# Would you rather be a Balrog or a Dragon?



## Huan the Hound (Feb 9, 2004)

If anyone has opinions about the following dialogue, I'd love to hear them! Also, if this topic has been covered, the appropriate thread would be much appreciated. Also, I'd pick Dragon.

-Would you rather be a dragon or a balrog?

-Well, I lack an intimate familiarity with the powers of each. A few things to consider: Are there female dragons or balrogs around? Are dragons inherently evil, as balrogs are, or could I choose to live a peaceful life if I so desired? Are dragons or balrogs more powerful?

If I were a balrog, and I lost my whip of flame somehow, would I be able to get a new one? 

-Dragons and Balrogs both are considered to be created by Melkor, and therefore inherently evil. However, Tolkien says something interesting about the First War of the Ring (IE, the one you see on the Slopes of Mount Doom in LotR Fellowship movie):

In that battle there were no creatures in all of ME who were not in some way split between the two warring factions, except the Elves, who altogether rejected Sauron as evil. Now this means that Balrogs, Dragons, Trolls, Orcs, etc., in some way could have been considered against Sauron. This means that freedom of choice must exist, and therefore you could chose to be good or peaceful. However, it is my understanding of dragons that they need to eat things (cows, men, what have you) and would therefore be compelled by hunger, and of Balrogs that there very nature makes them hate things that Valar other than Melkor created, IE things that are good. I do not think Balrogs need to eat food.

I think Dragons are far less evil by nature, and far less easily compelled by evil opposed to compelled by their own interests.

In terms of power: I know both are very powerful. There were only 7 Balrogs in the history of ME, and they wrecked all sorts of ****. The # of Dragons was also small-- maybe 30 altogether? Balrogs were Maiar—the same as Gandalf, Saurman, Sauron, Melian, etc. The last dragon that anyone knew of was Smaug, who was killed in the hobbit. The last Balrog anyone heard of was the one Gandalf killed 70 years later. However, according to the calculations of many nerds, there should have been one Balrog remaining after the Moria Balrog was killed.

I think that the fiery whip is either a spiritual extension, or that any whip you could put your hands on would be inherently fiery if you were a Balrog.


----------



## Deleted member 3778 (Feb 9, 2004)

Dragon, no doubt  pretty things...

(I think the whip was probably a "gift" of some sort from Melkor, probably enchanted..don't think he was born with it.)


----------



## Turin (Feb 9, 2004)

I'd rather be a balrog, they're just a lot more awsome.


----------



## Deleted member 3778 (Feb 9, 2004)

naahh, they're just big and clumsy ;]


----------



## Turin (Feb 9, 2004)

Actually I think that dragons would be bigger than balrogs. Balrogs are probably about 14 feet tall, dragons would be a lot longer I think.


----------



## Deleted member 3778 (Feb 9, 2004)

true, but a dragon would be smart enough to use it's wings (considering balrogs _do_ have wings..  ) when falling down into an abyss.

kidding. I just like dragons because they're more elegant. Balrogs are great too of course.


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 9, 2004)

Yes dragons are bigger than Balrogs, though personally I do view the Valaraukar as being at least four times the size of a Man; the movie did a great job size-wise, I thought.
But I would be a Valarauko; even though both of these creatures are beings of Fire, I think that a Balrog has more potential as they are not physical beings, or have no real physical form as such (IMO it was the innate power of Elves to phase between the Seen and Unseen which made it possible for some Balrogs to be killed in battle), and are Maiar, whereas dragons (though we know little of them) are physical, organic creatures with all the drags that come with it.


----------



## Huan the Hound (Feb 9, 2004)

*history of Balrog?*

I know Glorfindel part one killed a Balrog, and I know Gandalf killed one... Is there any other tale of how the other Balrogs went down?

And while the Dragons are physical, they are just about the baddest physical specimen I've ever heard of in Tolkien's world... I'd take Glaurog (wasn't that his name?) over a Balrog!


----------



## Zale (Feb 9, 2004)

Dragons (certainly Glaurung and Smaug) appear to have considerable power over the minds of other creatures; something Balrogs seem to have to do without.

How much easier would Gothmog's job have been if he had bewitched Ecthelion like Glaurung did to Niniel?

(That's another example of a Balrog being killed - Gothmog their captain by Ecthelion, during the taking of Gondolin. Or was that Glorfindel?)


