrivelled nobody. Melkor was defeated by some psychotic elves. So? So what? Not only was this chief of Nazgul taken down by one of the greatest heroes of the north, but she destroyed him as necessity, as he was _indomitable_ against *all men*. Wow! By that logic, had the sadly interrupted duel with Gandalf been allowed to proceed, the WitchKing would have triumphed and, to quote the famous poet, "It's all over now".

Now I can see that the argument is coming, "If he's so great, how come he was the servant of Sauron?" and it is a fair point. But naturally, to achieve this greatness he had to become enslaved by the rings. Which would you choose? To be free and a pathetic scruffy nobody, or serve beneath a benign master and rise to the pinnacle of success? Since he could not turn on Sauron, he had no reason to fear that Sauron would turn on him, being no threat to his lord's reign. Thus, his position was secure, and both his capacity (as has been explained) and opportunity (which is obvious!) for evil was in fact greater than his master's.


----------



## Ingwë

Hm, very interesting: 4:4:4:3 aty the poll. Which will win? 

Thorondor, Greenwood,
I think the true villain in Middle earth and even in Ea is Melkor. He was the first Dark lord and then Sauron was only his servant. Melkor is the source of Evil. The Orcs were created by Morgoth (probably) and the Dragons and the Balrogs...
Check the thread 'The worst deed of Melko' made by Ithy. There are interesting posts by Nóm.


----------



## ingolmo

To the crazy Gollum-obsessed YayGollum person: Yuck!  You think that the corrupted slave-villain Gollum is the main hero?  May I remind you, that the corrupted slave-villain Gollum did not intend to destroy the Ring, but the greedy thing wanted to keep it for himself. He was dancing in joy when he got the ring, and he accidentaly fell over and the foul thing himself and the foul thing the Ring both got destroyed. (hehehe, giving him a taste of his own medicine.)  
But I still stand with my original statement that Melkor, as a force of evil, was the main villain, because he started and caused everything.


----------



## Greenwood

Ingwë and ingolmo,

Would a person who had only read LOTR have any idea who you were talking about when you say Melkor/Morgoth was the "true villain" of Lord of the Rings? They would think you were crazier than YayGollum for calling Gollum the true hero. At least Gollum is in LOTR. The question was not: "Who is the true (or ultimate) villain in Middle Earth?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur

YayGollum said:


> ...calling Eru the main villain in that The Lord Of The Rings story.



Hey, take it to the max — it was TOLKIEN! He wrote it all! 

Barley


----------



## Alatar

The true villan is evil, evil destroy's gollum, sauron, (the shire for) Frodo, and middle earth for the elves, you maysay this was sauron, but is you take sauron from the picture, then a balrog or saruman will take his place, thanks to the marring.


----------



## Greenwood

Alatar said:


> The true villan is evil, evil destroy's gollum, sauron, (the shire for) Frodo, and middle earth for the elves, you maysay this was sauron, but is you take sauron from the picture, then a balrog or saruman will take his place, thanks to the marring.


Neither the balrog nor Saruman had the power Sauron had, even without the Ring.


----------



## Alatar

Greenwood said:


> Neither the balrog nor Saruman had the power Sauron had, even without the Ring.


Yes but with sauron absent they would be the strongest beings in ME


----------



## Greenwood

Alatar said:


> Yes but with sauron absent they would be the strongest beings in ME


1) But Sauron was present

2) Who says they would have been the strongest beings in ME? Gandalf defeated the balrog and Fangorn and the ents defeated Saruman.


----------



## Alatar

I said if you remove sauron from the picture they would be the strongest beings there as i do not think that gandalf or saruman would have came to ME.


----------



## ingolmo

Greenwood said:


> Would a person who had only read LOTR have any idea who you were talking about when you say Melkor/Morgoth was the "true villain" of Lord of the Rings? They would think you were crazier than YayGollum for calling Gollum the true hero. At least Gollum is in LOTR. The question was not: "Who is the true (or ultimate) villain in Middle Earth?


I didn't say that Morgoth is the true villain of the Lord of the Rings. I said that evil as a force was the true villain. And you can't say that evil wasn't present in Lord of the Rings. And all the evil in it, was caused by Morgoth, as it was because of him that everything bad started. So you can say that the true villain is Morgoth, though not directly.


----------



## Greenwood

ingolmo said:


> I didn't say that Morgoth is the true villain of the Lord of the Rings. .... So you can say that the true villain is Morgoth, though not directly.


You didn't say it, but then you say it. There seems to be a logical inconsistency somewhere in there. Under your argument, evil is the true villain of every work of fiction ever written. How can the true villain in the book be someone who is never mentioned in the book?




Alatar said:


> I said if you remove sauron from the picture they would be the strongest beings there as i do not think that gandalf or saruman would have came to ME.


And if you remove Sauron from the picture there is no One Ring, the North Kingdom never falls and Aragorn is king of it while Gondor is supreme in the south and there is no War of the Ring!  

BTW, since you now are also removing Saruman from ME, you are left only with the balrog and Glorfindel has a history (in The Silmarillion) of despatching balrogs.


----------



## HLGStrider

It could be very persuasively argued that evil is the true villain of some books. I say some because Lord of the Rings has a more "black and white" morality than most books, and so some books are a bit foggy on what is evil exactly.

I can think of many books that have no direct villain or a ton of villains all of near equal importance. 

However, I am afraid I was dealing with this more of from a literary sense, to answer the question Arat keeps justifiably bringing up. Sauron controls the ring, but is Sauron the ring? If they can be said to be two seperate identities, the ring has a much more personable and evil presence within the books. (See my first post)

However, that's like saying the evil in a spy novel is not the terrorist but the bomb he planted that they have 24 hours to find before it blows up a little league ceremony where the president's nephew is pitching.


----------



## Thorondor_

> However, that's like saying the evil in a spy novel is not the terrorist but the bomb he planted that they have 24 hours to find before it blows up a little league ceremony where the president's nephew is pitching


Any object, even if insignificant in itself, can corrupt minds and hearts, if at a certain time it has some importance. However, beyond this general possibility, it is said that the ring has a will of its own.


----------



## HLGStrider

However, the ring doesn't need to have an obvious importance. What was its "importance" when Deagol dragged it from the river? Yet, Smeagol's greed for it was enough that he murdered him for it after a glance. Similarly, the ring works on Bilbo without him having any knowledge of what it was, though it does take a long time.


----------



## Alatar

Evil is the villan, it does more villanous things than any of the others.


----------



## Greenwood

HLGStrider said:


> However, that's like saying the evil in a spy novel is not the terrorist but the bomb he planted that they have 24 hours to find before it blows up a little league ceremony where the president's nephew is pitching.


And saying that Melkor is thr true villain of LOTR is like saying the true villain in your above spy novel is not the terrorist who planted the bomb, but evil in the world. Or perhaps it is Alfred Nobel for inventing the dynamite the bomb is made of?


----------



## HLGStrider

Change it from Alfred Nobel to an evil scientist who had every intention of having bombs set at little league games, and I'd have an arguement.


----------



## Alatar

Greenwood, this is a myth, so it is like saying that the bomb is the fault of the being that created evil and ruined the world. There is no person in real life, so this is where the comparision brecks down.


----------



## elvenbladesmith

the ring is just pure power, so its nothing special. sauron is evil, so hes expected to be that way, his aim is easy to determine. also everything has evil, and for middle earth, sauron was it. 
i think man is the real villian. think about it, they lust for power, and there easily corrupted. they cause all the problems in middle earth, but this also makes them the heroes, because some men, knowing their weakness, they are strong enough to overcome and fix the problems theyve caused. islidur, boromir, and aragorn demonstrate this throughout the book.


----------



## ingolmo

When Sauron made the Ring, he had to put a part of himself in it. But that doesn't make sense because then when the Ring was destroyed, only a part of him would be destroyed, instead of all of him. So I guess that when the Ring was made in the Second Age, only a part of him was in the Ring. But when his physical form was killed, his spirit became either the eye of Sauron, or it went into the Ring to survive, because the Ring wasn't destroyed. So from then onwards, the Ring became Sauron. But if that happened, what would Sauron's eye be? So that wouldn't be possible. Now coming to the second thing a said, that his spirit became the eye. That would be more reasonable because Sauron was a Maia, and we never know whether or not his power to take shape of anything had been taken away. So after his physical form was destroyed, he bacame an Eye which would detect the Ring, and let him come to full power again, because he had put a part of him into the Ring, without which he wouldn't be as powerful as he would be with the Ring. So I guess the Ring was just a part of him, though not all. And just as half a person cannot live, the part of Sauron without the Ring couldn't live, and thus he was killed.
And to come back on topic, Greenwood, I never have yet said that Morgoth's the villain directly, I only said indirectly he is, in the form of evil.


----------



## Alatar

ingolmo said:


> When Sauron made the Ring, he had to put a part of himself in it. But that doesn't make sense because then when the Ring was destroyed, only a part of him would be destroyed, instead of all of himl.


All of him was not destroyied.


ingolmo said:


> . So after his physical form was destroyed, he bacame an Eye which would detect the Ring, and let him come to full power again


It say's that after the downfall, he had a body to kill gil-galad with, and even in LotR it is said that after his finger was cut of there was only nine one the black hand's.


ingolmo said:


> And to come back on topic, Greenwood, I never have yet said that Morgoth's the villain directly, I only said indirectly he is, in the form of evil.



