"A hypothetical offspring of Cruella de Ville and Sauron"

[Lord_Butters_I]

Last Panel of 489 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)
Oh my gods, that is probibly one of the funniest things I have ever heard. I don't really know why, but I'm still laughing.

[BURNhollywoodBURN]

Umm... I think that was somewhat unneeded. If you want to say that, please post in the discussion thread, not start a new one.

However, I do agree with you.

[Triaxx]

Of course it deserves it's own topic, since it begs the question, what would said hypothetical off-spring look like?

Something of the flaming helm, but otherwise perfect Fashion-sense variety?

Or the pink floppy hat and black armor type?

[FujinAkari]

One Outfit to Rule them All!

[Green Bean]

One Outfit to Rule them All!

It would be made out of skinned hobbits. :smallamused:

[FujinAkari]

He would skin the hobbits in the first 15m of the film, then spend the rest of the movie trying to make the arduous trek to America to find Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, as he is the unquestioned master at making skin-suits :P

[Oberon]

Cookies and virtual kudos to the first person to come up with an image and display it!

[The Hop Goblin]

Which begs the question - male or female?

[Kaelaroth]

A mixture of both? Oh my God!!! It's Zz'dtri!


However, Cruella de Ville is married. And Sauron's a freaking eyeball... how'd it work?

[Rogue 7]

They look completely normal. All of the child's evil is manifested on a ring on its finger that kills any puppy within a 10-mile radius, skins them, sucks their soul into the ring, and pops out fashionable coats.

[Wolfman42666]

Nah, neither of them actually managed their greatest villainy.

granted villain's don't due to their very nature.
I mean when did you last see the villain win, at the end of the story The end, story over.

Male: Probably whatever Sauron looked like before studying necromancer with long slick black hair.

Female: like Cruella, only with a wraith-in-armour thing.:smalleek: :smallbiggrin:

[skyclad]

Btw Sauron wasnt ever a giant floating eyeball... Only in the films.

[JoseB]

Btw Sauron wasnt ever a giant floating eyeball... Only in the films.

Actually, Sauron is described in the novels as "the lidless eye", and is mentioned as being wreathed in flame. Possibly it is the aspect he chose for himself after becoming a disincarnated being.

Just my 2 eurocent!

[Rangerdude]

Yea I hate how Peter Jackson just assumed Sauron had to be a floating eye thingy. Wasn't Sauron like an Elf or a Paladin or some thing before he went evil? :smallamused: :smallamused:

[Rangerdude]

Actually, Sauron is described in the novels as "the lidless eye", and is mentioned as being wreathed in flame. Possibly it is the aspect he chose for himself after becoming a disincarnated being.

Just my 2 eurocent!


I think the whole Lidless Eye thing was just novelistic flair wasn't it? When I read the books I imagined him as a guy in a suit of black armor on fire, with a big sorta evil sword, and like a huge black cape, that sort of thing.

[VanBuren]

Yea I hate how Peter Jackson just assumed Sauron had to be a floating eye thingy. Wasn't Sauron like an Elf or a Paladin or some thing before he went evil? :smallamused: :smallamused:

Um... no. No he was not an elf.

[TheElfLord]

If you look at the extras for Return of the Kind DVD, you can see a deleated scene that pictures Saron in his original form, as concived by Peter Jackson.

As to the Eyeball thing, that is a metaphorical description of his imaterial form. The Liddless Eye was Saron's symbol from before his first downfall, most likely as a symbol of vigilance. Just cause Saruman uses a white hand as his symbol doesn't mean that Saruman was a Giant White Hand. The LotR (book) states that Saron was not yet able to assume material form again, so he was not a giant eyeball floating over his tower. He was a malevolent prescene in his fortress that is at times described as an eye, though he has no physical resemblence to one. (he doesn't have a physical resemblence to anything).

[TheElfLord]

Yea I hate how Peter Jackson just assumed Sauron had to be a floating eye thingy. Wasn't Sauron like an Elf or a Paladin or some thing before he went evil? :smallamused: :smallamused:

1). Yeah it bugs me too

2). Saron was one of the strongest mair, which is the equivelent of a demigod or a lower angel, depending how you interpet Tolkien's cosmology.

[The Hop Goblin]

Yea I hate how Peter Jackson just assumed Sauron had to be a floating eye thingy. Wasn't Sauron like an Elf or a Paladin or some thing before he went evil? :smallamused: :smallamused:

Try not to assume about Peter Jackson just because its 'trendy' to hate him. The 'eye in the sky' description was also in the Return of the King cartoon originally released in 1980.

[The_Hunting_Enemy]

Actually, If you look up the lidless eye in a Tolkien 'Index' sort of book that has descriptions and drawings of everything from Hobbits to the Olog Hai, (Not Uruks, Ologs are half troll or something) The eye is described how it is shown in the movie, almost perfectly. This was long before any of the movies.

