Why Does Good Suck So Much?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

And why was it unsuccessful? Why did the Valar and Eru Himself slaughter helpless women and children?

Amandil's voyage was in vain because the Valar had already accepted such an embassy once before. Every time Men and Elves got in a bind, should they have had the fallback of running to the West for protection? No. That, ultimately, was not the purpose of the Valar.
It can be argued that the "gifts" given to the Edain by the Valar, their proximity to the Undying Lands and their extended lifespan, contributed to the fall of Númenor. However, you can't reasonably accuse the Valar and the One of murder because of it. What Ilúvatar did in destroying the island had to be done, as Ar-Pharazôn and his army could well have wrought death and ruin in Valinor.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

This is not simply a case of "And Man Grew Proud." It's a case of "And Man...were Men and then were used by a being with powers and abilities far beyond their own. A being who is only at large because the gods were inept."

The Númenóreans made choices, some to follow the King's Men (and ultimately, Sauron), and some to hold fast to reverence for the Elves, the Valar, and Ilúvatar. That Sauron was not strong enough to sway all the people of Númenor is obvious. The King's Men followed him of their own free will. If the Faithful were capable of resisting, so were the others.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Speaking of which, I need to get to The Children of Hurin. it goes into greater detail of his life and character, right?

CoH is basically a melding of the Silmarillion generalisation of Túrin's tale and the much more detailed Narn in UT.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

As for Melkor, he was born of Eru's mind. Eru Himself made Melkor to be willfull, fearful and proud. There's also the theological paradox present of whether free will can even exist if we are created by an omnipotent and omniscient being. Because even as we type these posts, this was foretold and destined to happen at the beginning of existence. Therefore free will cannot really exist.

But that really tangles up Tolkien's ideas with Christianity and that is a really heated debate I don't want to get into.

If you haven't already done so, check out this thread, which delves into that subject.

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

As for Sauron, he at least had noble intentions. His design was to rule the world because only through dictatorship could order and peace be achieved. It's understandable that he would think this way given the chaos he's seen. Unfortunately for him he overestimated his own ability to right all the wrongs of the world.

You're joking, right? That's why he sacrificed innocent people in Númenor, then? And why he made the Rings of Power? With them Sauron enslaved Nine Men, basically overwriting their innate humanity, turning them into undead slaves who had absolutely no will of their own. And let's not forget his impaling Celebrimbor's body on a pole and using it for a banner. If that isn't a sign of noble intentions, what is?

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Unlike the War of the Ring in the Third Age, the Wars of Beleriand, pitting the Noldor and the Sindar against Morgoth, are offensive in their design; their goal is not merely to overthrow Morgoth because he is an existential threat, like Sauron.

And for that reason the Valar turned their backs on the Noldor: their war wasn't just.

[Nikkolas]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Amandil's voyage was in vain because the Valar had already accepted such an embassy once before. Every time Men and Elves got in a bind, should they have had the fallback of running to the West for protection? No. That, ultimately, was not the purpose of the Valar.
It can be argued that the "gifts" given to the Edain by the Valar, their proximity to the Undying Lands and their extended lifespan, contributed to the fall of Númenor. However, you can't reasonably accuse the Valar and the One of murder because of it. What Ilúvatar did in destroying the island had to be done, as Ar-Pharazôn and his army could well have wrought death and ruin in Valinor.

If he is so powerful (and certainly if he is omnipotent), Eru could have easily defeated the King's Men and not destroyed Numenor. Their entire fighting force vanquished, what threat were the poor women and children on the island to the Valar?

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

You're joking, right? That's why he sacrificed innocent people in Númenor, then? And why he made the Rings of Power? With them Sauron enslaved Nine Men, basically overwriting their innate humanity, turning them into undead slaves who had absolutely no will of their own. And let's not forget his impaling Celebrimbor's body on a pole and using it for a banner. If that isn't a sign of noble intentions, what is?

I was thinking of this quote when it comes to Sauron's motivations:

"[Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co- ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. (It was the apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first attracted Sauron to him.)"
Myths Transformed

There are also other quotes about how Sauron's tyranny started out with noble intentions.

Was what Sauron did evil? Certainly. That doesn't mean Sauron believed it was wrong. To him, enslaving the world was the only way to help it.

Free will breeds selfishness and evil. If you could min control the human race to only think and act for the whole and not for themselves, you could very readily eradicate evil. It's just a price too great for some to fathom.

And thanks for the link to the Morality thread. Great read so far.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

There are also other quotes about how Sauron's tyranny started out with noble intentions.

Was what Sauron did evil? Certainly. That doesn't mean Sauron believed it was wrong. To him, enslaving the world was the only way to help it.