Could not agree with you more.


----------



## HLGStrider

elvenbladesmith said:


> the ring is just pure power, so its nothing special. sauron is evil, so hes expected to be that way, his aim is easy to determine. also everything has evil, and for middle earth, sauron was it.
> i think man is the real villian. think about it, they lust for power, and there easily corrupted. they cause all the problems in middle earth, but this also makes them the heroes, because some men, knowing their weakness, they are strong enough to overcome and fix the problems theyve caused. islidur, boromir, and aragorn demonstrate this throughout the book.


 
Everything men do, however, is either a result of Sauron's evil (through temptation) or only furthers Sauron's evil. There is never a chance of a man setting himself up as Chief Bad Guy. If anything, Sauron uses the evil within men for his own ends.


----------



## Hammersmith

HLGStrider said:


> Everything men do, however, is either a result of Sauron's evil (through temptation) or only furthers Sauron's evil. There is never a chance of a man setting himself up as Chief Bad Guy. If anything, Sauron uses the evil within men for his own ends.


To which I would say, neither of the protagonists that I suggested were men


----------



## Alatar

If you are going to call the evil in men the evil, then it is the fault of morgoth and the first fall of man. The first fall of man is told in the book of lost tales, though i am sure that it would have changed alot before he was happy with it.


----------



## ingolmo

Of course. All the fault leads to Morgoth. Sauron was merely his succeder and his lueitenant.


----------



## Alatar

ingolmo said:


> Of course. All the fault leads to Morgoth. Sauron was merely his succeder and his lueitenant.


Way  ! Now can anyone dissagree with that?


----------



## Narsil

Alatar said:


> Way  ! Now can anyone dissagree with that?



Yes, I disagree, mainly because I agree with this:



Greenwood said:


> Would a person who had only read LOTR have any idea who you were talking about when you say Melkor/Morgoth was the "true villain" of Lord of the Rings? They would think you were crazier than YayGollum for calling Gollum the true hero. At least Gollum is in LOTR. The question was not: "Who is the true (or ultimate) villain in Middle Earth?



If the question had been phrased "Who was the true villain of MIDDLE EARTH?" or "All of Tolkien's writings?" I would agree that Morgoth was indeed the primary source of Evil (barring Eru, the One and Supreme). But since the question was who was the "true villain of _The Lord of the Rings_" I'm assuming that we are talking about Sauron. I'm looking at JUST the LOTR, sans the other stories, be it _The Silmarillion_ or _The Hobbit_. If we were discussing The Sil, it would be Morgoth. If it were _The Hobbit_ we would probably say Smaug. LOTR's villain is Sauron. 

As for the other choices, IMO, The Ring is an extension of Sauron, two pieces of the same puzzle. I do like the argument behind Saruman simply because he does play a more active villainous role and I find him to be more interesting to read about than Sauron but it's obvious that without Sauron's evil-doings Saruman wouldn't have played as big a role, in fact he wouldn't have been in Middle Earth at all, were it not for Sauron.


----------



## Thorondor_

Narsil, I agree with most of what you said, but concerning:
"I do like the argument behind Saruman simply because he does play a more active villainous role and I find him to be more interesting to read about than Sauron but it's obvious that without Sauron's evil-doings Saruman wouldn't have played as big a role, in fact he wouldn't have been in Middle Earth at all, were it not for Sauron"

I don't agree with that, because it's still very possible that someone similar to Sauron would conjure the power of evil and pose a great threat to M-E. In such a case, the Istari would still be called upon, and my guess is that Saruman would fall prey to the temptation of evil/power.


----------



## Narsil

Thorondor_ said:


> I don't agree with that, because it's still very possible that someone similar to Sauron would conjure the power of evil and pose a great threat to M-E. In such a case, the Istari would still be called upon, and my guess is that Saruman would fall prey to the temptation of evil/power.



Well, that's true enough. Plus it seems that Saruman was rather inclined towards evil/power to begin with and would've sought it out regardless of who the source of evil was. If he'd been around during the First Age he would've served Morgoth as well. I don't think he was too choosy about who he answered to.


----------



## Thorondor_

Narsil said:


> Well, that's true enough. Plus it seems that Saruman was rather inclined towards evil/power to begin with and would've sought it out regardless of who the source of evil was. If he'd been around during the First Age he would've served Morgoth as well. I don't think he was too choosy about who he answered to.


 
I would say that he *was* around during First Age, as a Maia of Aule. He somehow doesn't seem to me the type of guy who would accept *anyone* to answer to


----------



## HLGStrider

Sarumen was, however, with the Valar, rather than in Middle Earth during the first age. There he would have had everything he could want, plenty to do with himself, and I'd say little temptation. Sarumen was initially wise, and I think he would have known he had no chance against Eru. It is only in the seeming isolation of Middle Earth, surrounded by no being he considers his superior, that power would seem in reach, and so tempting.


----------



## Thorondor_

HLGStrider said:


> Sarumen was, however, with the Valar, rather than in Middle Earth during the first age. There he would have had everything he could want, plenty to do with himself, and I'd say little temptation. Sarumen was initially wise, and I think he would have known he had no chance against Eru. It is only in the seeming isolation of Middle Earth, surrounded by no being he considers his superior, that power would seem in reach, and so tempting.


 
Hm... how many things can you actually have in Valinor?[Even the elves got bored, sort of speaking]. I think he was looking for power from the very moment he volunteered, and he had a pretty good chance at overthrowing Sauron, as the Istari were "mighty, peers of Sauron". And the fact that he became jealous of Gandalf when Varda said he wasnt the third - isnt too much of a testimony to his wisdom if I may say so.


----------



## ingolmo

In LotR, I believe that Sauron was just the puppet, the figure-head, representing evil. And evil was started by Morgoth, he was the first evil thing in Arda, and he started and is the cause of the bad things that happened. So Morgoth is indirectly the cause of evil, and evil is the main villain. 
And 'urry up, Alatar! I need some support. I'm being outruled by these tweens.


----------



## Thorondor_

Well, against HGL's wish, we did come to discuss the origin of evil 



> So Morgoth is indirectly the cause of evil, and evil is the main villain.


 
Morgoth didn't create evil, he is most likely evil's first and foremost victim.
[What teens/twins are you talking about?]


----------



## ingolmo

I never said that Morgoth created evil, I said that Morgoth was evil, and because of his influence, things in the future of Middle-earth became evil. So I meant that he is the cause of evil because all the evil in LotR was because of his influence. 
About the tweens. You probably know that hobbits call the age from 20-29 tweens, and all the people with known ages who have argued with me so far have been from that age. So...


----------



## Wraithguard

I can't remember what I voted...


----------



## Alatar

*The Marring of Arda!*

Melkor marred arda, so he caused evil by singing wrong.


----------



## Wraithguard

Out of urge to not join in the regular choices. I'm gonna say Old Man Willow! Had he succeded the Fellowship would be a couple members short. Perhaps changing the fate of what happened.


----------



## HLGStrider

Votes are visible on this poll. Click on one of the numbers for the poll results and you can see who voted for what.


----------



## Alatar

HLGStrider said:


> Votes are visible on this poll. Click on one of the numbers for the poll results and you can see who voted for what.


I changed my mind, so you can see that i voted for the Ring, think of what happened to frodo. Now i look at the big picture, i think it is Melkor.


----------



## HLGStrider

easily fixed. . .I can edit the voting on polls. . .


----------



## ingolmo

Another Exotic Villain:  
How's Elrond? If he didn't let Merry and Pippin go, the Ents woudn't have destroyed Isengard, and Saruman would have played more of a part. Then Gandalf the White wouldn't have been made, since the Grey might not have died (Pippin's stone). Then the Black Captain wouldn't have been killed, and Pippin wouldn't have called Gandalf when Faramir was being murdered by his father.


----------



## Ingwë

No, the true villain of the Tolkien's world *is Melkor. *
Yes, Alatar, if we look at the really big picture in the Arda we will see that Melkor is the_ source of Evil in Arda_. 



Ingolmo said:


> So Morgoth is indirectly the cause of evil, and evil is the main villain.


 Melkor is directly the cause of Evil. He was the first in Ea who was Evil: he attacked the Valar, he stole the Silmarils, etc. 

Hey, I didn't know that the mods can edit the votes...


----------



## ingolmo

Elgee, are you planning on changing Alatar's vote so that we can proceed with the argument


----------



## HLGStrider

I can only alter the numbers of votes, not the tag on who voted (actually, I might be able to but not easily), and I already did that. . .though I don't see why you couldn't continue even if I didn't do that.


----------



## Aglarband

Everything Evil in Middle-Earth is essentialy made by Morgoth. Sauron, Orcs, Dragons, Goblins, all him. Sauron was just using Morgoth's old tools.


----------



## aimer

personly, i think it could be the ring maker


----------



## ingolmo

And how would that be? Don't you understand, that even though Sauron created the Ring, a matter of no importance, Morgoth created him, or rather, kindled the evil in him. Morgoth did it, he made and started all the evil in Middle-earth, and he's the cause of all the evil that occured in the Third Age.
And Elgee, I could have continued the argument, but it is more comforting and welcoming while seeing that eight people side with me. And then, it is just the effect of a mod posting. Didn't you see the outburst of posts once you posted?