----------



## Tinuvien21 (Feb 9, 2004)

I would want to be a dragon. They're really powerful, and magnificent. They breath fire,but balrogs are made of fire. If I were one of the dragons, I'd like to be Ancalagon the black, or Smaug. (without a hole in my armour.)


----------



## Éomond (Feb 9, 2004)

But, weren't Dragons easier to kill than Balrogs?
I mean, we hear of only, what, two or three Balrogs killed (and it being an amazing task, of course) and all the Dragons get killed off (even it to, an amazing feat). Yeah, I'd pick a Balrog, and one of the First Age, they had their own Troll guards in battle


----------



## Manwe (Feb 10, 2004)

I would like to be a dragon, but only because I could hoard heaps of treasure
And the burning of people is good to


----------



## celebdraug (Feb 10, 2004)

there should have been a poll for this.

i'd pick a dragon, becasue they are pretty, and i like dragons.

Also i was born in the year of the dragon in the chinese calender thingy.


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 10, 2004)

Poll added. 

Balrogs rule.


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 10, 2004)

I'm inclined to go with Balrogs myself. 

Does anyone know how many of the Dragons could actually fly?


----------



## Sarde (Feb 10, 2004)

Never mind being easier to kill, I'd be a dragon anytime. Dragons are cool. Beautiful too.


----------



## Huan the Hound (Feb 10, 2004)

*Dragon Farm!*

this from my friend Nate:



I think I’d much prefer the dragon then. Hating stuff all the time would suck. Also, while as a dragon I’d be compelled by hunger, I could probably work out an arrangement to peaceably require the food I needed. Perhaps I could get some cows in exchange for performing various services for the men, or I could just start my own farm.



Yeah, if there were only 7 balrogs, there probably wouldn’t be any females, or, if there were, competition would be pretty great over them. At least with 30 dragons, I’d have a little more of a shot.



Also, we really to find someone to tell us how many Dragons there were, and who killed them. I think the Balrog Gothmog was killed by Glorfindel during the retreat from Gondolin. Glorfindel also died. I would be interested to learn more about Elves and the seen and unseen, that is something I have never heard of...


----------



## Turin (Feb 11, 2004)

I'd think that a balrog would have more of a human form, I'd rather have more of a human shaped form than a dragon form.


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 11, 2004)

And the Balrog has an ability to cast at least some spells. 

_If_ I was a dragon, it would definitely have to be a flying one. I would hate to have to drag myself everywhere.


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 11, 2004)

I think a point that your friend Nate left out, Huan, was that every single dragon connected to Arda was evil. And they were also cunning and intelligent, though prideful, and no petty deals with mere humanoid worms would satisfy them; they were powerful and smart, they could get food whenever they wanted. But they were still killable, while Balrogs can be said to have been almost immortal because so few were ever vanquished in combat.
And one great advantage over the dragons which Valaraukar have is the same which the Nazgûl use: *f e a r*. This force of terror is enough to paralyze any warrior, and on top of that they are made of living fire and shadow and therefore are ethereal and can hardly be killed (I stand by my Unseen/Seen theory of before), and they often utilize whips and swords of iron and flame, which I can only imagine must be several times larger than those used by humanoid soldiers in Arda. 

So weep, dragonlovers, for my pet Balrog will squoosh you all!! MUAHAHAHA!!!


----------



## Arvedui (Feb 11, 2004)

Lantarion said:


> But they were still killable, while Balrogs can be said to have been almost immortal because so few were ever vanquished in combat.


Why were few ever defeated in combat?
Because they were few to begin with!I am not an expert on Balrogs, but if I am not totally wrong, I think the number of Balrogs never exeeded seven, right? And all of them were killed in hand-to-hand combat weren't they? Echtelion and Glorfindel each killed one in the Sack of Gondolin. And during the War of Wrath


> The Balrogs were destroyed, save some few that fled and hid themselves in caverns inaccessible at the roots of the earth;


 But what is said about Dragons and their participation in that same war:


> Morgoth quailed, and he dared not to come forth himself. But he loosed upon his foes the last desperate assault that he had prepared, and out of the pits of Angband there issued the winged dragons, that had not before been seen; and so sudden and ruinous was the onset of that dreadful fleet that the host of the Valar was driven back, for the coming of the dragons was with great thunder, and lightning, and a tempest of fire.





