Servant or Master?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Elmo

Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning

Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

And now for some disagreement.

Originally Posted by Lord Halsar

I view Sauron as a better villain for this reason simply, I view corruption and loss of "humanity" as a worse than beginning as the darkness. This is the differance between Melkor and Sauron. Melkor started out loathing the works of his peers, doing as he would to quell all that they made and sought for. A lust for destruction that always exists is somewhat sad, for Melkor was always the hate-stricken thing that he was.

I think you are over-simplifying Melkor:

He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren.

–Ainulindalë

He began with the desire of the Light, but when he could not possess it for himself alone, he descended through fire and wrath into a great burning, down into the Darkness.

–Valaquenta

So you are looking at a descent into "nihilistic madness". Not that I would go so far as to say that Melkor was ever good– he never, even before Arda began, seems to have cared about anything but power– but originally he wanted power to create, not destroy.

That said, I'm not keen on crazy villains, and I do find Melkor a bit too close to the Dark-God-of-Evil-Who-Wants-To-Destroy-Everything-Just-Because who features in so much second-rate fantasy. (Not exactly– I mean Tolkien at least takes the trouble to give him a personality.)

And... just to throw a spanner into the works... am I the only person who thinks the following makes Sauron seem rather pathetic? Pathetically unobservant, anyway:

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Tolkien said that Melkor could not stand the simple fact that the world existed, and would have eventually destroyed everything, even his allies, simply to try to achieve an impossible end (impossible because, while he could destroy what was in the world, he could not destroy the fact that the world existed).

From splendour he [Melkor] fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself.

–Valaquenta

That would include contempt for his sidekick, yes?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That would include contempt for his sidekick, yes?

Yes, Tolkien did say that Melkor would destroy anyone and anything in his pursuit of his goal. Which makes one wonder about Sauron. Did he not see this in Melkor? Did he turn a blind eye to it? Did he hope that he would be spared, somehow? Did he believe that someday he might become powerful enough to overthrow Melkor and take his place? Melkor was a masterful dissembler, but did he keep Sauron's loyalty through lies, or....? Food for thought.

[Boromir88]

That would include contempt for his sidekick, yes?~Nerwen

I wouldn't doubt it. The servant is expendable, once the Master has no more use for the servant...well then the servant will be dealt with in good time. Much like what Sauron did to Saruman:

But they shall help to rebuild Isengard which they have wantonly destroyed, and that shall be Sauron's, and there his lieutenant shall dwell: not Saruman, but one more worthy of trust.~The Black Gate Opens

Sauron no longer trusted Saruman, and seeing as Saruman was no longer any use to him, he was going to get canned.

Where I'm going here, is it's hard for villains to get along, especially when you have two who want to be "Dark Lords." You can't have two Dark Lords can you? Well, one wanted to destroy everything, the other one wanted to dominate/control. Sauron was drawn to Morgoth's service because it was the best way to further his own plans. He probably figured can't beat him, it'll be better to play along and join him.

Maybe Sauron figured out, Morgoth was a nutcase who wanted to try to achieve the impossible...so Morgoth would end up pretty much electing the path to his own fall and Sauron would have free reign. Anyway, I don't think there was a brotherly love between the two, they were both using the other to further their own gains. I think that is seen with what Sauron does after Morgoth is out of the picture:

Sauron was not a ’sincere’ atheist, but he preached atheism, because it weakened resistance to himself (and he had ceased to fear God’s action in Arda)...~Morgoth’s Ring, Myths Transformed

This is referring to Sauron trying to make Melkor worshippers (example, The Numenoreans). But why? It wasn't because he admired his former boss, it was because he realized it made his job easier.

I think Saruman and Sauron's relationship in the 3rd Age parallels the relationship Sauron had with Morgoth. Both were attempting to use the other to further their own benefit:

"We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grows; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order..."~The Council of Elrond

Backtracking a bit to this...

Just because the goal is unattainable doesn't make it less evil, in my view.~Kuru

But it does make Sauron more practical...and if practicality is one trait that goes into being a good villain (look an oxymoron! ) then Sauron certainly had the edge there.

[Kuruharan]

does Tolkien mean "rational being" in the sense of one with the capability of thinking rationally or simply a being from Eru?

*ponders*

A little of both maybe.

