"The Dark Fire Will Not Avail You"

[blantyr]

With Enu and the Valar, the question would be how much one can get away with before they will act. The answer is quite a lot. I mean, sending an army to step foot in the blessed lands would be a no no, but short of that they’ll mostly leave you alone.

For Sauron in the late Third Age, he’d have to find his Ring or someone else would. If one thinks like a dark lord, there’s no option there. As is, the Valar intervention was relatively subtle up until the siege of Minas Tirith was broken. Aragorn called the shadow people forth. Was that the Ring? The Valar? If Sauron heard about that affair, would he know of the ancient prophecy, or would he be asking where the heck that came from? The next morning, the smoke from Mt. Doom was blown back in Sauron’s face. Was that Aragorn and the Ring? Was that the Valar? Did Sauron know, or was he as full of doubt and confusion as Gandalf seemed to think?

How does a Dark Lord think?

The other example was Saruman. His was a relatively trivial little darkness, one that wouldn’t gather the attention of the Valar, let alone Eru. It did draw the attention of Treebeard. Again, Saruman thought he knew Fanghorn, knew its strength, and knew it would not respond to provocation. Good guys are wimps. They’ll let you walk all over them. They never fight back, can't fight back. Well, hardly ever. Saruman thought to make war on Rohan, and thought Fanghorn negligible.

At a bottom line, basic theology, you have the old problem of the omnipotent, all knowing and benevolent God. How does such a being allow Evil to exist? Benevolence implies free choice, allowing sentients to do their own world building. This free choice cannot be taken away, yet such a God can’t just sit back and allow people like Melkor, Saruman and Sauron to take over reality. Such a God gives mortals choices, but makes just enough help available, should the heroes make the right choices, to doom a poor helpless dark lord should he over step certain boundaries.

No warning at all! Unfair! Doesn’t a dark lord deserve a few warnings? Omnipotent, all knowing, supposedly benevolent beings can be such a pain! Does anyone know just how embarrassing it is to be reduced to a shadow of malice that may never take shape and take over the world ever again?

Grumph!

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by blantyr

The other example was Saruman. His was a relatively trivial little darkness, one that wouldn’t gather the attention of the Valar, let alone Eru. It did draw the attention of Treebeard. Again, Saruman thought he knew Fanghorn, knew its strength, and knew it would not respond to provocation. Good guys are wimps. They’ll let you walk all over them. They never fight back, can't fight back. Well, hardly ever. Saruman thought to make war on Rohan, and thought Fanghorn negligible.

Well, Saruman committed an egregious enough offense that upon the destruction of his incarnate form, his spirit was denied re-admittance to the Blessed realm. I'd say he didn't really escape the Valar's notice.

Originally Posted by blantyr

At a bottom line, basic theology, you have the old problem of the omnipotent, all knowing and benevolent God. How does such a being allow Evil to exist? Benevolence implies free choice, allowing sentients to do their own world building. This free choice cannot be taken away, yet such a God can’t just sit back and allow people like Melkor, Saruman and Sauron to take over reality. Such a God gives mortals choices, but makes just enough help available, should the heroes make the right choices, to doom a poor helpless dark lord should he over step certain boundaries.

As one of my favorite movies puts it, the idea is that in order for people to be really good, they have to be given a choice between good and evil, and choose good. The same applies to angels (Vala).

Originally Posted by blantyr

Doesn’t a dark lord deserve a few warnings? Omnipotent, all knowing, supposedly benevolent beings can be such a pain! Does anyone know just how embarrassing it is to be reduced to a shadow of malice that may never take shape and take over the world ever again?

I'd say all the major "dark lords", including the minor-league Saruman, had ample warning before their final doom (which they themselves brought about) was pronounced. And part of being good is overcoming pride, something none of those three ever seemed to grasp.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Well, Saruman committed an egregious enough offense that upon the destruction of his incarnate form, his spirit was denied re-admittance to the Blessed realm. I'd say he didn't really escape the Valar's notice.

Very true. One would say they had to be aware enough of what he was doing to pass judgment. Still, with the exception of Gandalf, I can't say that the Valar or Maiar took direct action against him. It was only after he pretty much chewed the dead rind of spite to the point of causing his own death that they let their judgement be known. Dark lords too make their own choices.