Lantarion said:


> And one great advantage over the dragons which Valaraukar have is the same which the Nazgûl use: *f e a r*. This force of terror is enough to paralyze any warrior, and on top of that they are made of living fire and shadow and therefore are ethereal and can hardly be killed (I stand by my Unseen/Seen theory of before), and they often utilize whips and swords of iron and flame, which I can only imagine must be several times larger than those used by humanoid soldiers in Arda.


I really think that you have lost something if you think that the dragons didn't spread fear before them. And besides, dragons were able to paralyze any warrior through their mental strength, without having to rely on fear alone...
Can hardly be killed? See above.



Lantarion said:


> So weep, dragonlovers, for my pet Balrog will squoosh you all!! MUAHAHAHA!!!


Your pet Balrog is less dangerous than Bin-Laden with a hangover. Dragons rule!!!


----------



## Morgoth (Feb 11, 2004)

I chose Balrog. Firstly, no man has ever killed one, only 2 elves and an Istari (that I know of anyway). Glaurung, daddy of all dragons, was killed by Turin Turumbar, a mere mortal. Secondly, Ecthelion died killing Gothmog, and Gandalf nearly popped his clogs, if it wasnt for the Valar. The dragons seem to be somewhat easier to kill. Balrogs are also better because:
*They look better
*They move about better
*Not easily killed by swords- "Swords are no more use here!"
So I vote Balrog.


----------



## Turin (Feb 11, 2004)

Morgoth said:


> Glaurung, daddy of all dragons, was killed by Turin Turumbar, a mere mortal.



*Ehem*, Túrin could kick any elf's butt, he never had a chance to fight a balrog, if so he would have won.


----------



## Huan the Hound (Feb 11, 2004)

Turin was pretty freakin sweet, I think calling him a mere mortal is not adequate. Moreover, his sword had a mind of his own, and was forged by the dark elf-- a pretty big deal. And, look at the treasure that Smaug amassed-- pretty awesome. Oh yes... And... A flying Dragon would be a far better thing than a balrog, which may or may not fly, even if it does have wings. Also, Balrogs don't even like to go outside, they just live in pits at the bottom of the world. Boring! No question about it-- Dragons are the way to go.

Point for clarification:

Does the Balrog of Moria answer to Sauron?


----------



## Huan the Hound (Feb 11, 2004)

Additionally-- just because Gandalf tells the company that swords are no more use (does he say this in the books or just the film?) doesn't mean that no swords were of any use at any point-- how else did Glorfindel and Echthelion kill their Balrogs?


----------



## Ireth Telrúnya (Feb 11, 2004)

I'd be dragon, of course. Balrog is outright evil, Smaug didn't seem so evil. And dragons can be very nice, like the one in this movie where Sean Connery was the voice of the dragon...right now I just can't remember the name of the movie.


----------



## Gandalf White (Feb 11, 2004)

Ireth Telrúnya said:


> I'd be dragon, of course. Balrog is outright evil, Smaug didn't seem so evil. And dragons can be very nice, like the one in this movie where Sean Connery was the voice of the dragon...right now I just can't remember the name of the movie.



But I'm afraid all dragons in M-E are evil! And I'm sure Sean Connery's dragon was not located in M-E.  

Dragons are cool, yes, but I prefer my Balrog...


----------



## Deleted member 3778 (Feb 12, 2004)

I think..you can't really compare the two - besides, dragons are very different as well (unless you're only talking about Tolkien's inevitably evil "dragons".)


----------



## Sarde (Feb 12, 2004)

Ireth Telrúnya said:


> I'd be dragon, of course. Balrog is outright evil, Smaug didn't seem so evil. And dragons can be very nice, like the one in this movie where Sean Connery was the voice of the dragon...right now I just can't remember the name of the movie.



Dragonheart... The dragon was called Draco. And how could a dragon bearing the lovely voice of Sean Connery not be nice? 
That was a very sweet dragon, but he indeed did not seem to be from around Middle-earth.


----------



## Turin (Feb 12, 2004)

Ireth Telrúnya said:


> I'd be dragon, of course. Balrog is outright evil, Smaug didn't seem so evil.



And what's wrong with being evil? Being evil is what makes a balrog so awsome .


----------



## Ireth Telrúnya (Feb 12, 2004)

Oh I knew all the dragons in M-E are probably bad. 
Evil I don't want to be, because in the end, evil is still not as smart as the good. Evil beings have this illusion they have it all together, but in truth they don't have anything. 
Smaug was killed as well as Balrog, you see?


