[Lalwendë]

We're still going on as though Numenor was destroyed because of many things that were not the cause of its destruction, e.g. following Sauron, being cruel to inhabitants of Middle-earth, not 'following' Eru etc. etc. Yet the 'reason' behind its destruction is given to us in the text! The motive is because the Numenoreans broke the Ban of the Valar. Note that the Numenoreans had not exactly been 'faithful' before Sauron's arrival - he was merely using their proclivities to his advantage in his mission to destroy them (and he did destroy them, with a little help from Eru ); he accelerated their end, they would probably have broken the Ban anyway.

The fact remains that it was Breaking the Ban that prompted the Valar to call upon Eru. Their worship of Sauron had nothing to do with Eru's 'punishment'. So trying to justify the deaths of innocents by saying "Oh, Eru was punishing them for being inherently evil for worshipping Sauron" doesn't wash. The punishment was for breaking the Ban - what, exactly, would a two year old tot have to do with that?

Originally Posted by SpM

I can readily accept the analogy between Eru and the God of the Old Testament. But I disagree that this resolves the problem, since I have no inclination to accept as credible that work, nor indeed to reconcile the portrayal of the God it presents with real life experience. But Tolkien is asking me, if I am to find his fantasy word credible, to accept as the source of all goodness within it the fictional God that he presents. Fine. But I find that credibility stretched to be told on the one hand that Eru is the embodiment and source of good within that world and that anything contrary to his will is evil, but be presented on the other hand with a deed perpetrated by him which I find hard to characterise as "good".

I think the crucial point is that we are not being told by Tolkien to accept the downfall of Numenor as 'good', or even as 'just'. Firstly, the story is couched in the language and imagery of tragedy, not of a lesson. This draws us back to our own myths about Atlantis/Lyonesse, lands where the people had become proud and eventually were lost to time - these stories are also told as tragedies, that humans can have the best lives, the best places to live, their own paradise, but their pride eventually leads to a downfall.

Then of course we must remember that this is a story, that Eru is a fictional character, Numenor is a fictional place, and it is entirely up to us to decide if this fictional god is 'just' or not. We are completely free to do that and Tolkien as not only a writer but a highly educated Oxford professor knew well that the reader, unless told in plain language how to read a text (which is why he tells us LotR is not an allegory, he knew that without telling us, readers may read all kinds of things into it and he did not want that to happen), will read it and judge the characters therein independently, using the text in front of them; if said text is ambiguous then the writer has done this on purpose and does not want us to reach a fixed conclusion. To think otherwise, to put assumptions onto the text, would be to denigrate Tolkien's own considerable intelligence and craft.

And then there is davem's point - is Eru actually a very well crafted god figure anyway?

Originally Posted by Raynor

I actually like the orcs of the Warcraft world. Not all orcs in all fantasies are the same. Some of them are examples of courage and nobility. The point in question was that those children were doing evil acts, which later would lead to a satanic cult at least for some of them.

Then I suppose you might think that we should also ban Hallowe'en, fancy dress parties and all games involving dress-up and make believe? Children playing at being Orcs are simply having fun, it certainly does not follow that this will result in being damaged or having a criminal frame of mind later in life! In fact, children forbidden from doing fun things such as exploring fantasy, scary stories and characters etc are probably more likely to grow up with hang ups and anxieties about such things, leading to very real psychological problems. Why, Tolkien even told his own children scary stories!

Originally Posted by Raynor

I haven't made my question clear: it is a general one, where the mother - the judge - maintains independent judgement and her morality. The consequences of letting the children live are those that I mentioned. What is your answer?

Any mother would let her child live and see what happened. That's what parents do. They do it because love is more powerful than 'morality'.