Well, according to Word of God, Sauron did start out as a Well-Intentioned Extremist who wanted to create peace and order at any cost, but then underwent Motive Decay into a straight-up tyrant after becoming addicted to power. However, I would like to point out that the orcs were plenty miserable under Sauron's rule (the books make it pretty plain that the common soldiers had him and the Nazgul only slightly less than they do their enemies), so the suggestion that he was doing it for them is somewhat absurd. Also, look at the Ring itself- it's basically a piece of Sauron, and it slowly drives everyone around it evil and/or insane. So, IMO, he started out the one, but definitely ended up the other.
I am one of those who believes that he started out as a well intentioned extremist and later became a power hungry asshole. He may still have delusions of being well intentioned (that we just don't hear about), but by and large he is a selfish asshole who uses and abuses anyone he can in his goal of ruling the world of Middle Earth. I highly doubt he is doing what he is for the orcs. The orcs as mentioned above hate Sauron. Because Sauron is an asshole. An asshole of a control freak. Then again I suppose it's hard not to be when you joined up with Melkor... The current ruling families of Middle Earth may be amoral at times, but they seem preferable to the demi-god like being gone mad with power.
edited 18th Jan '11 10:50:12 AM by Aondeug
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan ChahSince Sauron was influenced by Morgoth, I don't regard him as Complete Monster. But consindering what we know about his back story outside Lot R Well Intentioned Extremist isn't him. (If we take it at facevalue. If you suscribe to "Winners make the history" in fictional Middle earth we can go on WMG for days.)
I mostly think of him as a guy with ahorrible mancrush on his Evil Overlord mentor who was so set in his ways after the Valar crushed Melkor he didn't know how to ever go back. So he just kept doing what he was good at. And tried to emulate his mentor which failed horrible in the end.
Also, it was stated that Sauron was never personally involved in any battle in Lot R because he had become so weak he couldn't make a physical manifestation without the Ring.
edited 19th Jan '11 2:14:14 PM by myrdschaem
I think the fall of Numenor (Xanatos Gambit from Sauron to turn humans and lowercase g gods on each other, but backfired cause highercase G God got involved) removed any sympatheticness from Sauron. The Silmarillion also states that after the fall of Morgoth (which should have been more detailed) he almost redeemed, but was ultimately too proud.
Likes many underrated webcomicsEhm correct me if im wrong but wasnt Sauron involved in the creation of the orcs? They were created to be evil smelly cannon fodder. That doesnt seem very ethical.
edited 8th Mar '11 12:52:57 PM by adrasl300
In the process of creating Old Shame.Morgoth was the one who "created" the orcs (by corrupting them from something else- probably Elves, which is what the published books say, though Tolkien never quite made up his mind on the issue); however, since Sauron was Morgoth's Dragon, it's not much of a stretch to assume he was involved in the process, and he (and Saruman) certainly tinkered with them later on.
The Alternate Character Interpretation of Sauron only works if you ignore the appendices, etc.
Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
For that matter, so do most WMG relating to Tolkien.
Word of God states that Sauron was as close as anything can get to pure, unadulterated evil (see the Letters of J.R.R Tolkien), though it also states that he does consider repentance early on in the second age, and has some "mixed motivations" when he first goes to the elves to forge the rings of power. Any goodness in him goes out the window when Gil-Galad and Elrond spurn him. His ultimate goal was essentially to "become" God, which was (at least in Tolkien's view) the worst evil possible. As for his actions in Middle Earth, he doesn't just set out to enslave and destroy people and entire races, he has a way of rubbing their faces in it by making them do it themselves: he gets the elves to make the rings of power and teach him the art of ring making along the way. He lures the Numenorians into making a genocidal assault on Valinor, he uses the rings of power and palantir to turn his enemies into nameless, faceless puppets. Word of God suggests that he destroyed the Ent Wives as part of a scorched earth strategy during the war of the last alliance (again, letters of Tolkien). The Witch King's description of the torments that Eowyn would face in the "houses of lamentation, naked beneath the eye" (or something to that effect) are downright bone-chilling. It goes on and on. I'm sure I've left out tons.
Hitler and Stalin come closer to "well intentioned extremist" than this guy does. By the time of LOTR, it's complete monster, no holds barred.
edited 5th Apr '11 6:00:25 PM by Troper66
Stalin was a paranoid lunatic. He never had any good intentions for anyone but himself.
Here's what Tolkien has to say:
"He [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.)"~Home X: Morgoth's Ring; Myths Transformed
So it seems Sauron believed in The Evils of Free Will and was just trying to help the world by controlling it with his vision and ideas.
edited 5th Apr '11 6:24:05 PM by Nikkolas
To Sauron, those two things - to help Middle-earth and to put Middle-earth under his will - are synonymous.