----------



## Deleted member 3778 (Feb 12, 2004)

Turin said:


> And what's wrong with being evil? Being evil is what makes a balrog so awsome .



do you mean "cool, smooth, sly" kind of evil, or "cruel, disgusting, hateful" evil?


----------



## Isthir (Feb 12, 2004)

Huan the Hound said:


> Turin was pretty freakin sweet, I think calling him a mere mortal is not adequate. Moreover, his sword had a mind of his own, and was forged by the dark elf-- a pretty big deal. And, look at the treasure that Smaug amassed-- pretty awesome. Oh yes... And... A flying Dragon would be a far better thing than a balrog, which may or may not fly, even if it does have wings. Also, Balrogs don't even like to go outside, they just live in pits at the bottom of the world. Boring! No question about it-- Dragons are the way to go.
> 
> Point for clarification:
> 
> Does the Balrog of Moria answer to Sauron?


I shall attempt to answer your question Huan. In all thought on this I would have to say, no, the Balrog did not answer to Sauron. For the Balrogs were made by Morgoth, the Dark Lord of the Dark Lord as it may be. I personally do not believe that Melkor would have given the reigns of control over his creations to his servant. However, it could be argued that the Dark Maia (Sauron) did have control, for indeed he was the highest of Melko's captains and indeed a Maia. I have no proff either way, so count all that as speculation to the answer.

As for being a Balrog or Dragon, I would chose that of the Dragon. Yes, Glaurung was killed by a man, but as stated above, that man was Túrin Turambar who wielded the Black Sword. Túrin was no ordinary, run of the mill, man; and is spoken of in the Second Doom of Mandos. As for his sword, it was crafted by Ëol from a metal that fell from the heavens. To be killed by such a man would honor me, especially after all the anguish and pain that I had caused. Even in the end of Túrin it was Glaurung that killed him, for though he took his own life, it was the actions of the Dragon that brang this thought to him.

-Isthir​


----------



## Turin (Feb 12, 2004)

Ithilin said:


> do you mean "cool, smooth, sly" kind of evil, or "cruel, disgusting, hateful" evil?



All of them at once . Being good is too boring  .


----------



## Sarah (Feb 12, 2004)

Huan the Hound said:


> Are there female dragons?



Of course there are. Just ask Donkey:

"Oh, you're a giiiiiiiirl dragon....Well of course you're a giiiiiirl dragon!"


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 13, 2004)

Wait, I just realized that I've been looking at this question from a purely practical point of view! I haven't been asking myself which I'd rather be but rather which, IMO, would beat the other in combat! 

And although both beings are evil by nature, dragons even in Tolkien's works have a sort of unique, witty and independent flare, as well as their beautiful forms, which would make me lean towards picking them. 
But I'll stick to my vote, because we _Valaraukondili_ are the menshevists here.


----------



## Morgoth (Feb 13, 2004)

> To be killed by such a man would honor me, especially after all the anguish and pain that I had caused.


And to be killed by Gandalf The Grey, mightiest of the Istari, or Ecthelion, would not honour you? The arguement would come down to, who would win in a fight, Mithrandir, or Turin Turambar? My money's on Gandalf.


----------



## Isthir (Feb 14, 2004)

Morgoth said:


> And to be killed by Gandalf The Grey, mightiest of the Istari, or Ecthelion, would not honour you? The arguement would come down to, who would win in a fight, Mithrandir, or Turin Turambar? My money's on Gandalf.


Ah yes, it would honor me greatly. To me it would not come down to the fighting situation, but the situation of the fighters. For Olórin was the of the Maiar, while Turíin Turambar was that of the mortal race of Men. In my mind Mithrandir would be expected to win in most fights, while Turambar faced much greater odds stacked against him. I will also state that I hail Olórin, for great were his deeds.

-Isthir​


----------



## Isthir (Feb 14, 2004)

Odd it seems, for a thought occured to me as I posted the above post. For that post would make it seem that the Dragon's defeat would make it lesser of a being. This is not how I see it, though at this time I cannot explain the reasons. I blame sleep depravation. I simply figured that I would post and say that I know of the implications that my post has.

-Isthir​


----------



## Lantarion (Feb 14, 2004)

Arvedui, sorry I didn't answer your points before! Here is my response. 