The eye is not technically Sauron. It is just a form he took until he was whole again that enabled him to keep a close eye on things. In the book, Frodo and Sam, while walking across the plains to Mt.Doom get caught in it's gaze and the commotion at the gate draws it away, just like in the movie.

So stop complaining about Peter 'ruining things' because, although I will admit he took his liberties *coughAragonOffCliffcoughcoughArmyOfDeadAtPellanor cough* It isn't like he butchered the story beyond recognition like he could have.

[Ladorak]

He was a malevolent prescene in his fortress that is at times described as an eye, though he has no physical resemblence to one. (he doesn't have a physical resemblence to anything).

And I defy you to come up with a better and more-true-to-the-books way to represent this in film. It's not like Jackson could have hung a sign on the tower reading 'Malevolent presence here =======>'

[Arakune]

Nah, neither of them actually managed their greatest villainy.

granted villain's don't due to their very nature.
I mean when did you last see the villain win, at the end of the story The end, story over.

Male: Probably whatever Sauron looked like before studying necromancer with long slick black hair.

Female: like Cruella, only with a wraith-in-armour thing.:smalleek: :smallbiggrin:

Holy Avenger (some well know mangaish comic here)

The ancient god of treason came back after tricking all the other 19th gods to accept him back even if they didn't need it in order to kill a creature that, in time, would be as powerful as the god's themselves (and they have what... CR 125~170 at least?). The other major BBEG managed to get a sword that can simply destroy any of that monstrosity powerful gods with one attack (managing to hit the attack is a whole another history). That's the end and there's a few happy ending but the ones that really won are the bad guys.

[Spiky]

And I defy you to come up with a better and more-true-to-the-books way to represent this in film. It's not like Jackson could have hung a sign on the tower reading 'Malevolent presence here =======>'
I agree.

People used to complain (probably still do somewhere) about the "beams" coming from the eye searching Mordor while the Hobbits were present, too. But the book describes this also. There is hardly any other way to transfer the eye to the screen than what PJ did. I see no problem, and I'm a "true to the book" fiend on all movies.

And Sauron is pretty clearly shown in the movies as a physical being, too. At the time of his first defeat. That one I haven't looked up in the book since no one ever questions it, so I guess I have no more to say....but people seemed to be commenting there was nothing like this in film or book, but that's hardly true.

[TheElfLord]

And I defy you to come up with a better and more-true-to-the-books way to represent this in film. It's not like Jackson could have hung a sign on the tower reading 'Malevolent presence here =======>'

Not show a fake Sauron character? The book never has a scene with him, and never shows him as an eye. A more true to the book approach would be to not show any shots of Sauron at all.

Now this may not be as cinomgraphically appealing, but it would be true to the book.

[The Extinguisher]

I will take this time to repeat an old saying of mine:

"ZOMG! It's not 100% accurate to the source material! You mean to tell me there are things in a really long book that you just can't do in a movie! That's crazy!"

Anyway, back on topic. It's not the first choices I would have picked for evil female and evil male, but it gets the job done. Personally, I would have went with Sarah Kerrigan and The Joker (or maybe Kefka).

[Leewei]

Imagine Gene Simmons from KISS in full battlegear and stage makeup, with a really, really bad case of pinkeye.

[VanBuren]

Not show a fake Sauron character? The book never has a scene with him, and never shows him as an eye. A more true to the book approach would be to not show any shots of Sauron at all.

Now this may not be as cinomgraphically appealing, but it would be true to the book.

The post above you seems to indicate otherwise.

[Kurald Galain]

See... my... vest
See my vest
Made from real gorilla's chest
For my sweater
There's no better
Than authentic Irish setter
...

[The Hop Goblin]

See this hat? Twas my cat

My evening wear, vampire bat

These white slippers are albino

af-ri-can endangered rhino

[pita]

I actually think the offspring is Mugatu...
Think about it!
He wants to control the world, and he wants a fashionable outfit!
"That Hansel is so hot right now."

[FrostXian]

Actually, Sauron is described in the novels as "the lidless eye", and is mentioned as being wreathed in flame. Possibly it is the aspect he chose for himself after becoming a disincarnated being.

Just my 2 eurocent!

Sauron was fully... "bodied" in the novels, it was just a figure of speech saying "the lidless eye".
But yeah, as stated below, it was the best way to say EVIL INSIDE.

[skyclad]

The LotR (book) states that Saron was not yet able to assume material form again, so he was not a giant eyeball floating over his tower. .

Where does it say this? I don't remember it... How would he even wear the ring if he didn't have a physical form? I think he like his master Melkor just lost the ability to assume any form he wants and had to look like an evil warlord in armour or whatever... From the Akalbeth (sp?)

