[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Anyways. I like them both, but I think that Fangorn Forest is mostly malicious because of the Huorns. If you take them away, the forest doesn't want to choke every bit on life in it. But the Huorns do. And the forest used to be quite welcoming before certain things happened. But the Huorns are just Huorns, they're always dark and creepy and malicious.

Interesting. I had been actually favoring Fangorn over the Huorns, just because it seemed somehow cooler. But I realise I had been thinking of forests as they are. It is not, one has to say, always huorns. It is something bad in some of the huorns that might be considered malicious. Huorns are only awakened trees (or sleeping ents), which is nothing problematic by itself... but they can be bad. (The more I think about it, however, the less and less does the choice of the word "malicious" seem appropriate to me. Still however, the more interesting that two people have chosen it. That's probably what makes it the most intriguing )

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Grima Wormtongue – Probably my favourite, I have no good argument, it just corresponds well with my own view of Grima.

Gríma is perhaps, on second thought, not really that malicious. He is more like selfish, doing some things to reach his own goals. I am not sure if he takes any special pleasure in, say, putting Éomer into Théoden's disfavour.

Mouth of Sauron – Definitly a contender, he certainly seem to derive pleasure from others suffering.

I would say. I like Mouth of Sauron exactly because of this. He is a strong contender for me, one of the strongest.

Gollum – The obvious choice and I think malice works especially well with the Gollum we encounter in The Hobbit.

I never saw Gollum as really malicious, and even less so in the Hobbit. In LotR, there's possibly that one side to him, otherwise... he is a bit malicious, but sort of "petty-malicious". Just for further reference, somebody should have played some spiders for me on this account. They are malicious, I think, and I believe Gollum is likewise, but we do not really get to see it!

Eol – Perhaps, though he clearly dislikes a lot of people, I am not sure I favour him for this title.

The main thing about him is, probably, that he wasn't really intentinally malicious. He was bitter and all this, but probably not with much intentional malice. Again, had somebody played Mim for me, that could be what I might choose. Or Maeglin, rather than Eöl.

Glaurung – Malice is definitely present in Glaurung, but it is almost to mild a term for such wicked creature.

True. But for me, he is exactly the essence of malice. Like Smaug is a bit, too, but Glaurung is the essence of malice. For me, he is a very strong contender.

Ted Sandyman – Starts out as just being a stubborn and narrow-minded person, when we first encounter him in the Green Dragon. However there is proper malice in his person, when we meet him again in the Shire after the war has ended. I think that his exchange with Merry and the other hobbits show this clearly.

Well said. That's basically it. Another very strong contender for me. Effectively, any arguments especailly in his, Glaurung's or the Mouth's favor might make me decide.

Of the others - Dol Guldur is really out of question, the place itself was in no way malicious (its master would be a different matter!!). Dol Amroth I would not have expected here, or I would perhaps if Aganzir had been playing or something, then perhaps I could see some logic behind it. Fellbeast I like really a lot, but I think it was just, well, an "animal", not really malicious by itself. And King of the Dead, not really. In the movie, he acts a bit like that, but you know what I think about the movies.