# why where the five wizard forbidden from destroying Sauron themselves?



## John stefan (Nov 20, 2020)

why where the five wizard forbidden from destroying Sauron themselves?


----------



## Licky Linguist (Nov 20, 2020)

I don't think they were 'forbidden' to.

Destroying Sauron once and for all requires you to get the One Ring and cast it into the fires of Mount Doom. As seen in the books (and the movies), wizards, being powerful, can be easily corrupted by the Ring. 

But even if they did manage to destroy the Ring, I don't think five wizards could have battled the huge army of Sauron to triumph, without the aid of Men, Elves and Dwarves (along with a few hobbits, of course!).


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 20, 2020)

What they were very definitely forbidden from doing was "fighting fire with fire": becoming leaders of anti-Sauron armies which they could only gather by basically emulating his own tactics; Saruman did violate this ban with the army he gathered at Isengard and sent against Helm's Deep. They were only allowed to persuade, encourage, rally the free peoples of Middle-earth to oppose and defeat Sauron. More specifically his armies; destroying his bodily form required that one specific action at Mount Doom, which in the end was the only way to success, as Sauron's armies were too strong to defeat in battle, or would have been if he had not struck prematurely.

What a direct confrontation of only Sauron against all five Istari (assuming Saruman having remained faithful to his mission) would have brought is pure speculation. The bodily forms of the Istari could certainly be destroyed (as two three were), what a confrontation of the - unimpeded! - Maiar against Sauron would have brought is again pure speculation. Certainly not destruction on this plane, but perhaps defeat, submission, and hauling him back to Valinor (a thing Eonwë infamously failed to do over 6,000 years earlier). But I simply cannot imagine how these Maiar's (here I include Sauron) native powers would have "matched up" against each other, or those of the five against Sauron. This isn't five 250-pound wrestlers going up against a 350- or 400-pounder ...


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 21, 2020)

Not only that, but they were also forbidden from trying to dominate the wills of Free Peoples by _any means_. And revealing their powers in an attempt to defeat Sauron "conventionally" would likely have violated that prohibition.


----------



## John stefan (Nov 21, 2020)

Aldarion is this not hypocrisy on the part of the valar? They did not want to take part in the affairs of middle earth which is understandable but then what was the point of sending the five wizards to middle earth in the first place? and in my opinion if sauron had been victorius over the free peoples of middle earth the valar and eru would have been content to let sauron rule middle earth. that is how i interpret the attitude of the valar in the lord of the rings with the valar not being active in the events against sauron. and also did the free people of middle earth know that sauron was a Maia? or did they think he was human? and now you tell me also did frodo the ring bearer know that Sauron Was a Maia?


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 22, 2020)

@John stefan It is not. Fact that something needs to be done does not means that _all means_ of doing so are allowed. Istari were advisors, but were forbidden from trying to force cooperation - and frightening people with their super awesome angelic powers would have counted as that.

And yes, Valar would have probably let Sauron rule. Damage done in the War of Wrath was so severe that I don't think they would have wanted to risk it again. Gandalf says as much.


----------



## John stefan (Nov 22, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> @John stefan It is not. Fact that something needs to be done does not means that _all means_ of doing so are allowed. Istari were advisors, but were forbidden from trying to force cooperation - and frightening people with their super awesome angelic powers would have counted as that.
> 
> And yes, Valar would have probably let Sauron rule. Damage done in the War of Wrath was so severe that I don't think they would have wanted to risk it again. Gandalf says as much.


when does gandalf say that? and to who? in which book?


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 22, 2020)

John stefan said:


> when does gandalf say that? and to who? in which book?



This part, during discussion of Captains in _Return of the King:
"'Concerning this thing, my lords, you now all know enough for the understanding of our plight, and of Sauron's. If he regains it, your valour is vain, and his victory will be swift and complete: so complete that none can foresee the end of it while this world lasts. If it is destroyed, then he will fall; and his fall will be so low that none can foresee his arising ever again. For he will lose the best part of the strength that was native to him in his beginning, and all that was made or begun with that power will crumble, and he will be maimed for ever, becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape. And so a great evil of this world will be removed."