Also, here is the quote Troper 66 was referring to:
"In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil. Satan fell. In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth." -Tolkien, Letters #183
So Sauron had a noble purpose in the beginning at least.
edited 5th Apr '11 10:26:12 PM by Nikkolas
In light of what Nikkolas pointed out, perhaps it's not that we have to choose between complete monster and well intended extremist, but to see the story of Sauron as a parable about the dangers of Utopia Justifies the Means. The well intentioned extremist cannot help but become a complete monster when attempts to implement the utopian vision are made in the real world, because they necessarily require trampling on the free will of others. The one ring is essentially an Aesoptinum intended to demonstrate this. Bombadil, mentioned above, is the polar opposite of this. His outlook - that the world is to be loved and appreciated with no reference to one self - is the complete antithesis of Sauron's. That's why the ring didn't work on him. That's why he was in the book. While this view was ideal, Word of God also concedes that it cannot in itself match and counter the power of Sauron, and must rely on the forces of "good" to effect counter power. Thus, the ring could not simply be left with Bombadil. This was the essence of Tolkien's message, IMO.
edited 6th Apr '11 9:57:56 AM by Troper66
In Tolkien's Legendarium one has only three possibilities: 1) to side with the Valar, fulfiling the plan of Eru - in this case one is good and has an ability to create, 2) to side with Morgoth/Sauron, be evil and lose creative power, 3) to live peacefully in the middle of nowhere and not care for the Great Conflict (in which case, however, one can't expect much civilizational development). Morgoth and Sauron chose the second option, so they are evil by definition - that's how Tolkien constructed his world.
(Though, if you want Perspective Flip, there is a book by this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirill_Eskov.)
And, one of Tolkien's texts mentions that before the creation of Arda Morgoth wooed Varda and was rejected by her, which makes him a bit of tragic character. But, as Tolkien didn't develop this element, I don't think it can be seen as a justification Morgoth's deeds.
Uh, let's see. Servant of MORGOTH, doesn't care who he kills, responsible for the deaths of millions of people, wanted to conquer the world for no discernible reason other than he could...I'd say yeah, Complete Monster.
![]()
![]()
In the new "round earth" cosmology (as opposed to the "flat earth" version from the Silm '77), Melkor was also rejected by Arie (Arien), the maia of the sun, and so he raped her. She left Arda but managed to burn him pretty badly.
One can be both a Complete Monster and a Well-Intentioned Extremist, can't they? Sauron started out as the latter, but slipped into the latter as well due to his methods.
The bit of Myths Transformed that talks about the motives of Morgoth and Sauron can be found online here
.
I'm not sure Morgoth and Saruman were Complete Monsters either. Morgoth originally opposed Eru's plan more because he didn't understand it then out of malice, and Saruman was a Fallen Hero.
I think Sauron began as a well-intentioned rebel whose bitterness got the better of him. Morgoth, too.
Saruman's a little different. He was corrupted by despair, just like Denethor. After seeing the power of Mordor, he felt that the only way to match it was to build an imitation with his own improvements, which then became an uneasy alliance as he was swayed by Sauron. These are both characters who, rather than trusting in friendship and alliance, turned to their own schemes.
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchNone of Tolkien's major villains were Complete Monsters, in my opinion, and Sauron certainly wasn't one. If I remember correctly, he began the Second Age as a Well-Intentioned Extremist that became corrupted by the power he wielded; he wasn't really a sadist to the core. Same thing with Saruman, though he also had elements of hubris and envy added to his characterization.
Morgoth is a possible example, though I tend think he was twisted by rage, pride, rebelliousness, and the desire for revenge far more than psychopathic malice. A case could possibly be made for Ar-Pharazon, but the passage about Numenor I read in The Silmarillion felt more like a history book than part of a fictional story, so it's trickier to ascertain whether or not he was.
Action and desire aren't the most reliable tools to determine whether or not someone is a Complete Monster; it's more important to look at where those desires are coming from. With Morgoth, it wasn't from a place of pure sadism; it was out of envy and bitterness, and the desire for revenge against those (his siblings the Valar, and Eru especially) who he felt had wronged him. He is more like Lucifer than Lord Voldemort.

A Cracked.com article recently got my attention; the fictional 'villains' who were really good guys.
It mentioned Sauron, and I was thinking "Maybe he's right."
Let's look at both sides, shall we?
I personally think that a lot of Sauron's villainy is a case of Orcus on His Throne, so I'm willing to buy that he might be a case of I Did What I Had to Do.
What are your opinions, tropers?
My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.