[Gashad]

Actually I believe that it says somewhere that Sauron wasn't evil from the beginning, rather turned to evil later in his life. hence unless lamarckian evolution is correct(that aquired characteristiscs are passed down to the next generation) an offspring of sauron would not neccessarily have to be evil.

[deworde]

One of the intriguing things about LOTR is that, despite Tolkein's massively descriptive text, each reader interprets the text differently, as seen above (incidentally, I never really thought about the form that Sauron took, but figured that it wasn't corporeal, and the idea that the movie could have treated him as what amounts to a musty smell is ludicrous).

Ironically, it's most likely the fact that Tolkein couldn't describe a big hill with a ruin on it in less than a page and a half that causes these issues. I keep trying to read the Silmarillion and get bored halfway through. I'm sure it's fascinating, but I prefer Pratchett.

[Kurald Galain]

Actually I believe that it says somewhere that Sauron wasn't evil from the beginning

Melkor is the Fallen Vala (compare Lucifer) and Sauron started as a Maia and was corrupted by Melkor.

[Greebo]

Melkor is the Fallen Vala (compare Lucifer) and Sauron started as a Maia and was corrupted by Melkor.
Melkor (later named Morgoth by the first born), in turn did not start out as evil.

[Chronos]

It's never explicitly stated in Tolkien's works whether Sauron was corporeal at the time of Lord of the Rings. We know that he wasn't at the time of The Hobbit, but Gandalf feared that he was re-forming. From LotR, the best indicator we have is that Gollum refers to him having four fingers on his black hand (one of them having been cut off with the ring), which may or may not be metaphorical. One quite plausible interpretation is that he did, in fact, recorporate in the decades since The Hobbit, just as Gandalf had feared, but other interpretations are possible.

How would he even wear the ring if he didn't have a physical form?The same way he'd wear it if he did have a physical form. The Ring exists in both worlds at once, which is the cause of many of its minor secondary effects (like invisibility, and the enhanced hearing Sam notices). So a spirit unclad with a physical body could wear it just as well as a fully corporeal being.

And while neither Melkor nor Sauron started off as evil, both of them have been evil since before the beginning of the physical world, so any genetic properties of their assumed physical forms would presumably reflect that evil (especially since neither of them is capable any longer of assuming a "fair" form).

[Snake-Aes]

Of course it deserves it's own topic, since it begs the question, what would said hypothetical off-spring look like?

Something of the flaming helm, but otherwise perfect Fashion-sense variety?

Or the pink floppy hat and black armor type?Pick the willpower to bend kings under your command, rally tens of thousands of soldiers, and add to that the fashion sense to kill your own minions for the sole sake of looking pretty in their fur.

[Greebo]

And while neither Melkor nor Sauron started off as evil, both of them have been evil since before the beginning of the physical world, so any genetic properties of their assumed physical forms would presumably reflect that evil (especially since neither of them is capable any longer of assuming a "fair" form).

This is not my understanding, and WRT Sauron and "fair form", is, I'm sorry to say, just incorrect.

IF I recall correctly, Melkor did indeed start out working on the physical world with the rest of the Valar with good intentions. It was only some time (unmeasurable) after the work begun that he began to think of it as HIS world. As for "fair form", I believe his ability to appear fair stopped only after he crowned himself in the Silmarils.

For Sauron, I know exactly when he lost his ability to appear in fair form - and that was after the fall of Numenor, which I believe marked the end of the second age. Sauron also did not start out as evil on the physical realm - he was lured over to Melkor's side during either the eras before the first age, or during the first age. I can't recall exactly...bit rusty on that bit.

[Ladorak]

Not show a fake Sauron character? The book never has a scene with him, and never shows him as an eye. A more true to the book approach would be to not show any shots of Sauron at all.

Now this may not be as cinomgraphically appealing, but it would be true to the book.

Yes, I agree. It's almost as if that FIEND Peter Jackson actually wanted to make a good freaking movie!

[Greebo]

What the movie falls short on, in that regard, is that Sauron holds one of the 7 palantiri, and it is through this that he sees so much of what happens in Middle Earth. Jackson never explained this, and only showed one Palantir (we see 2 in the books - Saruman has one and Denethor has the other) and are told that Sauron has another one.

It is through these ancient orbs of seeing that Sauron is able to witness so much, and since he doesn't sleep afaik, why he is called the Lidless Eye.

[GSFB]

I think it is implied that Sauron has one, as his eye appears in the one shown. In the books, we never "see" that Sauron has one, we only have Gandalf speculating about it - which he more or less does with Saruman in the film.

[Captain van der Decken]

I'm pretty sure we're told Sauron has another Palantir in the movie as well.


