Servant or Master?
 

In several threads, I have noticed, when people list the "main-players" in Arda, they will always place Melkor(Morgoth) at the top with Sauron usually below him. It may just be my thoughts of Melkor as a "dissatisfying" villain whereas Sauron is my "satisfying" villain, but, I have to ask, does anyone else think that this view of power should be reversed? Melkor always seemed to me as a poor villain. He was overly arrogant. He squandered away his strength on his servants, almost all of whom wound up dead. He had the Silmaril taken right from under his nose. In fact, some of the things I've read about him in the Sil make him sound, dare I say it, pathetic.
Sauron however, he seems like so much better a villain to me. And with Morgoth having decreased so much in strength even by the time of his second capture, who knows? Maybe he was weaker than Sauron after two more ages. I know I'm making some bold statements here, but it's just been what I've come to see in Morgoth from what I've read. Perhaps it's just my opinion, but, hey, that's the human-mind for you.

I would dare say that Sauron seems more complex a villain because more was written about him, but I think, like Tolkien, that Melkor was more thorough in achieving his goal. When Tolkien described all of Middle-earth as being "Morgoth's Ring,"and then compared it to Sauron's Ring, he likened it to Sauron having put most of his power into a single piece of gold, whereas Morgoth put his power into all gold. With the destruction of that single piece, Sauron was thoroughly defeated, but because it would be impossible to collect and destroy all gold, Morgoth would never be entirely defeated, until the world was remade and his taint "filtered out" of it. The scope of what Melkor did was tremendous, and Sauron was merely a follower of it, not the originator of it.

That said, I do think that Melkor/Morgoth comes across as a less dramatic villain because of the very nihilistic madness that drives him, his hatred of all creation; Sauron is more focused and thus appears more in command of himself and his actions. 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). Sauron was perfectly happy to let the world exist, so long as it existed under his command and by his rules. Villains who appear as lunatics are never as chilling as those who seem perfectly sane, and still pursue a path of villainy. Just my two cents, as always.

Lord Halsar, those are some bold statements, but I actually don't think you are too far off the mark.

Who was the better villain? I believe Sauron became the more evil one, or in the very least as evil as Morgoth:
It's kind of tricky using Tolkien's letters, because they are reflections and therefor Tolkien at times contradicted himself. So, while it's interesting to read the conscious thoughts of the author, they don't always "line up" with what he wrote. Anyway, in this instance however, I think there is a lot of good "stuff" out there to show Sauron, while not starting out as evil as Morgoth, became more evil (or in the very least just as evil as Morgoth).

There it is in Letter 183 where he sets up a comparison between Morgoth and Satan, but goes on to say that in his story, Sauron represented "as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible."

I draw attention to "evil will," because I think Tolkien's making a point that Sauron's intentions, what he was attempting to do, was more evil than Morgoth's. But, not necessarily was Sauron more "effective."

And taking this from Letter 156 it certainly seems to set both Morgoth and Sauron on the same level:
So, both of them were in "Absolute Satanic Rebellion." Whatever that means, I don't know? Absolute rebellion against Eru? The Valar? Anyway, again, this sets Sauron and Morgoth on par with eachother when it comes to their "evilness."

And in another Letter...
This is what I think makes Sauron a bit different from Morgoth. Tolkien said that Morgoth slipped into shear "nihilism" where he was focused on trashing the entire place. He lost his head, so to say, and just wanted to destroy everything. The problem is Morgoth's "goal" is an unattainable one. Morgoth slipped into a stage where all he wanted complete and total destruction; this was impossible.

Where Sauron on the other hand, never falls into this same nihilistic madness as Morgoth, Sauron kept "relics of positive purposes." Sauron loved Order and Co-ordination (two good things to love), but of course Sauron took it to an excessive level...he took it to the level of thraldom. Sauron therefor doesn't want to trash the entire place, he was a lot wiser than Morgoth (and I'll get to that in a bit), he wants to be the "Dark Lord". He has the "supremely bad motive" of dominating the free wills of others.

At first one might ask...well what is more evil of an intention? Running the world as a Dark Lord and have everyone as your slave or completely destroying it? But, the problem again being, Morgoth's goal was unattainable, so now which one had the more evil (the "wiser") plan?

Which brings me to another key difference between Morgoth and Sauron:
Sauron was "wiser" because of hs desire to dominate everyone's "mind and will" and as it's right there Sauron probably knew more about the Music than Morgoth did.

So, based on all this "good stuff," like I said I don't think you're too far off the mark. Good thread idea, this should spark some nice discussion. :)

These are all interesting points people are making... but I wouldn't mind a clarification from the original poster. Lord Halsar, by "better villain", do you mean–

–actually more powerful?
–more evil?
–more successful?
–or just a better character?

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

It also depends on which story Tolkien was referring to. If he was just referring to LOTR it makes a bit of a difference.