Arvedui said:


> Why were few ever defeated in combat?
> Because they were few to begin with!I am not an expert on Balrogs, but if I am not totally wrong, I think the number of Balrogs never exeeded seven, right? And all of them were killed in hand-to-hand combat weren't they? Echtelion and Glorfindel each killed one in the Sack of Gondolin. And during the War of Wrath


Yes you're right, a far as I know. But you must take into account the stature of the Elves who fought and killed these Balrogs; and what I suggested as a theory before was that the natural capacity of Elves to move between the Seen and Unseen (for which I have minimal proof, it's true) would be the only explanation for their feats.
I mean think about it: a Valarauko sonsists entirely of 'shadow and flame', and for 'shadow' we might just as easily use a term like 'ethereal essense'; in other words it would be the same as trying to kill an actual shadow, or the wind. And as Gandalf says, swords would have done nothing to harm Durin's Bane. And the fact remains that the only people ever to have killed a Balrog have either been extremely potent Quendi or Maiar! 


Arvedui said:


> I really think that you have lost something if you think that the dragons didn't spread fear before them. And besides, dragons were able to paralyze any warrior through their mental strength, without having to rely on fear alone...


Yes excellent point, I didn't take that into consideration.  I will admit that Dragons convey fear in most creatures, but that is due largely to their sheer size and bulk, and their impressive 'armour' and pyrotechnics.  As for the hypnosis-type mind control, yes that is a huge advantage that Dragons have over Balrogs. But it is all relative, IMO; could Smaug have controlled Gandalf as the White? I don't think so, but that's just a suggestion. 
But the fact remains that Dragons were wholly existant in the Seen world, and were vulnerable because they were made of flesh and bone. Just look at what was needed to kill Smaug; a single arrow! In that sense I would say that Balrogs had a clear advantage, because they existed only in ethereal substance in the Seen world.


----------



## Ol'gaffer (Feb 14, 2004)

well just look at what was needed to kill the balrog! 

a cardiac arrest after running up all those stairs!


----------



## Khôr’nagan (Feb 25, 2004)

I would like to remind people that every time a Balrog was killed (one-on-one combat), the killer was himself also slain, and the killers were two Elven Lords and a Maia. Dragons, on the other hand, were slain in one-on-one combat four known times, three by Men and one by an Elf, and all of the dragon-slayers survived. Therefore apart from Eärendil alone, dragons were slain by beings which are less powerful than the beings that slew the Balrogs, and yet all the Men lived and the greater beings, i.e. Glorfindel, Ecthelion, and Gandalf, all died.

I wonder how a dragon might be killed by a Man and have the Man survive and how a Balrog might be slain by a Maia and have the Maia die in-so-doing, and still hold the notion the Balrogs are _less_ powerful then Dragons. The Naugrim fought back Glaurung when all others fled, and yet not even the Naugrim dared to withstand the Balrog. And I not how in both occasions when an Elf killed a Balrog, the Elf killed his foe by causing them both to fall to their deaths, thereby implying that the only way an Elf could possibly hope to kill a Balrog was to do so in a suicidal attack that would surely end their life and hopefully the Balrog's as well, and it looks like they got lucky. And when a Maia fought a Balrog, they fought each other for _Ten Days Straight_. Ten days of fighting one another until finally they killed each other. And yet a Man, infinitesimally less powerful than a Maia, managed to Kill a Dragon after a very brief battle and himself live.

Now really, how could any reason explain the massive difference in the things necessary to kill a Balrog and the things necessary to kill a Dragon other than that Balrogs were more powerful? Other than an incredibly monstrous stroke of good luck which let Men kill a Dragon three times and live, I see no other explanation.


----------



## Bucky (Feb 27, 2004)

Yeah, what 'Khor' said....... 

Now, let me adress some of the inacurracies I've read throuout this thread.


_
If I were a balrog, and I lost my whip of flame somehow, would I be able to get a new one? _

How would they lose it?
In the fire place?

_I think that the fiery whip is either a spiritual extension, or that any whip you could put your hands on would be inherently fiery if you were a Balrog._

Someone said the whip's a 'gift from Melkor'. HUH?  

As a Balrog is 'both shadow & FLAME', isn't it logical to assume the whip of flame is a mere extension of it's self?



_-Dragons and Balrogs both are considered to be created by Melkor,_

Balrogs are Maiar, offspring of the thought of Eru.

Dragons, some sort of life form perverted by Melkor because 'after his (Melkor's) rebellion, nothing new with life could he create' (paraphrase).
BUT, don't forget: 

'Then suddenly he (Glaurung) spoke, by THE FELL SPIRIT that was in him'

Couple that with the ability to cast someone under a spell & there's more to a dragon than just a monster perhaps......