----------



## Ingwë

Just look at this thread. It is very interesting and it shows that Melkor is the source of Evil in Arda.


----------



## Arvegil

The one Ring represents the temptation to use unlimited unethical power. That is the true villain.


----------



## Alatar

Melkor, he who arises in might( Love that name) sang agaist the Anui, and thus created stife in Arda, if you take him out...
Though, if you killed Eru...


----------



## ingolmo

Arvegil said:


> The one Ring represents the temptation to use unlimited unethical power. That is the true villain.


And who started the desire for unlimited unethical power? Morgoth did. He was greedy, and wanted Arda and the elves under his control. That was the lust for unlimited unethical power. Sauron was merely his follower, and the Ring his creation.


----------



## Thorondor_

I think we should differentiate between a powerful vilain and the possibility that someone does unethical acts. I think that this possibility exists prior to Melkor and independent of him.


----------



## Alatar

That possiblity was not pior to Mel, as Mel was one of the first Anui, so before him all there was was eru all alone  till he made Anui  
I think you mean that it was Independent to Mel.
Well, Mel CAUSED evil. There, so Mel is the villan.


----------



## Thorondor_

Do you think that if Melkor didn't exist, or if he didn't got corrupted, no one would have ever done any evil act?


----------



## Alatar

Hmmm, i think so, as if we look at the story of the first men, competely good, till the voice came, and elves are not naturally evil, or hobbits. Read of begining of days in the Sil, it describesa beutifull ME.
And dosn't it say,


> Vailinor still remained to the world visable, and there Iluvatar premitted the to maintain upon earth an abiding place, a memorial of what might have been if Morgoth had not cast his shadow on the world.


From the Silmarilion, the Akallabeth.


----------



## Thorondor_

So you think that if it weren't for Melkor's evilness, then none of the humans, elves or hobbits would ever do anything like uncalled for lying, cheating, stealing, manipulation, corruption, oppressing or killing?
Or would they never have strong feelings of fear/disobedience /hatred/fury/envy/jealousy (well you name it) that could lead to such acts?


----------



## ingolmo

They would, but not so evil as to fight for world dominance, fight against the Valar, mutinate elves, and no feelings of hate, jealousy, and anger would be as intense as the ones Morgoth had.


----------



## cupn00dles

Well... Pratically speaking it'd be Sauron in my opinion... If you take a more symbolical view you could say that it's Morgoth, for he was the one who awoke the evil in Sauron...


----------



## Thorondor_

> They would, but not so evil as to fight for world dominance, fight against the Valar, mutinate elves, and no feelings of hate, jealousy, and anger would be as intense as the ones Morgoth had.


So you still have evil with no Morgoth around (tho, granted, to a lesser extent).


----------



## HLGStrider

Actually, I think he is wrong, and evil would not exist even at the petty level. I see no signs of it as part of the plan prior to Morgoth. I see nothing that suggests it would have come about other than through Morgoth, so until someone provides that, I think it simply wouldn't have existed in Middle Earth without dear ol' M.


----------



## Ingwë

We have "Ring' and 'Sauron' but I think that Sauron= Ring though in the 'Lord of the Rings' they aren't together. Sauron created the One Ring and he 'put' his powers in it so there are relations between the Ring and the Ring-maker.


----------



## ingolmo

Actually, Elgee's right. If Morgoth hadn't stolen the Silmarils, the kin-slaying wouldn't have occured, Feanor wouldn't have taken his oath, and if Morgoth hadn't destroyed Telperion and Laurelin, Feanor wouldn't have gotten angry and selfish towards the Valar.


----------



## Thorondor_

@ Elgee
I previosly asked this: you think that if it weren't for Melkor's evilness, then none of the humans, elves or hobbits would ever do anything like uncalled for lying, cheating, stealing, manipulation, corruption, oppressing or killing?
Or would they never have strong feelings of fear/disobedience /hatred/fury/envy/jealousy (well you name it) that could lead to such acts? You think that Eru would have eliminated those intense feelings, that he would "lobotomise" all his creation? My opinion is that Melkor is a mere instrument of evil, I don't think that he created evil. He became corrupted by evil and evil temptations - which proves, in my view, that evil existed before Melkor.
@ Ingolmo
I think that Feanor would gut anyone who would steal his preciousss silmarils, with or without Melkor around. He is just too proud and possesive. Melkor too was proud, and his pride pre-existed him, he didn't create it.


----------



## Inderjit S

Arda was marred from the starrt, therefore Men would have been imperfect (as were the Elves, and even the Ainur) even if Melkor did not tempt them. In the words of Tolkien Melkor is the equiavelent of Satan.

And no body but Melkor would have stole Feanor's silmarils.


----------



## HLGStrider

Thorondor_ said:


> @ Elgee
> I previosly asked this: you think that if it weren't for Melkor's evilness, then none of the humans, elves or hobbits would ever do anything like uncalled for lying, cheating, stealing, manipulation, corruption, oppressing or killing?
> Or would they never have strong feelings of fear/disobedience /hatred/fury/envy/jealousy (well you name it) that could lead to such acts? You think that Eru would have eliminated those intense feelings, that he would "lobotomise" all his creation? My opinion is that Melkor is a mere instrument of evil, I don't think that he created evil. He became corrupted by evil and evil temptations - which proves, in my view, that evil existed before Melkor.
> @ Ingolmo
> I think that Feanor would gut anyone who would steal his preciousss silmarils, with or without Melkor around. He is just too proud and possesive. Melkor too was proud, and his pride pre-existed him, he didn't create it.


 
You assume that lying, killing, steeling, jealousy are a necessary/natural part of Elf-make-up. Now, we never get to see a perfect Elf, so we have no way of knowing what a perfect Elf would be like, but I really don't see how any of these feelings would add anything to an Elf's life or personality. You say these would be lobomized elves? Really, I don't think faults add to personality at all. 

Faults/evil are only corruptions of good tendencies. Jealousy is a corruption of love. Anger is a corruption of our desire to do something about something we dislike. Hate is in someways a corruption of love. 

Hate has no healthy application. It adds nothing to a human being or Elf. It's like saying that he lobotomized his Elves when he made them resilient against illness. There is nothing good about any of the things you listed.

I think it is a general human misconception that we nurture because we like it that our faults make us somehow more interesting and that a perfect person would be a person without personality. I think a perfect person would be more personality than not. It is not our goodness that makes us boring but rather our inability to utilize it.


----------



## Berserker

It's hard to say if it's SAURON or MELKOR, because evil is just a force or a feeling, and it can't do anything without someone who uses it.

In the other hand, the ring is just an object, a tool.

My opinion is that the true villian is SAURON.

In order to be evil, you must choose evil.


----------



## Thorondor_

@Elgee
My opinion is that all of Eru's creation (Melkor included) have the choice to be good or evil (at least at some point of their existence) and that good and evil are the basic elements of creation. 
Why would Eru even make his creation evil-proof? Just like God in christianity, Eru wants his creation to turn towards Him out of free-will, not because they are inherently pure good. Good must be a result of free will, otherwise morality is purely mechanical and puppet-like.


----------



## HLGStrider

Obviously he didn't make his creation evil "proof' or else Melkor wouldn't have been able to pull his little trick. He made creation totally good with POTENTIAL for evil, which is actually the Christian story. 

Good by itself allows potential for evil. The same make up that allows for sexual pleasure in marriage allows for rape in other conditions. Same potential, very different responses. 

In the Christian story the potential for evil exists, but no one has discovered it. The tree is the discovery of evil for humans (it already existed in the form of Satan's rebelion) 

In Tolkien's myth we have something a bit different. Evil is not introduced by an act of free will by Elves but by something that exists prior to their awakening. Therefore, Elves awakened marred, as opposed to Adam and Eve who awaken without evil and have to pick it up by choice.

I am using good here to mean the abscence of evil, so good actually does not have to be an act of free will. Evil does and when confronted with a choice (as A&E were) good does, but if evil does not exist there can't be a choice. I would argue that Eru wanted evil to be introduced in order to create the choice, but it was Melkor who introduced this, not Eru. There is nothing to suggest it would exist without Melkor's rebelion. . .but whether it would or not doesn't really matter, as Eru points out that he allowed for Melkor in the initial planning, and the discordant music worked in to the melody.


----------



## Thorondor_

Melkor couldn't introduce evil anyway: how could a part of creation (M) add a new feature to creation (evil) if such a feature wasn't already there. If Melkor can modify the whole of creation, by introducing a new cathegory (evil) then Melkor is at least as powerful as Eru - but we know he is just a thought of Eru, they are ontologically different, Eru is the primary cause of everything, while Melkor is just one of the effects of creation. At ontological level, an effect can't alter its cause (i.e. Melkor can't alter creation, only Eru can, because Eru is the source of creation not Melkor)
Eru allowed for evil to be discovered by Melkor because Melkor started his downward path when he interacts witht the void and starts having thoughts that other ainur don't have. This is the begining of the _discovery_ (not the _creation_) of evil for Melkor. Eru designed corruption (evil), otherwise, as you agree, nothing could corrupt his creation.
You made it pretty clear yourself:


> He made creation totally good with POTENTIAL for *evil*


means that you agree that evil preexisted creation itself, (let alone Melkor and the Ainur). Evil, as a potentiality for all those who have free will, preexists Melkor. Melkor is just the most powerful victim of evil and he triggers further manifestations of evil, but he is not evil itself.


