Did Gollum deserve death?

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

But surely if they felt edgy it was based on their own suspicions rather than any wrongdoing Gollum had done. I mean, Sam was antagonistic from the very start. And it was Sam who turned Gollum bad.

[Aaron]

No it wasn't. Sam was willing to give Gollum a chance but was continuously antagonised by him. Gollum was isolated based on his own sense of worthlessness. He pushed Frodo and Sam away because subconciously he knew that he deserved to be alone.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Oh puh-lease. I assume that you've read the part where Gollum almost decides not to lead Frodo and Sam to their deaths? Well Doctor Freud, answer me this? When Gollum was on the verge of doing something right who was it that ensured he went ahead with his original plan? Whose words and constant jibes sent him totally over the edge? Yup, it was a certain S. Gamgee was it not? Gollum could have been saved, he could have enjoyed a happy ending but the reluctance of others to accept him as anything more than a nuiscance put paid to those hopes.

[Aaron]

"Dr. Freud"? Yeah, good one
I'll admit that Sam could have treated him better but not because he deserved good treatment but due to the simple fact that a dangerous schizophrenic should not be antagonised. The Shelob incident was the result of the machinations of a mentally disturbed sinner and nothing more.
But why don't you answer this question then? Where was Sam when Smeagol killed Deagol? Hmm, maybe my mind ain't what it used to be but I don't recall any teasing there. No, Gollum simply killed without provocation based on a lust for an inanimate object. No better than other murderers who kill for money to be honest. He was motivated for selfish intrests and acted wrongly because he sought to protect an object which bought him joy. The definition of an egocentric personality, how can you defend someone so morally bankrupt?

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Because in Tolkien's work no one is completely flawless. Look at Frodo, what does he do? At the very end he gives in and claims the ring for himself out of that same selfishness which drove Smeagol to commit that first murder. And Aragon, how many men do you think he killed? Hardly a model citizen. Gimli and Legolas, when we first meet them they are the equivalent of what we would call "racists", not too nice eh? When taking into account these shortcomings would you condemn all these characters too?

[Aaron]

Of course not. And I'll tell you why. These sins were either isolated or resolved by the end of the story. They either sprung up from momentary weakness or ignorance that was remedied by the end. Gollum though lived for many years as an evil being and it was basically all he knew hence why he does not attain the redemption that someone like Saruman does.

[Gothbogg the Ripper]

Saruman never attained redemption. Plus, Gollum knew how to be kind in his own way. Playing riddle games, catching food, constant flattery. He was initially a simple Stoor and still retained simple values. He was never wholly evil.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Gothbogg the Ripper

But surely if they felt edgy it was based on their own suspicions rather than any wrongdoing Gollum had done. I mean, Sam was antagonistic from the very start. And it was Sam who turned Gollum bad.

Gollum was bad before Sam showed up. Gollum was even bad before Gollum showed up. He killed Deagol BEFORE he had even touched the ring.
Nah, he was a roight nasty bit o' news and as Gandalf implied, he definitely deserved to die, which... he did.

[Aaron]

Exactly. He was completely irredeemable and no one can deny it.