_and therefore inherently evil. However, Tolkien says something interesting about the First War of the Ring (IE, the one you see on the Slopes of Mount Doom in LotR Fellowship movie):

In that battle there were no creatures in all of ME who were not in some way split between the two warring factions, except the Elves, who altogether rejected Sauron as evil. Now this means that Balrogs, Dragons, Trolls, Orcs, etc., in some way could have been considered against Sauron. _

Well, there were no Balrogs or Dragons around then.
It's very clear that Balrogs were a perversion or physical manifestation of the darkened spirits of those Maiar 'who became most like him (Melkor) in their corruption.'

_This means that freedom of choice must exist, and therefore you could chose to be good or peaceful._

For Balrogs, that choice was made long before. Once they were Balrogs, I think the choice was over.


I do think you raise a good point about 'all living things being divided that day' (The Last Alliance versus Sauron). I always assumed JRRT meant 'Free Living Peoples', i.e., Men, Dwarves & Elves. Are we to assume Orcs were fighting besides Elves & Dunedain _against_ Sauron?  



_ However, according to the calculations of many nerds,_

Good point!  

_ there should have been one Balrog remaining after the Moria Balrog was killed._

NO!!! 'MORE THAN ONE......

No calculations, just the statement, 'Some FEW that hid themselves in caverns inacessable...' Few is more than one, correct?
Uh, I guess that is a calculation.....

Which....

Makes me a nerd.   



_Yes dragons are bigger than Balrogs, though personally I do view the Valaraukar as being at least four times the size of a Man; _

Four times?
Is there anything you base that on?
There's very little on Maia/Vala size while in physical form that I know of.
I recall someone who posted here once that Valar were about 20 feet & Maiar about 14 feet tall. I don't know where that came from, but it sounds reasonable to me. 
The only thing I know of is in Letter #248 where JRRT states 'Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form he took was that of a man of more than human stature, BUT NOT GIGANTIC.'

Now, four times human size is certainly gigantic. 
Is 14 feet? I guess that's even debateable.

However, it's somewhere, I believe, Maiar sizes & Valar sizes are all about the same, so Sauron & the Balrogs must have been close in size.

_the movie did a great job size-wise, I thought._

I think it was a _bit_ too big myself.
Gandalf looked like a flea on a dog while stabbing the balrog as they fell.
The Balrog was about 30 feet tall there I'd say. 


_, I think that a Balrog has more potential as they are not physical beings, or have no real physical form as such_

I believe that is incorrect.
Read the description from TFOR:

'What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater'

Also, how does a 'spirit-form' have any weight in it to cause the cracked Bridge Of Khazad-Dum to collapse right under it?

Plus, Durin's Bane falls with Gandalf into water & it's flame is extinguished.....

What happens?
"It became a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake"

There's a solid form there, without a doubt.




_ (IMO it was the innate power of Elves to phase between the Seen and Unseen which made it possible for some Balrogs to be killed in battle), and are Maiar, whereas dragons (though we know little of them) are physical, organic creatures with all the drags that come with it._

Yes, agreed, especially the 'Seen' & 'Unseen' part which most people seem to not get or ignore. VERY important IMHO. Fighting a Balrog, you are not engaging in combat on a strictly physical plane.


----------



## Melian_the_Maya (Mar 16, 2004)

A Balrog for me, because they are creatures of darkness and of pure majesty. The dragon has flying, but is greedy, which is something I abject. The Balrog is a purely evil creature, with no mortal lasts. It is created only for distruction and it submits willingly to Morgoth, who, mind you, had quite a high respect/love for them. They saved their master's life, when Ungoliant tried to kill him, which is also a plus for them, even if their master had a questionable ideology.


----------



## meneldor (Mar 26, 2004)

When the baddest of all bad guys who ever lived releases dragons as his last defense you know there tough. If Gandalf fought a balrog, why after all the years of Smaug didnt he deal with him himself. He was worried of what Sauron would do with Smaug and was trying to think of a way to be rid of him. Smaug wasnt even the worst of all dragons.


----------



## Inderjit S (Mar 29, 2004)

What if a dragon and balrog mated?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Mar 29, 2004)

Then we would all bear witness to the birth of an omni-potent, omniscient and omni-present being known to us by the moniker Inderjit. Yea, verily it would excel even Eru...


----------