Did I give you permission to disagree with me? :p

Ok, but seriously, is this a debatable topic? Sure is, which is why I look forward to some good discussion, because as you know I am an extremely biased person who will only find the stuff to support my opinion. ;)

Or myth and story mean the same thing, it's just that Tolkien felt like interchanging the two words. Similar to what he does a lot of times with "orc" and "goblin," switching which one he uses several times in the same paragraph to avoid repetition. It would be extremely annoying to see the same 3 sentences start of with "In my story..." "In my story..." and "In my story..."

So, which one is it? I don't know, but I have found other places where it's questionable as to whether Morgoth was the "#1 evil-man no questions asked." At one time he was at the top, but it's entirely possible for Sauron to leap-frog him.

It's certainly possible to parse Tolkien as saying that Sauron was as close to wholly evil as was possible 'in my story' (ie the Lord of the Rings) because that was merely a part of the Myth, one which no longer included Morgoth.

Ahhh...Balrog wings, run away!!!!!!

I'm mostly pondering over the seeming contradiction of Tolkien's words:

and

Given the fact that Tolkien stated that Melkor came to desire the annihilation of everything (possibly ultimately including himself)...who's to say if Melkor really answered to the description of being a 'rational being' anymore?

Perhaps we feel a greater affinity for Sauron because Sauron's motives are something that is understandable to most of us, while Melkor's goals seem a bit unreal to our minds.

Given that Tolkien described Melkor's desire as a descent into nihilistic madness, I'd say that he was definitely over the line into "irrational." :)

Kuru, will you hate me if I muddy the waters even more? :rolleyes:

How about Tolkien defining a "rational" being as something from Eru? Because, we're not talking about "thinking" rationally we are talking about an individuals own state of being. And since Eru is rational, all beings of Eru are thus considered "rational beings." I can't find the exact quote at the moment, but there is a place where Tolkien does define a "rational being" as one coming from Eru.

So, now the question is in Letter 183, does Tolkien mean "rational being" in the sense of one with the capability of thinking rationally or simply a being from Eru?

By the Light! I was expecting some serious disagreement to this! Oh well, as I said, "That's the human-mind for you!"

Anywho, I have to say that some excellent bits of information have slipped into this thread, much of which I agree with. I too view Sauron as the "Dark-Lord" and Melkor as the "Dark Nutcase.":p
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.
Whereas Sauron became tainted by greed and the guilty pleasure of the agony and misfortunes of others. That he was so changed of mind to throw away all that he had and sever all of his old ties to the Valar is a much more dreadful act, for he is destroying that which he once had to pursue a path of darkness and greed. Indeed, I believe that self-corruption, and the corruption and torment of others are far worse fates and lusts than a simple and highly unlikely will for ultimate destruction.
But I must admit, I think that Melkor would most-likely be more interesting and, in my opinion, a better villain if his mind and goals were as structured as Sauron's were. Who knows? Perhaps he could have finally removed his enemies if this had been?

Nothing was evil in the beginning or so Gandalf said. That includes Melkor.

Nerwen strikes another blow for nitpickers everywhere!
 

Ahem. It's actually Elrond who says that. (Not that it makes any difference)

Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning :p

Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!:D

And now for some disagreement.

I think you are over-simplifying Melkor:

–Ainulindalë

–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:

–Valaquenta

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.

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

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

*ponders*

A little of both maybe.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.:

– 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.;)

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.

Skip's point is well taken. It occurs to me that there is a transition of sorts. While he is named Melkor, he functions more as the elemental entity; once he has been given the name Morgoth, he seems to take on more of the Dark Lord character, with all the craftiness and stratagem that implies.

I agree with alot of skip's points as well. We all know that in Middle-Earth there is a theme that power wanes as the ages pass. So it would make sense that Morgoth was more powerful than Sauron.

We must remember one thing when it comes to actual strength. Melkor was diminished in power by spreading his own strength through his servants (and the world), and I would guess that he did not regain this power once they died. And to this I also say, Sauron was no fool. He would not make the same mistake Melkor did in powering his troops with his own being. So, while Sauron churned out hundreds of thousands of soldiers for his own uses, Melkor, even with his imprisonment, would still have all of those bits of strength continue to draw away from him. If indeed he was not getting this power back, he would have two Ages worth of lost power on (or perhaps off) his hands.

The one thing you fail to understand is Morgoth was victorious in Middle-earth. I'll say it again, he was utterly and overwhelmingly victorious. Morgoth crushed the greatest warriors of the Eldar and Edain (Feanor, Fingolfin, Fingon, Hurin, Turgon etc.), and all the fabled Elvish strongholds eventually fell to his armies (including the majestic hidden kingdoms of Nargothrond and Gondolin). It required Eärendil to take the case of Elves and Men to the Valar, and only the angelic armies of Aman managed to defeat Morgoth and reclaim Middle-earth, but in the process Beleriand was completely destroyed and submerged in the raging tumult. I want you to consider armies of that proportion and battle of that magnitude when comparing Morgoth and his lieutenant Sauron (and he was certainly Morgoth's subaltern, dutifully awaiting his master's return when he was first imprisoned by the Valar).