----------



## HLGStrider

All right, let's say that Eru invents a match. Does he therefore invent fire? Match equals potential for fire. All it needs is for someone to pick it up and strike. Therefore fire is built into a world with matches, but if no one ever strikes fire never comes to be.

Rebellion/sin/evil was built in as potential into a world with free will. It was not built in as a necessity.


----------



## Thorondor_

If Eru designs a match but "forgets" to give the match the capability to produce fire, or he "forgets" to make fire a possibility, then that match could never produce fire.

If the potential for a thing or trait isn't built into creation, if that thing or trait isn't already designed, then that thing or trait can never come into existence. Melkor merely "discovered" evil and generated further evil. No one, Ainu or not, can bring into existence something that Eru didn't already allow for it to happen or exist.




> Rebellion/sin/evil was built in as potential into a world with free will. It was not built in as a necessity.



[At least for those who are not tainted by Melkor, evil is not a necessity (meaning it doesnt nulify free will), I never argued otherwise.] Should I understand that you agree that evil was pre-built into creation? And that Morgoth didn't create evil?


----------



## HLGStrider

Thor, a match that doesn't have the capability to make fire isn't a match. It is a stick. 


No, I am saying that Eru did not create evil. He created creatures with a potential for evil. 

I would agree that he created the ability for evil. I would agree that he expected evil to result from such creations.

I am saying that he built a piano but didn't play it and so didn't create _Chopsticks_, just the potential for some annoying person to sit down and play _Chopsticks_.


----------



## Thorondor_

[Where is scotsboyuk?]

When you said match, you already implied the possibility of burning and of fire - which had to be there in the very first place. If Eru created a _match_, he must have already created fire - otherwise, as you say, it's just a stick. It's a "chicken and egg" sort of an issue.

I think the area of disagreement beteen us is very narrow:

- Eru created evil as a moral choice; unless extreme force is exerted, if anyone with free will _wants_ to be evil, nothing can stop her/him from making this choice;
- a _certain_ disharmony with the musical theme given by Eru would occur whenever any vala had less than perfect musical talent - and we know that not all of them had a perfect musical talent, so disharmony would also occur with other valar albeit to a far lesser extent;
- biological decomposition must also occur, with or without Melkor (bacterias are a natural part of digestion and, of course, of decomposition)
- phisical decay would also occur, with or without Melkor (errosion due to water or wathever erosive agent such as sun, acyds and so on - basic chemical and physical processes; structural decay in processes which consume energy - wood turning to ashes after burning)

Melkor _got_ corrupted, he didn't create moral corruption - and I would say that him interacting with the void only _accentuated_ an already _inherent_ disharmony in his nature.

Afterwards, the corrupted Melkor only deployed his force (which, as neutral as it may be, is also given by Eru) in accelerating, increasing and expanding decay. He is the most potent _agent_ of evil/corruption/decay and he expanded them to great lenghts, but all these existed prior to him and independent of him.


----------



## ingolmo

Eru didn't necessarily want Melkor to be evil, he just knew that there would be some evil in the world, and he wanted there to be some. Because if there wasn't evil, there would be idleness everywhere, and idleness leads to evil. It's like two sides of a coin, or the Yin-Yang theory. The world can't exist without evil. So if Morgoth wasn't there, there would be some acts of evil, though not to Morgoth's extent. And no one besides Melkor would have stolen the Silmarils.


----------



## HLGStrider

> The world can't exist without evil.


 
Why not? I believe it has before and will again.



> Where is scotsboyuk


 
Last time S. and I got into it we ended up going into real world theology because it is such a fine line and we got shut down.



> - Eru created evil as a moral choice; unless extreme force is exerted, if anyone with free will wants to be evil, nothing can stop her/him from making this choice;


So you think that if there is an option for something it exists even before the option has been selected. For instance, if I have a pen and paper and the talent to draw a picture of a dog, that picture exists prior to the drawing of it because there is the potential for it to be created. 

What you are describing is not free will. You are describing evil forced upon men. If evil pre-exists than there is no choice to not have it because it is already there by default. If evil does not exist but can be created, there is choice. 



> biological decomposition must also occur, with or without Melkor (bacterias are a natural part of digestion and, of course, of decomposition)


 
I don't see biological decomposition as evil. Decomposition is not the same as corruption. In fact, in some ways it is the opposite. Decomposition is something following it's natural course to a natural end or cycle. Corruption is something being turned from its natural course to alter or end the cycle. 



> Melkor got corrupted, he didn't create moral corruption


 
I don't see how this falls into your arguement in favor of free will. Everyone has a choice except Melkor. Eru creates evil so that there can be free will, but Melkor doesn't have it and instead is simply an agent of evil?

This is a major self-contradiction, isn't it? Eru creates evil to allow for free will, but in doing so he deprives one of his greatest creations (Melkor is second only to Manwe in power) of the very gift he is giving the Elves/Men/etc by creating evil? Where then is the point? He has defeated his own purpose.



> phisical decay would also occur, with or without Melkor (errosion due to water or wathever erosive agent such as sun, acyds and so on - basic chemical and physical processes; structural decay in processes which consume energy - wood turning to ashes after burning)


 
Again these are all good things. I would also argue that wood does not care whether it is burned. Burning wood is a morally nuetral activity. In fact, it can even be a good activity. The wood deteriates, new trees grow in the soil created by decayed wood, more wood is created, the system is balanced, nothing has been taken away from the earth.

Compare murder. You can't grow another person out of a corpse. It takes living humans to create humans.


----------



## Thorondor_

@ ingolmo
I agree with you. I think the Ainulindale wouldn't be complete without Melkor's disharmony - nor the rest of the creation would. In general, good and evil, like life and death, and so on, are necessary. 
@Elgee
As far as biological and phisical decays are concerned, I think we agree. I just wanted to point out that decay would still occur in Arda, even if to a far lessed degree than in Arda marred. Melkor only accelerated/ accentuated/ expanded those decays. Concerning murder, I think many elves would agree to be killed (many of them were actually) just to get out of Ea.
Concerning 
- creation: nothing (not even a poem) can be created, unless its archetype already exists. And the source of all archetypes is Eru. Moreover, many artists / creators (and I would include also Tolkien, to a certain degree) would admit that they are only channels of communication when they create. And many people use creative work to get in touch with God. I like that saying that God's spark in us in our creative side.
- free-will:the exercise of free will isn't affected by what options already exist. You can exert free will completely no matter how few options you have (there should be at least two however ). Evil as a moral choice preexists per se, from the very begining; Melkor is the first one to make this choice. But anyone (Melkor included) can always choose, on the moral level, between good and evil (unless they are forced, but in this case free will is not exercised).
- Melkor: Eru didn't took away his free choice but he did built him with strong conditionings: his pride, his immorality, his little faith/love towards Eru and his power. Melkor was somewhat _bound _to fall, sort of like a tragic character,, with all his free will - this is how he was conditioned (to a certain extent) and with this purpose he was created. But with or without his fall (or existence for that matter), evil as a moral choice exists. He is only a powerful being, who chose the dark side; he didn't create it - think of Ungoliant and the void, those are other sources of possible coruption per se, independent of Melkor. Melkor's power was put to the service of evil, but that doesn't make Melkor the primary source of evil - only a voluntary and most powerful servant of evil.


----------



## HLGStrider

First question: What is evil?

Second question: What is good?

I think we are disagreeing what evil is because I still do not see the potential for evil as evil itself. We need definitions before we can continue.
My definitions.
Good: The natural state of things as created by Eru.
Evil: The corruption of the natural state of things, ie good.

Therefore, good in my belief can exist without evil but evil can't exist without good.


----------



## Thorondor_

> Evil: The corruption of the natural state of things, ie good.


But corruption as a process on any level of creation must exist - in order to have a complete system - otherwise the creation would be chopped off _and _most part of the need to progress disappears. And without evil, there is no morality; furthermore, who would strive towards Eru if all the world is so attractive? Part of the reason of why is this world so full of evil and disappointment is that the final meaning of the creation is not found in a part of it (be it a family, a kindred, arts, jewels, etc). The complete meaning of the creation is found only when Eru comes to be included in the picture, and what the evil does is to push us to find meanings beyond the marred Arda. Just like in real life, evil is both necessary _and_ (ironically)useful.


----------



## HLGStrider

Why must corruption exist? I agreed with you on decay, which I see as different from corruption.

Morality, as the distinction between right and wrong, does not need to exist in a perfect world any more than a justice system would. 

Good can exist without evil, just as light can exist without darkness. Darkness is nothing but the lack of light. It has no physical shape. It is a vacuum, a void if you will. 

Morality is to goodness what medicine is to health. Morality is the means by which we identify evil. Medicine is the means that we diagnos sickness. Morality is the means through which we confront and deal with evil. Medicine is the means by which we confront and deal with sickness.

Just as without sickness there would be no need for medicine. Without evil there would be no need for morality.

But without sickness there would still be health, in fact there would be more health. Without evil there would still be good, in fact there would be more good.

Evil in real life isn't necessary or useful. We could do very well without it. Just as we could do very well without cancer or hepititus.