The Return of the King_, LoTR Book 5, Ch 9, _The Last Debate

so complete that none can foresee the end of it while this world lasts_

Gandalf's implication clearly is "Valar will not solve this problem for you; you solve it or you fail, you are on your own".

As for Istari:

_"They first appeared in Middle-earth about the year 1000 of the Third Age, but for long they went about in simple guise, as it were of Men already old in years but hale in body, travellers and wanderers, gaining knowledge of Middle-earth and all that dwelt therein, but revealing to none their powers and purposes. In that time Men saw them seldom and heeded them little. But as the shadow of Sauron began to grow and take shape again, they became more active and sought ever to contest the growth of the Shadow, and to move Elves and Men to beware of their peril....
Emissaries they were from Lords of the West, the Valar, who still took counsel for the governance of Middle-earth, and when the shadow of Sauron began first to stir again took this means of resisting him. For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years. And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt."_

Unfinished Tales, Part 4, III, _The Istari_


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 22, 2020)

Aldarion said:


> And yes, Valar would have probably let Sauron rule.


The Valar, agreed. But Eru? I mean, even the changes at the end of the War of Wrath with the sinking of Beleriand below the sea are chicken droppings compared to the upheavals at the destruction of Númenor and the flat world made round. Give ol' Mount Doom a severe case of "indigestion", causing a fissure to run across the north-western part of the Plateau of Gorgoroth straight towards Barad-dûr, drop that toothpick including Sauron into it. It would hardly have rattled the china in the cupboards in Minas Tirith. But seeing this seemingly unassailable symbol of Sauron's power squashed like a fly by the closing fissure would have probably lead to a collective need for a change of underwear in the armies supporting then-eliminated Sauron.

(I always worry about getting a "not amused" letter from John Cleese when I post such stuff ... 🥶 )


----------



## Aramarien (Nov 22, 2020)

Aldarion posted: 

_"They first appeared in Middle-earth about the year 1000 of the Third Age, but for long they went about in simple guise, as it were of Men already old in years but hale in body, travellers and wanderers, gaining knowledge of Middle-earth and all that dwelt therein, but revealing to none their powers and purposes. In that time Men saw them seldom and heeded them little. But as the shadow of Sauron began to grow and take shape again, they became more active and sought ever to contest the growth of the Shadow, and to move Elves and Men to beware of their peril....
Emissaries they were from Lords of the West, the Valar, who still took counsel for the governance of Middle-earth, and when the shadow of Sauron began first to stir again took this means of resisting him. For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies of as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years. And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt."_

Unfinished Tales, Part 4, III, _The Istari_

The Valar tried to use force to guard and seclude the Eldar and also to use that force to rule the wills of Men and Elves. They learned that would not work, especially because the Children of Illuvatar were given the gift of Free Will.

The Istari were sent as guides, counsellors. Even events that happened as "chance" as was discussed in another thread , the CHOICE, the free will is there.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 22, 2020)

Aramarien said:


> The Istari were sent as guides, counsellors. Even events that happened as "chance" as was discussed in another thread , the CHOICE, the free will is there.


Yes. But none of the free peoples "chose" Sauron (a Maia) to be running amok for 6,000 years, nor Balrogs (OK, perhaps "only" the one in - under - Moria), nor Morgoth-spawned dragons. Leaving these (except for the odd dragon) unassailable monsters for the inhabitants of Middle-earth to deal with was an inexcusable dereliction of duty by the Valar. 👿


----------



## Aramarien (Nov 22, 2020)

I understand what you are saying, but here again is an ages old discussion about why is there evil in the world, or why does Eru "allow" such horrible things to happen such as natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. 

