Taters to Taters

[Galadriel55]

Ungoliant - I would say she's evil, but not violent. She wants to devour everything, but that just in itself does not qualify for me as violent.

Menegroth - I just don't get it.

Tulkas - I like this choice, since, as was said before, he is an example of positive violence. The Sil says that he is not violent unless provoked by something, and when he is - pray to god you're faster than him!

Battle of Pelennor Fields - I get the reasoning behind choosing what looks like the bloodiest battle of the Third Age, but at the same time it just lacks something.

Ar-Pharazon and Tar-Minastir - saying that they are not violent is like saying it's not Hitler's fault. If you're not holding the sword/gun yourself doesn't mean you have no part in it. Saying that, I'm not sure if Minastir can be called violent at all, since sending troops to help out Gil-Galad seems common sense rather than violence to me.

Battle of Bywater - I guess it could go in history as one of the least violent battles ever, which makes the choice funny. But don't forget that it is probably the most violent thing that ever happened according to your avrage hobbit.

Eol - I'd say he fits better under "insane" than "violent".

Beorn - like Tulkas, he has his fits of violece. He can be an old grandpa figure one moment, and a raging bear another.

Gorgoroth - another one that I just don't get.




I would not judge violence by the scale of it or by death count. For example, Ungoliant destroyed the two trees, but how? By sucking juice? It's an evil deed, but not exactly a violent one. Tulkas, on the other hand, doesn't really kill anyone/anything, but he does get quite violent when he's angry.