[mark12_30]

Hi and greetings (*bows* <-- for Gandalf)

Frodo knew that Gollum was a threat to one primary person-- The RIngbearer, himself-- and whoever was with him-- Sam. Frodo could make his choice based on that information. Could he protect and defend himself and San against Gollum? Frodo thought so. He brought the ring into play for that purpose.

Gollum was not particularly a threat to anybody else. Gollum ate whoever he could get his hands on, true, but preferred fish... Point being, Gollum was not a serial killer in the sense that we think of the term in the 7th age.

To me the argument here is, do I know who this agressive person will kill? If the answer is, just me, then I simply have a right to self-defense, which I can exercise or not as i choose.

However, let's say I have a serial killer in my custody. Let's say somebody who's passtimes is knifing homeless old men. If I release this person, another homeless old man will die. It's that simple. I've either got to imprison him forever or execute him, or I will be guilty by association (I feel) when the next homeless old man dies.

So I think Frodo's mercy towards Gollum was a very special case. Frodo knew what was driving Gollum to kill, and eventually Sam did too. And they knew that it was all about the Ring, not some generic bloodlust or murderous attitude or sickness.

Saruman's case, however, was not focused only on Frodo. Many more people than Frodo were killed under Sharky's authority. I think that's a much better place to focus the discussion on mercy. Saruman was dangerous for everybody.

In Frodo's position, would I have let Gollum go? I like to think so. Would I have let Saruman go? Now that's a much tougher question. Maybe not. Does he qualify as a serial killer? And where is my debt to society, to protect the rest of society against the sickness of one twisted dangerous individual?

Thankfully, in the 7th age, that's why we have judges, juries, police, and a justice system, hopefully to deal with cases like that.

--Helen