I guess there could be an argument that the things I mentioned above are "natural" and may be different than the things that were left by Morgoth in ME and the Valar did not extinguish them. Perhaps one of the reasons that the Istari were sent.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 22, 2020)

Aramarien said:


> ... but here again is an ages old discussion about why is there evil in the world, ...


Theodicy. Which has had every theologian of every religion of all times squirming ...


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 22, 2020)

Aramarien said:


> The Valar tried to use force to guard and seclude the Eldar and also to use that force to rule the wills of Men and Elves. They learned that would not work, especially because the Children of Illuvatar were given the gift of Free Will.
> 
> The Istari were sent as guides, counsellors. Even events that happened as "chance" as was discussed in another thread , the CHOICE, the free will is there.



The Valar tried to do so, yes. And consequences of that act show clearly that they were in the wrong.



Aramarien said:


> I understand what you are saying, but here again is an ages old discussion about why is there evil in the world, or why does Eru "allow" such horrible things to happen such as natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc.
> 
> I guess there could be an argument that the things I mentioned above are "natural" and may be different than the things that were left by Morgoth in ME and the Valar did not extinguish them. Perhaps one of the reasons that the Istari were sent.



I think it is quite simple: people who have not experienced evil are not capable of enjoying the good. I only started appreciating books (and thus access Internet gives me to reading materials) when I had to spend some days without reading anything.

And yes, I do believe that Eru allowed Morgoth to taint the music for the above reason.


----------



## Aramarien (Nov 22, 2020)

“And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion 




> And Ilúvatar spoke to Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed the beauty of thy fountains, nor of thy clear pools. Behold the snow, and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of the clouds, and the everchanging mists; and listen to the fall of rain upon the Earth! And in these clouds thou art drawn nearer to Manwë, thy friend, whom thou lovest.'





> Then Ulmo answered: 'Truly, Water is become now fairer than my heart imagined, neither had my secret thought conceived the snowflake, nor in all my music was contained the falling of the rain. I will seek Manwë, that he and I may make melodies for ever to my delight!' And Manwë and Ulmo have from the beginning been allied, and in all things have served most faithfully the purpose of Ilúvatar.



These quotes from the Sil always spoke to me about how evil cannot prevail, and cannot fully overcome good.


----------



## Alcuin (Nov 23, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Aramarien said:
> 
> 
> > ... but here again is an ages old discussion about why is there evil in the world, ...
> ...


Not so. The Problem of Evil is intertwined with the issue of Free Will. If the Creator will endow his creations with Free Will, then he also endows them with the ability to rebel and to contest his will. Thus Eru endows the Ainur with Free Will; Melkor contests Eru’s will, and many of the lesser Ainur, Maiar, follow after him. When Eä comes into being, some of the Ainur choose to enter into it: their _nature_ is to last eternally: the have beginnings, but no end, unless Eru wills to end them. Those in the train of Melkor-Morgoth are a plague upon both Elves and Men. But to Elves and Men Free Will is also granted, and they choose as they will among many paths. Fëanor chooses rebellion, to his ruin and the ruin of his House. Men choose each as they will, some to glorious remembrance, some to downfall and ruin. 

The Problem of Evil is inseparable from Free Will. The first thing the Philosophy Department will do is instill into you that there is no Free Will. And they will do so by demanding of you, “Why would a good God permit Evil?” Their answer: There is no God; There is no Free Will. 

Ah, what puny mortals we to fall into such a snare! This is the great mystery Tolkien explores in his mythos: Why does Eru permit Melkor, then Sauron, to destroy, to mislead, to damn so many, Elves and Men alike? What character in the painting or the tale will upbraid the artist for the part he plays? 

The Istari are forbidden to tread upon the Free Will of the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. They may not lead by their own power. 