Free will breeds selfishness and evil. If you could min control the human race to only think and act for the whole and not for themselves, you could very readily eradicate evil. It's just a price too great for some to fathom.

But some might argue such an act would be, in itself, evil. Are "mind-controlled" people, with no will of their own, even people at all?

I don't think Tolkien meant that Sauron's initial good intentions included enslaving everyone. That was surely a product of Sauron's later corruption– though no doubt he still presented it to himself in the same terms you do. But then, I rather suspect real-world dictators are often pretty good at kidding themselves, too.

As for your contention that Morgoth had no choice but to be evil– well, your argument there rests on a belief in absolute determinism (which you apparently later reject– see the above). Unfortunately for you, that would apply equally to every other character– including the "good" who "suck so much"– making the entire discussion null and void.

In general: Nikkolas, what you seem to be getting worked up about, basically, is that the characters aren't completely black-and-white. Is that really a problem?

[Nikkolas]

As I said, I have no problem with a bit of grey. Turin was my favorite "hero" in The Silmarillion precisely because he broke from the mold and was atypical. Flawed undoubtedly, heroic certainly, and perpetually ruled by a curse that is apparently both created without and within. His character is transparent and we can plainly see his positive and negative traits.

Does this happen with the Valar? No. The narrative takes a clear direction that they are "too good and too pure". I don't buy that. I want them held accountable for their mistakes. I want their flaws to be highlighted as much as the flaws of Feanor or Turin.

And well, yeah, I guess my idea that free will doesn't really exist - at least when it comes to the Valar - does kind of shoot in the foot my condemning of them. Well this is why I've never been much of a debater.

And by "enslavement" I just meant conquest. Sauron's goal was to subjugate all people under his will as he believed he was the only one who could provide order to a world that desperately needed it.
I didn't mean he'd put elves and men in chains and have them bought and sold or anything like that.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Does this happen with the Valar? No. The narrative takes a clear direction that they are "too good and too pure". I don't buy that. I want them held accountable for their mistakes. I want their flaws to be highlighted as much as the flaws of Feanor or Turin.

I get the feeling that Tolkien was maybe heading in that direction. I haven't really had the opportunity to read much of the History of Middle-earth series. Those who have: do earlier or later depictions of the Valar (say in the Book of Lost Tales) make them more morally culpable, within the text itself?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Does this happen with the Valar? No. The narrative takes a clear direction that they are "too good and too pure". I don't buy that. I want them held accountable for their mistakes. I want their flaws to be highlighted as much as the flaws of Feanor or Turin.

They are "too good, too pure", but not flawless: that comes from the fact that they are, after all, limited in some way. They are prone to ire or bad judgement. Even to failure. Remember Aulë and the Dwarves (the difference between Melkor and Aulë is that Aulë is capable of seeing his mistake and even though he does not like it, he is willing to accept some punishment for it - which he does not get). I have read all the posts above, but only in a cursory way, so I am not sure if somebody hasn't mention that (but if they didn't, it surprises me, as that's the first thing that would come into my mind) - remember the first wars before the coming of the Firstborn. It created so much of a mess that the Valar never dared to repeat such a thing again, only when it was really clear that there is no other way (the War of Wrath). I think here is the answer to most of the questions you have raised in the first place (as in, why not interfere at Númenor etc.).

Also, there is the thing with how Valar (as well as Elves and all the sort of "magical" things) gradually wane and get away from Middle-Earth, get detached more and more, and by the coming of Third Age, they just send Istari, and even later, it seems the link is broken whatsoever, because there are no more Elves or any contact with Aman (at some point, the ships stopped coming from Aman, and later, they even stopped leaving for Aman). And it is sort of also more burden of responsibility growing for the Children - not having the Valar fix every problem, but Eru technically giving them increasing freedom throughout the ages, which they have to sort of learn to use (as implied e.g. by Gandalf's words to the Hobbits at the end of RotK, etc).

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

If he is so powerful (and certainly if he is omnipotent), Eru could have easily defeated the King's Men and not destroyed Numenor. Their entire fighting force vanquished, what threat were the poor women and children on the island to the Valar?

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

I know I'm going into the "what ifs", but let's pretend that it happened. Eru killd Pharazon's army, but leaves Numenor. The result? A few generations later they bring a bigger army to avenge Pharazon.

He allowed the Faithful to escape. He didn't kill everyone.

As for Sauron's noble intentions, everyone thinks they are good and noble and all that stuff! If you'd ask him "are you evil?", he'd say "of course not!" What else would you expect him to say? Not that he would waste time talking about that subject...