----------



## Thorondor_

> Morality, as the distinction between right and wrong, does not need to exist in a perfect world any more than a justice system would.


 Are the valar living in a perfect world? Were the Ainur living in a perfect "world"?What would make a world perfect?


> Darkness is nothing but the lack of light. It has no physical shape. It is a vacuum, a void if you will.


Hm, consider Ungoliant and its web and power stemming from unlight.


> Just as we could do very well without cancer or hepititus.


I will start my view on the diseases by noting that many evil characters in Tolkien's world have diformed appearences. In my view, a disease is a sign of wrong values, so the disease can: warn; stop to a certain degree that inner wrongdoing; correct that wrong attitude. To me, a phisical disease prevents a moral disease from going deeper.


> Evil in real life isn't necessary or useful. We could do very well without it ...But without sickness there would still be health, in fact there would be more health.


 But that would be a static world. In fighting sickness, we find the means to become stronger. If we are sick-proof, the drive towards progress disappears greatly. Evil leads to good; the two are intrinsically linked.


----------



## HLGStrider

Well, never having seen a perfect world, I really can't describe it. It would be one devoid of evil. I am not sure if it would be one devoid of death in Tolkien's system, but it would be one where death no long has a "sting." It is not considered something regretable.

Ungoliant's unlight stemmed not from the production of darkness but of her devouring, sucking if you will, light, similar to a black hole though I am lousy at science, so don't ask me to pursue that metaphor. She was creating a vacuum, a void, about her. This is why she was always hungry for light. Darkness cannot fill you.

Many evil characters in Tolkien's world have a beautiful appearance which is warped by their evil actions. In fact, this is the case with all I can think of. They are all corruptions of good and beauty. However, my disease metaphor doesn't apply to that. I was using diseases in this world as an example. I would like to see you argue that in this world disease only results from evil action. That is a very dangerous and untrue doctrine. 
There are better ways to be stronger than to become sick. Besides, if you start out strong, you don't need sickness, and a truly strong person is resistant to sickness and is harder to infect. 
So sickness can make you stronger? It can also kill you and excercise and healthy eating can also make you stronger.

It is very true that surviving and conquering evil can advance goodness. But one person who becomes good through surviving a drug addiction and learning from it is not any better off, in fact they are worse off, than the person who reads holy books and prays and does good deads to become better. And the second person has given to the world in their growth, and the second has taken from it.

A person who looses their right hand may gain strength in their left, but it is always better to keep the right.


----------



## Thorondor_

> Ungoliant's unlight stemmed not from the production of darkness but of her devouring, sucking if you will, light, similar to a black hole though I am lousy at science, so don't ask me to pursue that metaphor. She was creating a vacuum, a void, about her. This is why she was always hungry for light. Darkness cannot fill you.


From the description of Ungoliant in the Sils, it is apparent that she did more than just consume light - she also produced her webs, which were unlight. Furthermore, it is said that the darkness that spread across Valinor after the killing of the trees was more than the absence of light, but a being in itself.


> I was using diseases in this world as an example. I would like to see you argue that in this world disease only results from evil action.


I said form wrong _attitude_. I am quite curious, do you think that biological disease are mere dereglations at the biological level, which have no higher purpose?


> That is a very dangerous and untrue doctrine.


I don't think it's that untrue. At least consider the effects of negative emotions on the health. As I have argued previously, such "evil" emotions stem from wrong attitudes (i.e. the false knowledge of separation). This interpretation holds the very key to healing: heal your soul, your wrong attitudes, re-find community, and there is no more need for disease.


> Well, never having seen a perfect world, I really can't describe it. It would be one devoid of evil. I am not sure if it would be one devoid of death in Tolkien's system, but it would be one where death no long has a "sting." It is not considered something regretable.


In my opinion, perfection lies in the eye of the beholder; Eru is beyond good and evil, and communion with him keeps one safe from harm. In Akallabeth, it is stated that fear itself turns death into a sting, otherwise it is merely a gift. Should Men had not forgotten their unity with the Voice, then their view of the world would not have became corrupted.


----------



## HLGStrider

I'd have to re-read the Ungolliant bits, and I am at work so I can't right now.


The majority of diseases are either invaders or mutations, but I don't have a medical degree. I don't think they have a good use.

Yes, emotional state can alter physical state which is basically the mind controling the body, but physical state can also alter emotional state. How much one controls the other is simply a matter of will-power. However, there is a point at which the will to live is nothing over the physical strength of a disease. 

Perfection is the state of Eru. Eru is perfect, original creation prior to corruption is perfect. As Eru knows everything, he can easily set a standard for perfection. Human beings on the other hand, cannot, nor can they reach it on their own. 
Yes, that is what I said about the perfect world containing death in Middle Earth. I wasn't certain, but you are right about that quote, so a Perfect Middle Earth world would include natural death. I think it would also include the willing death such as the kings of Numenor more than the more grisly kinds we are used to. 

Eru is not beyond good and evil. Rather he is perfect good and every deviation from him is evil.


----------



## Thorondor_

> The majority of diseases are either invaders or mutations, but I don't have a medical degree.


I would agree with Pasteur that a disease mostly occurs when the organism is too weak to defend itself - we are under constant attack from diseases, but at one time, due to one reason or another, we become too weak to defend, and therefore we have a disease. 


> I don't think they have a good use.


I would qualify diseases, suffering and misfortune as a challenge to improve ourselves or our wrong attitudes. Tolkien wrote several times, in both Akallabeth and Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, that is it the wrong attitudes of Men that lead to their shortening of lives. I believe that the reverse is also true.


> Eru is not beyond good and evil. Rather he is perfect good and every deviation from him is evil.


This brings our discussion to a very interesting level: is there anything outside Eru, which is not permeated by Him?


----------



## HLGStrider

Define permeate? I think of Eru as being everywhere, but not being everything, which is what I think you are getting at. Therefore he is within things but at the same time is seperate from things.


There are better challenges. It is a challenge to survive concentration camp and it is a challenge to survive college, but one challenge is positive, the other is negative. 

It is a challenge to get used to not having a left leg. It is a better challenge to learn to run a half minute mile on two strong legs.

I think that isn't the only description of disease. There are diseases caused by germs and there are diseases which are caused by genetic dispositions, for instance, which are actually part of us rather than attackers of us.


----------



## Thorondor_

Hm, Eru has an immanent and a transcendental aspect, so therefore he is somehow separate from things, because creation doesn't fully define him; but I don't see a single part of creation which is separated from him: Ainur, the fire sent to give life to creation, the fear... none. Those manifestations of him may have a certain form and identity, but they don't exist independently of him.

I can assure you than even surviving through college can be an awesome challenge - I am refferint to the highly demanding japanese educational system, I read that children over there even commit suicide because of this (and it also generates [size=-1]Hikikimori, children becoming autistic).

I think that those (severe) handicaps (aquired genetically or through injuries) signs of person who has too much of a wrong attitude; the mere existence of such an attitude is an attack on the whole of which we are all part of. Such handicaps reflect a deep-seated moral "cancer", so more extreme measures are needed in order to contain the aggression. Of course, in the case of genetic malformation at birth, I am presuming metempsychosis.
[/size]


----------



## Kelendil

Anyway, back to the question.

I think *desire* for the Ring. 
The ring embodies the evil, it is the source of contamination. Everyone in LOTR who is/has evil has somehow been in contact with it.
And it is the way that the ring effects those beings that is the true evil. The evil comes from the _desire_ for the ring, so the evil in effect comes from _within_. And by this I think Tolkien is showing that true evil comes from within, from desire, from lust. All the evil that goes on in our world today stems from desire, whether for power, for land, for control, the list goes on.

What do you think????


----------



## Hammersmith

I think you're all digging way too deep for no reason whatsoever. We aren't trying to define evil here, we're trying to describe the *VILLAIN* of Lord of the Rings. A baddie. The nastly guy. Not the Ring, not evil as a presence, not morality. Just a really, really unpleasant chap.


----------



## HLGStrider

> I am refferint to the highly demanding japanese educational system, I read that children over there even commit suicide because of this (and it also generates [size=-1]Hikikimori, children becoming autistic).
> [/size]



Obviously, then, this system has reached the point where the challenge is no longer a positive thing. I think you just proved my point. 

I think all of it was initiated by Eru, but I think all of it is seperated from him. Creation could exist and Eru would be no less because it is in no way a part of him.


----------



## Thorondor_

> I think all of it was initiated by Eru, but I think all of it is seperated from him. Creation could exist and Eru would be no less because it is in no way a part of him.


The raw material of anything that is created is Eru or at least is a manifestation of Eru. I really can't see Ea as separated from Eru, (only visually, not essentially); also, think of how limited is a limited-dimension perspective: if you intersect a complex two-dimensional figure with a line, the projection of the initial figure will be _apparently_ separated lines; same with a three-dimensional object: if you intersect it with a geometrical plane, you will see _apparently_ separated two-dimensional figures. The imperishable flame, the initial theme and the valar are just a glove of Eru, it is him who animates and sustains the creation (or, at least, the major evolution of creation), all the time. This is the very reason he said that everyone, even those who are against him, are just instrumental and a _part _of the whole; he has set in motion a design according to his own will (even if certain parts of creation do manifest what could be labeled as free will - to a certain extent) and he alone is able of altering the evolution of creation, whenever and however he sees fit. For me, even the timeless void is just an aspect of divinity - the unmanifested divinity.


