Tidbits of Curiosity

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Urwen

I think so. Their actions led to good things. Without Maeglin, War of Wrath wouldn't have happened. Without Gollum, the Ring wouldn't have been destroyed.

A [complex] evil that leads to good - but still remains evil?

I was also thinking about their position and eventual choices. Alienated from their society (to different degrees, of course), hiding away from the world, lusting after an unattainable object, betraying the only other thing that matters in order to satisfy the lust by willingly going over to the enemy, eventually dying in a desperate bid for their desire.

[Urwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

A [complex] evil that leads to good - but still remains evil?

I was also thinking about their position and eventual choices. Alienated from their society (to different degrees, of course), hiding away from the world, lusting after an unattainable object, betraying the only other thing that matters in order to satisfy the lust by willingly going over to the enemy, eventually dying in a desperate bid for their desire.

I suppose that's true, though there are differences. One lusted after another person, the other lusted after an object. One committed suicide, the other was murdered.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Urwen

One committed suicide, the other was murdered.

'Murder' usually implies you're not in the middle of trying to kill your murderer... They both died by getting into a fight at the top of a cliff and winding up going over the edge.

The biggest difference, really, is that Gollum didn't go over to the Enemy. He gave up information under torture, but remained a free agent afterwards. Maeglin, meanwhile, not only didn't need to be tortured, but ended up actively working to weaken Gondolin for Morgoth's attack.

hS

[Urwen]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

'Murder' usually implies you're not in the middle of trying to kill your murderer... They both died by getting into a fight at the top of a cliff and winding up going over the edge.

For a second, I thought you were implying that Tuor fell off the cliff too...Then I realized you meant Gollum.

[Urwen]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

'Murder' usually implies you're not in the middle of trying to kill your murderer... They both died by getting into a fight at the top of a cliff and winding up going over the edge.

The biggest difference, really, is that Gollum didn't go over to the Enemy. He gave up information under torture, but remained a free agent afterwards. Maeglin, meanwhile, not only didn't need to be tortured, but ended up actively working to weaken Gondolin for Morgoth's attack.

hS

Most of the fanfictions I've read go with the idea that Tuor actively pushed/threw Maeglin off the cliffside. (As in, physically lifting him up and chucking him over the edge)

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

The biggest difference, really, is that Gollum didn't go over to the Enemy. He gave up information under torture, but remained a free agent afterwards. Maeglin, meanwhile, not only didn't need to be tortured, but ended up actively working to weaken Gondolin for Morgoth's attack.

He did bring Frodo to Shelob - and it's implied that he expected to get the rags and the rings that would be left over after her meal. When he revealed Baggins under torture, he wasn't under any obligation to Frodo, so there was no one to betray.

Originally Posted by Urwen

Most of the fanfictions I've read go with the idea that Tuor actively pushed/threw Maeglin off the cliffside. (As in, physically lifting him up and chucking him over the edge)

Which is still part of the fight that Maeglin started. Killing in battle is not really murder - especially when it's done in defense of yourself and your wife and kid.

[Urwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Which is still part of the fight that Maeglin started. Killing in battle is not really murder - especially when it's done in defense of yourself and your wife and kid.

Self-defense is still technically murder, despite being excusable.


See it for yourself:



This is what it looked like from Maeglin's perspective.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Urwen

Self-defense is still technically murder, despite being excusable.


See it for yourself:

This is what it looked like from Maeglin's perspective.

Or, how about: when you get into a fight you hope to win but you also accept the possibility that you lose? What do you want - for Maeglin to be allowed to initiate a match but without fear of consequences? The possible consequences are the same for both parties.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Urwen

Self-defense is still technically murder, despite being excusable.

I hate to be the guy who says, "Ackshually...." but I'm going to be him. My apologies.

Actually, self-defense isn't technically murder. It's a homicide

Homicide is simply a killing of one person by another. There is no implication of guilt or innocence applied to it, as people may be found innocent, such as in a lawful case of self-defense, or justifiable homicide.

Murder (and Manslaughter) are considered unlawful homicides. Murder must contain what's known as mens rea (Latin: "guilty mind"), also called "malice aforethought," which is the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.

The killing of one person (or elf) by another in war, under the circumstances described by Tolkien vis-a-vis Maeglin, doesn't constitute murder and was a clear case of (lawful) self-defense.