Sauron? He was not so successful; in fact, he lost almost every significant war (save perhaps the destruction of the Dunedain kingdoms in Eriador) while winning many of the battles: the might of the Numenoreans caused his armies to flee in panic, the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeated him at the foot of Mount Doom, and we all know what happened during the War of the Ring. When comparing the armies that faced Morgoth to those Sauron faced, one could say quite rightly that only the Numenoreans under Ar-Pharazon were a truly formidable force along the lines of Fingolfin's Noldor at Dagor Aglareb or the armies of Eldar, Edain and Dwarves in the Battle of Unnumbered Tears. Certainly the later armies Sauron faced in the 3rd Age were in no way comparable to the fierce Noldor of Valinor returning in their bright youth to the shores of Middle-earth.

Sauron was often defeated by his own arrogance and shortsightedness. When one considers the gamble, creating the Rings of Power were actually a deterrent to Sauron's plan for dominion rather than an aid. He was clever enough without it to defeat the Numenoreans with guile and without an army; however, losing the One Ring to Isildur caused a shift in his focus away from domination to a fevered race to find it. The waning of his incarnate manifestation cost him centuries of rebuilding and gave the Peoples of the West a respite, and time for the Valar to send the Istari to do their missionary work. The armies of Gondor and Rohan could not have held Sauron back if the Ring were not a unifier of his foes. The Ring in essence defeated him when his enemies' armies could not.

P.S. It is evident that Melkor Morgoth was the main antagonist in Tolkien's creation mythos, much like Lucifer in Milton's Paradise Lost. Morgoth was the great evil, and a primal force of nature in both a physical and spiritual sense. A fomenter of rebellion against the supreme being (in this case Eru Ilúvatar), he was the greatest of the Valar (coeval of Manwe), creator (in at least a genetic manipulation sense) of the great dragons and the Orc; and it shall be Morgoth's return from behind the Door of Night that will be the catalyst for the final battle at the end of days. Sauron in no way has the same stature in Tolkien's cosmology.

Actually he did have the ring, and used it to a great extent in their corruption:

Morgoth is the creator of evil. Of course he isn't a villain. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't even know what a villain WAS.

Anyway, Sauron was, in effect, an utter failure. He created the Rings in the hope of dominating all races. The elves just hid themselves, the Men were corrupted but even a tiny portion (the Faithful) were able to resist him successfully and overthrow him, the Dwarves were simply too hardy for his power. Sauron in the Third Age is just trying to super glue together the antique vase he deliberately dropped. If the Gondorians weren't fading and the Elves weren't leaving over the sea, Sauron would be beaten all over again.

While at the end of the Valaquenta in The Silmarillion it says:

So it seems to me that they are pretty much equal on the scale of being evil, except that for a time Sauron severed Morgoth rather than himself.

See I don't know. Just the words used in Nazgul's quote, "shadow" and "ghost" would, in my mind, create the picture of a lesser version of the original, that Melkor was true evil and Sauron, while evil enough to be going on with, was merely a pretender, rather than a second coming. Melkors tribute band, if you will!!

Or even Melkor's adoring little fan.

"Oh wow mister, you're so evil, here, I want to be evil too, rarr!!"

"Go home, Buddy. I work alone."

Even though Sauron didn't succeed in his first attempt to control Middle Earth, he sure came close to. The majority of his work was done when he was a spirit, he actually survived after he was killed (pretty amazing). A cool thing about Sauron was that he learned from his mistake and for 3000 years he slowly wore down the might of the Numenoreans and the elves. Now I don't know if he did this because it's all he could do, since he was a spirit, but I thought it was pretty cool the way that he learned from his mistake.

More H-I-pulling.
 

Sauron, devoted servant of Melkor? by lore_master

I also disagree with the characterization of Morgoth as a "nutcase." His goal of destroying creation was perhaps impossible, but so was Sauron's. Sauron wished to gain absolute control over the minds and wills of others, but how can he do that when those minds and wills have their source in Eru and not in him? You cannot control what you do not own. Sauron can force his slaves to obey, by threat or torture, but he can't make them want to obey. Even his own orcs occasionally attempt to oppose his will, so what's the chance that he'd be able to completely enslave Elves or Men or Dwarves? There will always be rebellion, even if only on the individual level. In this way the minds and wills of others will always be out of Sauron's grasp, and ultimately his ambition is as futile as Morgoth's.

Returning to Morgoth, I think his nihilism is, in a way, basically an extension of Sauron's mindset. Sauron wished to control. In the beginning, so did Morgoth. As Nerwen already posted:
However, Morgoth realized what Sauron did not: that control is impossible, because the Imperishable Flame is Iluvatar's and no one else's. All the beings that Iluvatar imbued with the Flame possess a free will that is completely independent of Morgoth's own will, and thus forever outside of his control.

Now Morgoth, as we all know, had an enormous ego. He saw that other beings could defy his will, and he hated them for it. That things could exist despite him rather than because of him was insufferable; and it was from this jealousy that his hatred had its source. If he could not control, he would destroy. And in the end, of course, his lust for destruction would fulfill his original lust for power: he would control everything in existence, since he himself would be the only thing left in existence.