----------



## ingolmo

Nice debate going on there, you two, but I feel the need to bring you back onto land now.*Elgee and Thorondor fall back onto earth headfirst from nowhere.*
To go back to the topic, here's a quote, giving more proof that Morgoth is the true villain. 


> From the Silmarillion: Of the Voyage of Earendil, the last page: Yet the lies that Melkor, the mighty and accursed, Morgoth Bauglir, the Power of Terror and of Hate, sowed in the hearts of Elves and Men are a seed that does not die and cannot be destroyed; and ever and anon it sprouts anew, and will bear dark fruit even unto the latest days.


That, in my opinion, gives full evidence that Morgoth is the full villain. After all, you have to listen to what Tolkien says.


----------



## Thorondor_

> That, in my opinion, gives full evidence that Morgoth is the full villain.


"Full" villain? A rather ambiguous term. He accentuated/expanded/accelerated corruption in Ea; most of us agree that Melkor was the most _powerful _villain, but whether he is the source of evil or if evil exists independent of him / prior to him, (as a moral choice / a force per se) is still a matter of debate, and that's what we are "mining" here


----------



## HLGStrider

OK, I am setting a new rule for debating with Elgee. NO GEOMETRIC ANALOGIES!


I love analogies, analogies are good, but I really dislike geometry and trying to picture squares when it is a hundred degrees outside is more than I can handle. Scientific analogies, mathmatical figuring analogies, real life analogies, natural analogies, you can do any sort of analogy you want and I'll get along with it, but not GEOMETRY! Please have mercy! No squares, no circles, no lines or parabolas! Please, please, please. . .

Anyway, where was I?

I don't see a link between creating something (I admit he created the beginings for everything) and it being part of you. My parents created me, I am not them. I create blankets out of yarn, jewelry out of beads, paintings out of paint (Elgee is now simply showing off that she has more hobbies than the average human being). . .and none of those things are part of me.

Now, as to whether Arda could exist without Eru, I think it is a moot point as by his nature, I don't think Eru can cease to exist. I think he is eternal. I think he always was and always will be and is incapable of ceasing by his very nature.

I also think that what you are describing, a plan being set in motion, does not imply that all is part of him. I have often knocked over the first in a string of dominoes without feeling I was part of the set.


----------



## ingolmo

You're going off topic Elgee...

Anyway, to answer your question, I don't think that Arda could have existed without Eru. He created Arda, along with the whole of Ea, so without him, Arda couldn't have been created, and in that way, couldn't have been done evil to by Morgoth, the greatest villain to roam Umbar. 

Which brings me to my original point, that Morgoth is the most powerful, evil and true evil in all of Tolkien's saga. My quote says that '... and will bear dark fuit even unto the latest days.' The latest days refers to the time of LotR, and hence, it is clear that the lies and treachery of Morgoth in the first age, which led to evil ever after, makes Morgoth the true villain.


----------



## Inderjit S

I think I would like to give my point of view here too.

I think that Eru created the Valar as independent beings from himself, or rather they had the potential to diverge from his own views and actions and make their own decisions, or if they wanted to, to blaspheme Eru himself and follow another lord, as many did, or become a dark lord, opposed to Eru, as Melkor did. Some used this "free will" for good-such as Manwë and the other Valar, though the other Valar were not all as "good" or as patient as Manwë, some being more violent, some more proud and some more impetuous. (i.e. Tulkas, Aulë and Oromë.) Manwë himself was not "perfect", or, rather he was not infallible and he made some mistakes- and he feared Melkor. Melkor himself had the free will to use his powers to do good or evil-it was a conscious choice of his own and Eru had bestowed the potential of evil to Melkor by giving him free will, ergo giving him a choice between conflicting ends. (Though Eru gave to each Valar a distinct character, Mandos for example was known to be stern, and Melkor was to a degree proud by nature, though this later turned to arrogance and evil, and he was powerful by nature but this later meant that he desired to be king when he didn't deserve the title.) Evil was not a part of Eru-Eru was perfect and free from evil, and though the Valar were a part of Eru, they were also as a result separate from him and because of their free will they were able to develop independent characteristic from Eru-the very fact that the were fallible shows this.

But even evil served it's purposes in the History of Arda-from the discords of Melkor the children came to be, and many other natural phenomena and the world was "bettered" because of evil-and Melkor, and thus the triumph of good was achieved, for however evil the act, however hopeless the situation good always triumphed over evil, or sprang out of evil-Melkor thought he had destroyed Gondolin yet he had brung about his own downfall for example.


----------



## HLGStrider

> You're going off topic Elgee...




It's not off topic until the mod says so .


----------



## Thorondor_

ingolmo said:


> You're going off topic Elgee


Again, you haven't read previous posts: if Eru created evil, (or, moreover , if everything is Eru, as I will try to argue), then we can't attribute evil to a certain part of creation.
[As a lesser argument, since,
- as Tolkien writes in HOME 10, that "it was the essential mode of the process of 'history' in Arda that evil should constantly arise";
- it is being given full credit to the idea that Melkor can change
Then this implies that evil would have existed even if Melkor would have repented - which reinforces the idea that evil is independent of Melkor, even if Melkor was the most powerful agent of evil.]


> I don't see a link between creating something (I admit he created the beginings for everything) and it being part of you.
> Scientific analogies, mathmatical figuring analogies, real life analogies, natural analogies, you can do any sort of analogy you want and I'll get along with it, but not GEOMETRY


Ok, let's see: according to De Broglie (in 1924!) and first confirmed by Davisson, Germer and Stern, the fact that we perceive the objects around us as separate from each other is merely a consequence of the fact that the greater an object is, the smaller its wavelength is. _In fact_, every object is a wave - i.e. a mere _disturbance_ that propagates / carries energy and not something that exists in and of itself. A wave on a lake doesn't exist per se, it merely "gives form" (more exactly: assigns probability) to an energy. Nothing exists _per se_.

Where does creation start? In Eru's mind. That is the very medium where everything "appears". All that is seen is a mere "disturbance" (and not something actually separate) in the primal medium, which is Eru. 

All beings are merely aspects of Eru, they are various forms of His energy coupled with various levels of His consciousness. When that consciousness is rather "oculted" (or "dorment") then that certain being (aspect of Eru) "believes" that it is separated from Eru, and that it "acts" as such. But this is false. This puts in real light Eru's statement: all those that think that they work against me, actually work for me. Why is that so? Because everything _is_ Eru.


----------



## HLGStrider

I really don't think so. Can you prove that with book quotes?


----------



## Thorondor_

Since I want to focus only on parts where we don't agree, which part of my argumentation do you think is unfounded or at odds with Tolkien's perspective?


----------



## Hammersmith

HLGStrider said:


> It's not off topic until the mod says so .


You're all off topic. Keep it up and I'll write an essay proving Tom Bombadil to be the evil arch-enemy of everything.


----------



## HLGStrider

Thorondor_ said:


> Since I want to focus only on parts where we don't agree, which part of my argumentation do you think is unfounded or at odds with Tolkien's perspective?


 
Basically I don't think a pantheistic philosophy fits with Tolkien's image of Middle Earth which was based off Norse Myths rather than Eastern Mythology.


----------



## Thorondor_

I don't think that there is anything in Tolkiens' view which precludes utter unity of the creation at the subtler level. I wouldn't call my perspective on Ea as pantheistic; pantheism, as far as I understand it, equates God with the creation - and this is not true in Tolkien's case, since Eru existed before the Ainur and Ea. Eru is neither co-substantial with Ea (i.e. He is not restricted to her, but He includes her _and_ transcends her), neither co-eternal with her.


----------



## ingolmo

HLGStrider said:


> It's not off topic until the mod says so .


Aargh! Those evil modses!



HLGStrider said:


> Can you prove that with book quotes?


True. We are talking about Tolkien's world and his creations, not De Broccoli's philosophy's. 

So Inderjit, what is your point of view? Morgoth is or is not the true villain? 

By the way, everyone, the topic is 'The True Villain of Lord of the Rings' not on Eru, his creations, and his Ainur.


----------



## scotsboyuk

Well I heard my name being mentioned and I thought I might add my own opinion to this discussion ...

For some reason many of you seem to be over complicating this issue. We are discussing a work of fiction, born of a man's mind. Tolkien created heroes and villains, they aren't always black and white, indeed they are often grey. Nevertheless there are still heroes and villains.

I'm not sure why some are weaving in complex analagoies or philosophies to explame something that is really very simple. Tolkien's work is about a battle between good and evil. These two forces are personified at different times by different people/things. It doesn;t actually matter what name we choose to give the villain, or the hero for that matter, because they are always the same.

For me Tolkien's works start out with balance, with harmony. Then we have imbalance and disharmony. One only needs to look to this to see what is good and what is evil. All the other things we label as such stem from this. Now many of you will be thinking that I am suggesting that Melkor is the villain at this point, but you would only be partly correct. It is the imbalance, which Melkor created that I see as being the true villain in Tolkien's works.


----------



## Thorondor_

> By the way, everyone, the topic is 'The True Villain of Lord of the Rings' not on Eru, his creations, and his Ainur.