Yet, I've played role playing games based on Tolkien where one tracks 'corruption points.' The more bad stuff a character does, the more you have to follow that road to its end. Once one starts drifting towards evil, the game mechanics push one towards becoming more evil. Wormtongue and Saruman might be two of the clearer examples of this in the books. These were clearly two intelligent, strong willed and subtle beings who in the end seemed like 1930s movie serial villains with everything but the cloak to swirl and mustache to twirl.

I wouldn't say this is Valar denying choice but perhaps the corrupting influence of the darker powers.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I'd say all the major "dark lords", including the minor-league Saruman, had ample warning before their final doom (which they themselves brought about) was pronounced. And part of being good is overcoming pride, something none of those three ever seemed to grasp.

Indeed. As mentioned in the first post (and the original question of this thread, anyway), all of them actually had the warning (even in the "purest form", so to say, from "the source"), since they knew Eru and other Ainur personally. The thing is that they had shut themselves away from the others. Gandalf warned Saruman, or at least there has been a certain course he had been proposing at the Councils etc., I am sure there was much more; yet Saruman probably ignored his remarks or shut his ears to them ("I am not listening to that fool"). Sauron was given the chance e.g. at the end of the Third Age, in front of the hosts of the Valar.

Actually, Saruman got much more than a warning - he got the offer of redemption. I think nobody had ever condemned Saruman in the sense of "threatening him with eternal damnation": always and all the time the offers had been positive, yet he simply continued on turning them down. If Gandalf or the Valar or whoever came to the baddies saying "hey, now surrender or we are going to throw you into the Void", it would be pure threatening. Yet what I find really notable is that they always come with the offers of accepting the trespassers back - and the trespassers generally refuse, of course. And it is possibly also these offers that lull them into thinking that "those goody-goodies are actually never going to take any action against me" (which of course they would also find to be only self-delusion if they thought of the history and all, like the battles of Utumno and so on, and for the later ones, War of Wrath or Númenor), and then they are caught surprised when the cup flows over...

For that matter, I think it is also notable that in many times (and especially in the later Ages), the bad guys are simply left to "reap what they sow" without the direct intervention of any hosts of Valar or such. For example in the case of Sauron in Third Age, I would call that "judgement by leaving him in the hands of the mortals". Sort of: "you wanted to destroy/enslave the Free Peoples, now eat whatever they've prepared for you in response, we won't interfere - neither helping to destroy you, but neither showing you mercy anymore - we aren't going to stop the Free Peoples once they come-a-knocking at your door".

Originally Posted by blantyr

Very true. One would say they had to be aware enough of what he was doing to pass judgment. Still, with the exception of Gandalf, I can't say that the Valar or Maiar took direct action against him. It was only after he pretty much chewed the dead rind of spite to the point of causing his own death that they let their judgement be known. Dark lords too make their own choices.

And this illustrates it well, I think: simply put, the most harsh judgement actually is when the Powers decide not to interfere anymore. "Silence means judgement." Once the offers of mercy cease, Saruman is left to go to the Shire and prepare his own end. Once the Valar finally stop warning the Númenoreans, no Elven ships are coming to the island anymore and the Kings are left to do what they wish. I think it was C.S. Lewis who had said something like that "during the Last Judgement, there will be only two kinds of people: first ones will tell God 'Your will be done', and to the others, God will say: 'Your will be done'". I think this is quite a good parallel for that and I can see this mechanic working in Middle-Earth (and even direct influence from Lewis on Tolkien is possible, of course, even though the basic concept is by no means limited to Lewis alone).

[leapofberen]

I think Legate makes a great point. It also seems to me that in his pride, Morgoth (or Melkor at this point) initially fancied himself as the one who would be best at shaping Middle Earth, if I remember correctly. Perhaps, as he continued to interfere with the other Vala, that certain Maia were deluded into thinking that Morgoth was truly the one who would accomplish this great work and sided with him.

I would also imagine that once the Maia made the transition to Middle Earth from the place where Eru existed (as the Vala did) and became bound to the earth in their different forms, that perhaps it affected their perceptions in certain ways that would have made them more susceptible to being deceived. I am thinking of Osse in particular, the helper of Ulmo who was deceived by Melkor for a time and then repented. If I am remembering rightly, didn't Melkor make a special attempt in deceiving Osse due to the powers he held? Melkor feared Ulmo almost as much as he feared Varda because Ulmo could not be controlled; his deception of Osse was the closest he could get to gaining control over Ulmo. Osse later repented, yet his time in service to Melkor had a lasting effect on him as he continued to be unwieldy in that he loved to cause storms and distress upon the sea.

Good stuff.