Why Does Good Suck So Much?

[Nikkolas]

As I said, I have no problem with a bit of grey. Turin was my favorite "hero" in The Silmarillion precisely because he broke from the mold and was atypical. Flawed undoubtedly, heroic certainly, and perpetually ruled by a curse that is apparently both created without and within. His character is transparent and we can plainly see his positive and negative traits.

Does this happen with the Valar? No. The narrative takes a clear direction that they are "too good and too pure". I don't buy that. I want them held accountable for their mistakes. I want their flaws to be highlighted as much as the flaws of Feanor or Turin.

And well, yeah, I guess my idea that free will doesn't really exist - at least when it comes to the Valar - does kind of shoot in the foot my condemning of them. Well this is why I've never been much of a debater.

And by "enslavement" I just meant conquest. Sauron's goal was to subjugate all people under his will as he believed he was the only one who could provide order to a world that desperately needed it.
I didn't mean he'd put elves and men in chains and have them bought and sold or anything like that.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Does this happen with the Valar? No. The narrative takes a clear direction that they are "too good and too pure". I don't buy that. I want them held accountable for their mistakes. I want their flaws to be highlighted as much as the flaws of Feanor or Turin.

I get the feeling that Tolkien was maybe heading in that direction. I haven't really had the opportunity to read much of the History of Middle-earth series. Those who have: do earlier or later depictions of the Valar (say in the Book of Lost Tales) make them more morally culpable, within the text itself?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Does this happen with the Valar? No. The narrative takes a clear direction that they are "too good and too pure". I don't buy that. I want them held accountable for their mistakes. I want their flaws to be highlighted as much as the flaws of Feanor or Turin.

They are "too good, too pure", but not flawless: that comes from the fact that they are, after all, limited in some way. They are prone to ire or bad judgement. Even to failure. Remember Aulë and the Dwarves (the difference between Melkor and Aulë is that Aulë is capable of seeing his mistake and even though he does not like it, he is willing to accept some punishment for it - which he does not get). I have read all the posts above, but only in a cursory way, so I am not sure if somebody hasn't mention that (but if they didn't, it surprises me, as that's the first thing that would come into my mind) - remember the first wars before the coming of the Firstborn. It created so much of a mess that the Valar never dared to repeat such a thing again, only when it was really clear that there is no other way (the War of Wrath). I think here is the answer to most of the questions you have raised in the first place (as in, why not interfere at Númenor etc.).

Also, there is the thing with how Valar (as well as Elves and all the sort of "magical" things) gradually wane and get away from Middle-Earth, get detached more and more, and by the coming of Third Age, they just send Istari, and even later, it seems the link is broken whatsoever, because there are no more Elves or any contact with Aman (at some point, the ships stopped coming from Aman, and later, they even stopped leaving for Aman). And it is sort of also more burden of responsibility growing for the Children - not having the Valar fix every problem, but Eru technically giving them increasing freedom throughout the ages, which they have to sort of learn to use (as implied e.g. by Gandalf's words to the Hobbits at the end of RotK, etc).