Have you somehow failed to see that evil is mentioned as the possible true villain in the poll? Or is it that you preffer that everyone shuts up once you voiced your opinion on the matter? Well, "forgive" us for trying to get to a deeper understanding of Tolkien's world.


> True. We are talking about Tolkien's world and his creations, not De Broccoli's philosophy's.


I dislike it when people are cynical instead of providing a good counterargument; and it seems to me that you are making a habbit out of not reading previous posts before writing. But I will repeat my arguments concerning the fact that the Tolkien universe is panentheistic (i.e. that Ea is "just" a part of Eru - not to be confused with pantheism), nevertheless:
First of all, Eru created the Ainur from his mind; the music theme that actually sets the rule of creation is his also and he is the only one who can alter the course of Ea, by his own will and for whatever purpose he has; he is also the only source of souls and the primary source of the imperishable flame. (In my opinion at least) the creation can never be truly separated, ontologically speaking, from its primary Cause, as it is from that Cause that the creation gets substance, it is within it where it takes form and it is always sustained by it (and should the creation ever end, it will return to that Cause). Furthermore, we should also remember that Eru states that _everyone_, even those who are against him, are actually his instrument.
@scotsboyuk
I completely agree with you that there are heroes and villains, and that they are good and bad - to a certain extent, i.e. there are always shades of gray. However, I wouldn't qualify imbalance per se as evil; in most cases in mythology, there is a sort of imbalance that triggers the act of creation (or a sort of imbalance that triggers evolution/progress).


----------



## Hammersmith

Thorondor, perhaps you need to create a separate poll (or maybe Elgee, you could split this one?) so that the idea of evil as a valid entity and the blame associated could be discussed fully? As interesting as the debate is, it's become very narrow and shut out what could have become an interesting character debate.


----------



## HLGStrider

For once I am agreeing. I think we have taken it up a bit much.


Originally the idea of evil and good did mix in pretty well, but if we are going to get into philosophical makeup, I think it mixes hard if at all.


----------



## yhwh1st

Oops! I ment to click Melkor but clicked _Other_ instead. I think I may be a _little _dyslexic. My mind mixes things like that up all the time.

I think Melkor is the true villain because (to put it bluntly) He started it! Seriously though, the whole reason that this happened was because of the way he sang or made music at "the begining of time" so to speak.


----------



## Thorondor_

HLGStrider said:


> For once I am agreeing. I think we have taken it up a bit much.
> 
> 
> Originally the idea of evil and good did mix in pretty well, but if we are going to get into philosophical makeup, I think it mixes hard if at all.


Well, then I am waiting for you to do that mod magic with the thread


----------



## ingolmo

yhwh1st said:


> I think Melkor is the true villain because (to put it bluntly) He started it!


Finally, someone with a good amount of common sense. While Thorondor_ and Elgee have used about two or three pages on such a simple matter, it can be put into one line. (And I just skimmed through the philosophical debate and geometrical anology posts, not read them fully.)


----------



## Mirak Dagan

Eru Illuvatar really is the one who responsible for all of these chaos. All of these Evils came straight outta him, good as well, since, he's the first source who can produce everything in the universe just by Thinking/Desiring it. Anything impossible become possible within his Dream/Thoughts.


----------



## Azrubêl

Mirak Dagan said:


> Eru Illuvatar really is the one who responsible for all of these chaos. All of these Evils came straight outta him, good as well, since, he's the first source who can produce everything in the universe just by Thinking/Desiring it. Anything impossible become possible within his Dream/Thoughts.


 
After seeing about a dozen of your posts like this, I can confidently say you have one of the most thoroughly inaccurate perspectives on Tolkien that I have ever seen.


----------



## Mirak Dagan

Azrubêl said:


> After seeing about a dozen of your posts like this, I can confidently say you have one of the most thoroughly inaccurate perspectives on Tolkien that I have ever seen.


Well, that just one of my thoughts. And since, I'm an Atheist, my perspective are quite different than most of Tolkien fans, thus, I'm fine if people criticise mine.


----------



## Azrubêl

Mirak Dagan said:


> Well, that just one of my thoughts. And since, I'm an Atheist, my perspective are quite different than most of Tolkien fans, thus, I'm fine if people criticise mine.



I mean it doesn't really have anything to do with your own spiritual beliefs. It's a dramatic misunderstanding of Tolkien's mythology to say that Ilúvatar is a villain and that any evil came from him. This contradicts the Ainulindalë and, as a result, the basic mechanics of Tolkien's world.


----------



## Mirak Dagan

Azrubêl said:


> I mean it doesn't really have anything to do with your own spiritual beliefs. It's a dramatic misunderstanding of Tolkien's mythology to say that Ilúvatar is a villain and that any evil came from him. This contradicts the Ainulindalë and, as a result, the basic mechanics of Tolkien's world.


It's only a misunderstanding in your own perspective, logic and point of view. Everything on Arda happens for a reason and that reason is within Iluvatar's head, who knows it better than him. Besides, It's just my thought/opinion on it. Who are you to say it's a dramatic misunderstanding and such. It mainly depends on how you see things in real life. You see it your way, I see it my way.


----------



## Azrubêl

"Your way" is an objectively wrong interpretation of Tolkien because it leads to condradiction within the mythology. Ilúvatar is the origin of all things, and evil comes into existence for the first time when Melkor causes dissonance within the music, for the reasons described in the Ainulindalë. Evil did not exist before Melkor's Discord allowed it to enter. Therefore, it is not possible that Ilùvatar was the source of the evil.


----------



## Mirak Dagan

Azrubêl said:


> "Your way" is an objectively wrong interpretation of Tolkien because it leads to condradiction within the mythology. Ilúvatar is the origin of all things, and evil comes into existence for the first time when Melkor causes dissonance within the music, for the reasons described in the Ainulindalë. Evil did not exist before Melkor's Discord allowed it to enter. Therefore, it is not possible that Ilùvatar was the source of the evil.


Iluvatar created Melkor exactly for that purpose, you should've know it already if you read it correctly. Both Good and Evil came deep from his thoughts, he was the one who came before everything. He could've created/designed Melkor to be good like the other Valar but he didn't for the purpose he himself only knew. His creations, they all played their parts against each other in the Music. That's why there're Good side and Evil side and they always clashing against each other.


----------



## EcthelionL

Mirak Dagan said:


> Iluvatar created Melkor exactly for that purpose, you should've know it already if you read it correctly. Both Good and Evil came deep from his thoughts, he was the one who came before everything. He could've created/designed Melkor to be good like the other Valar but he didn't for the purpose he himself only knew. His creations, they all played their parts against each other in the Music. That's why there're Good side and Evil side and they always clashing against each other.


My opinion is that the Children of Iluvatar (Elves, Men and Ainur) have free will and are responsible for their own actions. Yes, Iluvatar gave them desires and characters but it's up to the individual how they respond to this. Melkor could have overcome his greed for power and instead served Iluvatar but, alas, it wasn't to be.

That being said, Iluvatar created 'evil' thoughts or desires but it is up to us (and Ainur such as Melkor) how we respond to them. So I agree with Azrubel that Iluvatar is not responsible for evil - Melkor (or Morgoth) is.


----------



## Azrubêl

Ilúvatar created Melkor for his glory, to participate in his creation. Melkor, like all beings, had free will, and Melkor chose to allow evil to enter. Ilúvatar may have known that Melkor would cause evil, but he did not create Melkor in order for evil to enter. In Tolkien's world, the One is pure and of one will, and each being in his creation has its own free will.

Ilúvatar is also the primordial creative force that creates the incarnate world, but he does not make slaves. The actions of his creation are their own.


----------



## EcthelionL

Just to add - I can see where Marak is coming from but I think it's a misunderstanding. When Iluvatar says that even Melkor's theme is for the glory of Iluvatar (or words to that effect) He means that evil deeds will result in good. The examples in Ainulindale are clouds and frost but other examples would be pity, heroic deeds, mercy etc all of which are the result of evil.

Iluvatar never intended for evil to enter the world but, as it has, he uses it to create good.


----------



## Mirak Dagan

EcthelionL said:


> My opinion is that the Children of Iluvatar (Elves, Men and Ainur) have free will and are responsible for their own actions. Yes, Iluvatar gave them desires and characters but it's up to the individual how they respond to this. Melkor could have overcome his greed for power and instead served Iluvatar but, alas, it wasn't to be.
> 
> That being said, Iluvatar created 'evil' thoughts or desires but it is up to us (and Ainur such as Melkor) how we respond to them. So I agree with Azrubel that Iluvatar is not responsible for evil - Melkor (or Morgoth) is.


I see yours but I'll stick with my interpretation.



Azrubêl said:


> Ilúvatar created Melkor for his glory, to participate in his creation. Melkor, like all beings, had free will, and Melkor chose to allow evil to enter. Ilúvatar may have known that Melkor would cause evil, but he did not create Melkor in order for evil to enter. In Tolkien's world, the One is pure and of one will, and each being in his creation has its own free will.
> 
> Ilúvatar is also the primordial creative force that creates the incarnate world, but he does not make slaves. The actions of his creation are their own.


Like I've said before, you have your point of view, I have my. Thus, it's meaningless to argue against each other. I'll leave it at that.