But note that Gandalf _put the fear of fire_ on Gollum in Thranduil’s halls to wrench the truth about the Ring from him. And he frightened Bilbo in Bilbo’s hall when due to the paranoia instigated by the Ring, Bilbo insulted him. Will you argue that instances constitute a pattern? Clearly the prohibition was not absolute. Would you argue that Gandalf’s instances of deviation differ from Saruman’s only in degree? Would you argue that Radagast, who ignored Men and Elves in favor of the creatures of the forest and the birds of the air, his friends and allies, without whose aid Gandalf could not escape Orthanc, remained faithful to his charge?


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 23, 2020)

Alcuin said:


> But note that Gandalf _put the fear of fire_ on Gollum in Thranduil’s halls to wrench the truth about the Ring from him. And he frightened Bilbo in Bilbo’s hall when due to the paranoia instigated by the Ring, Bilbo insulted him. Will you argue that instances constitute a pattern? Clearly the prohibition was not absolute. Would you argue that Gandalf’s instances of deviation differ from Saruman’s only in degree? Would you argue that Radagast, who ignored Men and Elves in favor of the creatures of the forest and the birds of the air, his friends and allies, without whose aid Gandalf could not escape Orthanc, remained faithful to his charge?



That is an application in contradiction: in both cases, not threading on free will of an individual would have meant risking the loss of free will for millions. If you have to break the principle no matter what you do, then you will choose what causes less damage.


----------



## Olorgando (Nov 23, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> What they were very definitely forbidden from doing was "fighting fire with fire" ...


I've gotten the feeling I've got to clarify this a bit.
The Istari were forbidden to fight Sauron's Maiar fire with their own Maiar fire.
The free peoples of Middle-earth were certainly not prohibited in the least in fighting Sauron's fire in the form of his armies, be they Orc slaves or "allies", by their own military fire.

And in fact if you were to tell a real-world firefighter (I'm thinking especially the US west coast and Australia as most recent examples) "you can't fight fire with fire", they would respond (probably including language totally unfit for TTF) "the hell you can't!" To put it my own unprofessional words, to stop an approaching fire, start a counter-fire that eats its way in the direction of the approaching conflagration, taking care that this fire *only* spreads in that direction (this is probably the very tricky part). What happens is that the conflagration suddenly hits a region where the fuel it needs to continue has already been consumed by the counter-fire. Things can still go wrong with this approach (these conflagrations seem too often to be driven by hefty winds), or it may be impossible to try them (due to people having settled in endangered regions - something that happens with flood disasters, too).

I don't know how often I have silently snarled when in a film a "good" character spares the life of a "total villain" by spouting the nonsensical platitude "if I did this I would become like you". This does echo the refusal of all of The Wise to take the One Ring. Well, that situation does not arise in our real world. I hold another quote against it. This quote may or may not have been said by the historical WW II US General Patton, but it was spoken by George C. Scott (one of my favorite actors) in the 1970 film "Patton" that he starred in, in the title role (I sanitize the wording somewhat):

"No poor fool ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the *other* poor fool die for *his* country."

Brutal, but true.



Alcuin said:


> Not so. The Problem of Evil is intertwined with the issue of Free Will. If the Creator will endow his creations with Free Will, then he also endows them with the ability to rebel and to contest his will. ...


Which runs head-on into the also promulgated (at least by monotheists, is my impression) concept of an omnipotent, and more specifically omniscient, Creator.
You.
Cannot.
Have.
Both.
😒


----------



## Aldarion (Nov 23, 2020)

Olorgando said:


> Which runs head-on into the also promulgated (at least by monotheists, is my impression) concept of an omnipotent, and more specifically omniscient, Creator.
> You.
> Cannot.
> Have.
> ...


Actually, you can. If there is no free will, then all you have are automatons. If there is free will, then there is evil. And if God truly does love humans (as a lot of religions posit), then he would not steal away their ability to order their own lives. Which means giving them free will... with all the good and ill that implies.

Omnipotence, to my knowledge, means ability to do the impossible... _not _to do things that are inherently logically self-contradictory.


----------