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

If he is so powerful (and certainly if he is omnipotent), Eru could have easily defeated the King's Men and not destroyed Numenor. Their entire fighting force vanquished, what threat were the poor women and children on the island to the Valar?

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

Tolkien said the supremely bad evil in his tale was the domination of free will. This is what Morgoth and Sauron represent in their rebellion against Eru.

If Eru were to take away free will and stamp out all rebellion, he would be no different from Melkor or Sauron. Eru allowed free will into all his creations, and this means all of Eru's creations were capable of varying degrees of what Tolkien called the "Fall." The guarantee of free will is the only thing that separates Eru from Melkor.

As far as the genocide, not seeing it. Elendil was instructed to gather all the Faithful and their family on to the ships. And The Silmarillion, from what I recall, is explicit in, the Faithful, including women and children, were on the ships leaving Numenor.

[Nikkolas]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

As for Sauron's noble intentions, everyone thinks they are good and noble and all that stuff! If you'd ask him "are you evil?", he'd say "of course not!" What else would you expect him to say? Not that he would waste time talking about that subject...

That actually reminds me of a thread I made elsewhere about why Sauron and the other Maiar chose evil. I can understand why Men serve Morgoth for they have precious little sight. But a Maiar like Sauron should know the cosmic working of things. He should know about how good will always triumph.

To my great surprise, I found a thing by Tolkien discussing pretty much that exact same thing. Seems Sauron deluded himself into thinking Eru an impotent god and etc..

Originally Posted by Boromir88

As far as the genocide, not seeing it. Elendil was instructed to gather all the Faithful and their family on to the ships. And The Silmarillion, from what I recall, is explicit in, the Faithful, including women and children, were on the ships leaving Numenor.

Genocide is defined as-
"The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

It doesn't mean he sent out to stamp out every last one of them.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

That actually reminds me of a thread I made elsewhere about why Sauron and the other Maiar chose evil. I can understand why Men serve Morgoth for they have precious little sight. But a Maiar like Sauron should know the cosmic working of things. He should know about how good will always triumph.

He wanted power that he could not achieve through the "good" Valar's methods.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Genocide is defined as-
"The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

It doesn't mean he sent out to stamp out every last one of them.

It's usually a good idea to use context and think of The Silmarillion (or any story) on its own terms and not slap modern definitions, or inflammatory analogies, on it.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

No, Eru set out with genocide in mind.

In context, the Akallabêth is a retelling of an admixture of the biblical flood story and the Greek Atlantis (or as Tolkien called it Atalantë -- Quenyan for "Downfallen"); therefore, it contains Plato's reverence for the advanced culture of the Atlanteans, and the biblical references to the antediluvian world with its wickedness and blood sacrifice, as well as Noah and the faithful's redemption, and the destruction of the Gibborim and Nephilim, giants, warriors and conquering heroes of great renown (great descriptors of Numenoreans at the time).

Tolkien was a masterful synthesizer of world myth, so you have to take the events in context to an overall synthesized cosmology of Middle-earth. Some posters want to take bits and pieces of the mythos and blow them out of proportion, rather than looking at the tale macrocosmically, or even in a historiographical sense, dragging post-modernistic literary and psychological views that are frankly not germane to the manner in which the story was written.

[Rumil]

Hi all,

interesting thoughts from Nikkolas, welcome to the Downs!

I think Morth has made a telling contribution, that the Downfall of Numenor was based on various legends. And it is of course a morally repugnant act by Eru, no matter whether you are 'within' or 'outside' the book setting. Unless of course all those too young to consciously choose Sauron/Melkor-worship were somehow packed onto Elendil's ships, which seems unlikely. However, this does follow the patterns of some of our oldest legends. Eru is indeed a vengeful God it seems.

The Valar, to be fair, though wise and powerful, are neither omniscient or omnipotent. They get things wrong, make mistakes and errors of omission, fail to judge character well etc etc. Somewhat like the Olympian Gods they are a bit 'human'. Maybe thats what gives them some character. As Legate says they see the need to avoid intervening in Middle Earth after they nearly destroyed the place in their original war against Morgoth before the awakening. Torn between desire to help and fear of destruction, they don't always make the best decisions.

The infighting of the Noldor and Sindar bizarrely makes me think of 'The Great Escape', the bit where Bartlett is trapped by the Gestapo wishing him 'good luck' in English and he automatically replies in English and thus gets caught. Every time I watch it I hope he's not going to fall for it! Much like every time I read the Sil, I'm muttering ' nooooo! don't be so damned stupid yet again!', Turin makes me think of Basil Fawlty, the amazing talent he has for doing exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time.

Elves are too remote from mortals, the Valar even more remote, and Eru is ultimately remote.