EcthelionL said:


> Just to add - I can see where Marak is coming from but I think it's a misunderstanding. When Iluvatar says that even Melkor's theme is for the glory of Iluvatar (or words to that effect) He means that evil deeds will result in good. The examples in Ainulindale are clouds and frost but other examples would be pity, heroic deeds, mercy etc all of which are the result of evil.
> 
> Iluvatar never intended for evil to enter the world but, as it has, he uses it to create good.


Point well made. Still, it could goes both ways.


----------



## Azrubêl

Mirak Dagan said:


> I see yours but I'll stick with my interpretation.
> 
> 
> Like I've said before, you have your point of view, I have my. Thus, it's meaningless to argue against each other. I'll leave it at that.
> 
> 
> Point well made. Still, it could goes both ways.



It cannot go both ways, as your way is self-contradictory. However, you are free to think that.


----------



## Mirak Dagan

Azrubêl said:


> It cannot go both ways, as your way is self-contradictory. However, you are free to think that.


It certainly can go both ways, as it is a point he made regarding my opinion. An opinion doesn't equal self-contradictory or a fact. And of course, I can.


----------



## Ingolmin

scotsboyuk said:


> For me Tolkien's works start out with balance, with harmony. Then we have imbalance and disharmony. One only needs to look to this to see what is good and what is evil. All the other things we label as such stem from this. Now many of you will be thinking that I am suggesting that Melkor is the villain at this point, but you would only be partly correct. It is the imbalance, which Melkor created that I see as being the true villain in Tolkien's works.


Most important thing is that villain is a term for a being not for an effect or phenomenon!



Mirak Dagan said:


> It certainly can go both ways, as it is a point he made regarding my opinion. An opinion doesn't equal self-contradictory or a fact. And of course, I can.



Illuvitar was not a source of evil or creator of chaos, he was the creator himself, evil was one of the lesser manifestations of his nature as is in a God, it does not represent the god itself! For eg- Matter comes from the The Absolute God but are his inferior manifestations, and he is not affected from them.
The true villain is Melk0r himself, the master of Sauron. In broad sense, Sauron can be said as villain in the Lord of Rings but Sauron was doing only what Melkor would have done in his place. The seed of all evil was implanted by Melkor himself when the Music was being sung.


----------



## Andy*

The evil one in me wants to say Peter Jackson...
Just kidding...
That said no offense to those here who enjoy the movies... they just aren't for me.

I'd vote for Melkor as the root of evil in Middle earth with Sauron as the villain in the Lord Of The Rings.
Andy


----------



## The Elvish Minstrel

Andy* said:


> The evil one in me wants to say Peter Jackson...
> Just kidding...
> That said no offense to those here who enjoy the movies... they just aren't for me.
> 
> I'd vote for Melkor as the root of evil in Middle earth with Sauron as the villain in the Lord Of The Rings.
> Andy


Lol!!! 

Sometimes I kinda feel sorry for guys like Peter Jackson and George Lucas.


----------



## Andy*

Glad to see that you took my comments lightheartedly... ( that was the spirit in which I wrote 'em  )
Andy


----------



## The Elvish Minstrel

Andy* said:


> Glad to see that you took my comments lightheartedly... ( that was the spirit in which I wrote 'em  )
> Andy




Personally, I liked how nice you were about your dislike for the movies, instead of just saying something like, "if you like them your stupid" or something like that.


----------



## Andy*

The Elvish Minstrel said:


> Personally, I liked how nice you were about your dislike for the movies, instead of just saying something like, "if you like them your stupid" or something like that.


Thanks!
It is not for me to say that someone is stupid for liking something I do not.
We all have different tastes , needs and desires and as long as those tastes , needs and desires cause no harm... What is the big deal if someone likes something that I do not?

Maybe the true villain in The Lord of the Rings is the evil that is brought into the world through good intentions or "justified measures"?
Kinda like how The Ring tries to seduce Boromir and others... into taking and using The Ring for "good" and fighting Sauron or "righting his wrongs" etc... Just a thought before coffee....
Andy


----------



## The Elvish Minstrel

Andy* said:


> Thanks!
> It is not for me to say that someone is stupid for liking something I do not.
> We all have different tastes , needs and desires and as long as those tastes , needs and desires cause no harm... What is the big deal if someone likes something that I do not?
> 
> Maybe the true villain in The Lord of the Rings is the evil that is brought into the world through good intentions or "justified measures"?
> Kinda like how The Ring tries to seduce Boromir and others... into taking and using The Ring for "good" and fighting Sauron or "righting his wrongs" etc... Just a thought before coffee....
> Andy


Speaking of, I've always liked Sam and Faramir for resisting the ring (not that others haven't too, like Gandalf and Galadriel).


----------



## Andy*

Well I am re-reading The Lord of the Rings ... so we shall see , if my thoughts change on just who is the true villain is here...
It could be my job ... Pesky students getting in the way of reading time!..
Andy


----------



## Sulimo

Sauron no question he is The Lord of the Rings. However, the significance is that you don't see him. How much more terrifying is the evil in your imagination versus the evil given flesh. Think about Stephen King's It for example. 

One could also argue that the destructiveness of pride is as much the main villain in the books. For Sauron himself fell victim to his pride when he refused to travel back to Valinor for judgement of his actions at the end of the First Age. Pride is a hallmark of human nature and the opposite end member, which I would argue is not in our nature at all, is humility. When we are humble it typically is a result of moving in the opposite direction of our survival instinct. It is a paradox: die to live, but that is humility. I also believe this paradox is the core message of the books. It explains why the council chose to destroy the ring instead of use it, and why they sent 2 hobbits into Mordor. Also it's why Sauron never saw it coming. 



> 'I pass the test' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel



A less abstract example would be the quote above when Galadriel passed the test in refusing the ring she overcame her pride, and displayed humility. She had an opportunity to be the supreme ruler of Middle Earth. She was of noble bearing in Middle Earth of higher standing than even Elrond one could argue, but she gave it all up and decided to return to a land where the Vala rule. She would be just another elf and her father would be the one who ruled over the affairs of others. It is interesting to consider that for the entire third age she was the dominate elf in middle earth after the fall of Gil-Galad, and now she is willing to give it all up. She had finally atoned from the Doom of Mandos. 

This highlights that everyone except Bombadil possess in their base nature an incompatibility with goodness. Those who are wise know not to entertain temptation and dismiss it as quickly as possible, those who are foolish are corrupted and controlled by it. Perhaps while Sauron serves as a force of malice upon the land. He benefits from the destructive ramifications of prideful actions of everyone else. Primarily Sauraman, Boromir, and Denethor. However, Sauron still lost. His pride led to his downfall, the same happened for each other character on this list. Frodo's humility, empathy, and compassion are what saved him because he spared Gollum. So I guess what I'm saying is that the Sauron is his own worst enemy as well as everyone else's because of pride.


----------



## BalrogRingDestroyer

Greenwood said:


> Your question was who is "the true villain of the *Lord of the Rings*"? To that question, I think the answer must be Sauron. Melkor/Morgoth does not appear in LOTR. He is not even mentioned, except indirectly. The Ring is merely an extension of Sauron. Saying the Ring is the villain is the same as saying Sauron is the villain. Saruman, the Nazgul, orcs, etc. are all merely puppets to one extent or another of Sauron. Saruman and Denethor are both corrupted by Sauron through their palantirs. We never meet Sauron directly, but he is the villain behind everything else.


Actually, we do kind of directly see him:

He talked to Pippin. Also, I think that we knew his thought right when Frodo claimed the Ring.


----------



## Kharina

Sauron, though by this I include the Ring given that the Ring is basically part of Sauron.

I think 'evil as a force' is an interesting option, and I think LOTR definitely acknowledges that defeating one villian won't get rid of all evil or stop evil from ever 'coming back' ever again, but I think the common understanding of the term villian would relate to a character or characters in a story rather than 'evil' as a force. I also don't believe that evil as a force exists in the real world- I think there are evil (and good) actions that come about as the result of individual people's choices (or the choices of groups). So to me it makes more sense to pick a person in the story who a) acts as an antagonist, as that's part of the definition of a villian to me, and b) makes a lot of evil choices (with Sauron by the time of LOTR it seems to be pretty much always evil choices!)


----------



## Jordan Thomas

Ingwë said:


> I think the true Villain of the Lord of the Rings is Melkor, because he is the source of the Evil in the Middle earth. He was the Master of Sauron and he was his teacher. He created the orcs and the Balrogs.
> I would say I agree with ingolmo


The balrogs were fallen Maia



BalrogRingDestroyer said:


> Actually, we do kind of directly see him:
> 
> He talked to Pippin. Also, I think that we knew his thought right when Frodo claimed the Ring.


Melkor was the ultimate villain of the Tolkien universe, if it wasn’t for Melkor’s treachery, Sauron would never have turned to evil


----------



## Gilgaearel

None of the above. I would say Feanor's sons and his grandson Celebrimbor. He was the one who made all the lesser rings and if he didn't make them then the One Ring would have not been made in the first place as it would have no actual power because there would have been no subjects to apply its power. There wouldn't be any Nazguls to serve Sauron, no greedy Dwarfs either to dig into Moria and wake up Balrogs and Elves like Elrond and Galandriel, would have left Middle Earth way earlier because they wouldn't have any reason to stay in such a wretched place like Middle Earth. 
Celebrimbor messed them all up!


----------



## Barliman

The true villain was Peter Jackson.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner

In other words, Sauron.


----------