What role would Melkor's rejection of Eru play in that?

But it does make Sauron more practical...and if practicality is one trait that goes into being a good villain (look an oxymoron! ) then Sauron certainly had the edge there.

Here's some food for thought...does being more evil make one a worse villain?

[littlemanpoet]

I can't resist. Nor can I resist the following round-about way of getting to my conclusion. Please be patient.

As Elrond said (and others have noted), nothing was evil in the beginning; not even Melkor.

Nerwen quotes the section in Ainulindalë that narrates Melkor's original descent into evil.

desire grew hot within him

Melkor lost control of himself. He lost control of his desires. The desire began to control him. This is his first step in the descent into irrationality.

Sauron's descent into evil is not described as such. The closest we have to an accurate description of the nature of Sauron's evil is Gandalf's words during the "final debate": "His Eye is now straining towards us, blind almost to all else that is moving."

This shows that Sauron also had a desire (for the Ring) of which he was not in control. Nonetheless, Gandalf pretty much credits Sauron with weighing all chances to the finest point; which suggests rationality.

Melkor, it ought to be remembered, for all the personality with which Tolkien invests him, is a more elemental figure than Sauron. He represents fire (and ice) (to Manwë's air, Aulë's earth and Ulmo's water). Melkor's personality is necessarily more iconic.

So I guess I'm coming down on this little debate as saying you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Melkor cannot rightly be called a villain, even, as such a moniker is borrowed in from an altogether different genre than myth. Sauron can be called a villain, I suppose, since LotR is more or less a "romance". So apples and oranges.

[Groin Redbeard]

It seems to me that the servant always seems like the better villian, because he is actually the one who does all the dirty work, therefore he gets all the attention. The servant also tends to look more evil than the master when he does this.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Here's some food for thought...does being more evil make one a worse villain?

Does that mean worse for the villain or worse for the villain's enemy?

Anway, as littlemanpoet said, Melkor is not a villain, he is more of an evil force. He is evil!

[Kuruharan]

Does that mean worse for the villain or worse for the villain's enemy?

I said that almost in a literary sense...it just makes for a more interesting villain.

However, it also makes for a more effective villain, at least by the standard by which we measure villainy.

However, the standard by which we measure villainy might be irrelevant to somebody like Melkor.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

You can't have two Dark Lords can you? Well, one wanted to destroy everything, the other one wanted to dominate/control. Sauron was drawn to Morgoth's service because it was the best way to further his own plans. He probably figured can't beat him, it'll be better to play along and join him.

Maybe Sauron figured out, Morgoth was a nutcase who wanted to try to achieve the impossible...so Morgoth would end up pretty much electing the path to his own fall and Sauron would have free reign.

Very likely– on the other hand, we know that Sauron's fatal flaw is that he can't imagine other people not wanting what he wants– I mean, the plot of LotR depends on this, e.g.:

"For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts. Into his heart the thought will not enter that any will refuse it, that having the Ring we may seek to destroy it."

– Gandalf in The Council of Elrond.*

So, maybe it never occurred to him that anyone would want to destroy the world either? (This, of course, is assuming Morgoth had enough sanity to keep his "plan" to himself.) You could see it as an unfortunate side effect of being, as you say, practical.

*At least you know I didn't make that one up.

[skip spence]

Bah! Sauron ain't got nothing on Morgoth.

And I don't agree that Morgoth was an irrational nutcase. Perhaps in terms of his ultimate goal he was (as described in Myths transformed), but not in his actual behavior trying to achieve it. Remember that he crushed the Noldor and Edain in the first age, enemies much mightier than those Sauron had to contend with later on. And he did it cunningly too, sowing seeds of mistrust amongst his enemies, making them fight amongst themselves. Towards the end of the age he could just lean back and watch how most of his plans unfolded successfully. Unfortunately (for him) he just didn't have the strenght to fend off an all out attack from Aman.

Morgoth also single handedly slew Noldor's first two high kings, Finwe and Fingolfin, and ruined most of mankind for many ages after his banishment from Arda. The existance of Orcs, Dragons, Trolls, Balrogs among other scourges are all mainly his responsibility. On another thread I've also argued that Melkor in fact personally introduced evil as a moral category. Morgoth is the Dark Lord. Sauron is a distant number two.