See... my... vest
See my vest
Made from real gorilla's chest
For my sweater
There's no better
Than authentic Irish setter
...

:biggrin:

Win.

[Fighteer]

This is not my understanding, and WRT Sauron and "fair form", is, I'm sorry to say, just incorrect.

IF I recall correctly, Melkor did indeed start out working on the physical world with the rest of the Valar with good intentions. It was only some time (unmeasurable) after the work begun that he began to think of it as HIS world. As for "fair form", I believe his ability to appear fair stopped only after he crowned himself in the Silmarils.

For Sauron, I know exactly when he lost his ability to appear in fair form - and that was after the fall of Numenor, which I believe marked the end of the second age. Sauron also did not start out as evil on the physical realm - he was lured over to Melkor's side during either the eras before the first age, or during the first age. I can't recall exactly...bit rusty on that bit.
Melkor dissented from the rest of the Valar during the Music of the Ainur, long before Ea was brought into Being by Iluvatar. At that time, he took many of the Maiar into his service. In the making of the world, it was his battle with the Valar that caused all of the upheavals and ruin and forever marred their original intentions. In all things, Sauron was his lieutenant and chief servant, who was only less evil due to lack of power, not lack of intent. Sauron does not appear in the Silmarillion until well into the First Age, but it is implied that he's been around since the beginning. Many of the corrupted Maiar became Balrogs.

Melkor lost his ability to appear fair after his theft of the Silmarils and his betrayal of Ungoliant.

At the end of the First Age, after Melkor was defeated by the Valar, Sauron initially repented and for a time may even have meant it, but he eventually fell back into evil. He lost his ability to appear fair when his body was destroyed in the downfall of Numenor. Afterwards, his spirit returned to Middle Earth and he made a terrible, fearsome form for himself, which is depicted in the prologue to The Fellowship of the Ring. When he was defeated in the siege of Barad-dur and the Ring was cut from his finger by Isildur, that form too was destroyed and his spirit fled into the darkness.

(Incidentally, the book describes the Siege of Barad-dur as lasting many years; the choice to depict Sauron as an overlord on the field of battle, wading through the bodies of men and elves, was a dramatization. Sauron never left his tower until the bitter end of the siege; he was a coward to the very last. That said, I can see why Peter Jackson did it that way; it would have taken too long to show the real version.)

Since the Ring contained such a great part of his power, Sauron was unable for a long time afterwards to assume a physical form - the implication being that he needed the Ring to accomplish this. It's interesting that, while Gandalf and others speak of him as if he were still disembodied throughout the trilogy, Gollum spoke of him as having a hand, which was missing the finger that Isildur cut off. Sauron never appears in person in the novels except in that we see far off glimpses of his Eye. The major contradictions between the book and the movies in this regard are that, for the most part, the Eye is veiled in clouds, and also seems to be depicted as coming from a window rather than free-floating atop the tower.

In Tolkien lore, the Maiar can assume any form they wish, as we would don clothes, but the form they choose has a profound effect on the expression of their power, the more so as they bind themselves to it by use of their powers. Furthermore, while these spirits may have offspring that inherit much of their form and power, those offspring are always less than their parents. One example would be Melian the Maia; her children with Elu Thingol were gifted beyond all others in Middle Earth, but were not as strong as she.

So any child that Sauron fathered on a human would be far stronger than other humans, but wouldn't be anywhere near as powerful as Sauron himself. Also, such a child would probably be mortal unless granted special dispensation by the Valar - not something one would readily expect to be forthcoming.

[PhoenixRising]

A mixture of both? Oh my God!!! It's Zz'dtri!


However, Cruella de Ville is married. And Sauron's a freaking eyeball... how'd it work?

Kaelaroth...

/me winces.

Never, never, say anything like that again. Please. That is the most disturbing mental image since something that happened at my last debate tournament.

[Greebo]

I'm pretty sure we're told Sauron has another Palantir in the movie as well.

No, we're just told that they are not all accounted for.

[Leather_Book_Wizard]

Somewhere Gollum mentions that Sauron has at least a hand. With only 4 fingers.

[Rogue 7]

No, we're just told that they are not all accounted for.

I don't think we hear about it in the movies, but in the books it's assumed that he took the palantir of Minas Ithil when it fell.

[skyclad]

Somewhere Gollum mentions that Sauron has at least a hand. With only 4 fingers.

Yes! Something like "He has only four fingers on his hand, but that is enough ."

[Chronos]

One example would be Melian the Maia; her children with Elu Thingol were gifted beyond all others in Middle Earth, but were not as strong as she.So far as I know, Luthien (daughter of Melian and Thingol) was the only offspring of any Ainu in all of the canonical works, and the only offspring of an Ainu and non-Ainu in any of the works, even the Lost Tales and such. So saying "One example" is a bit misleading, and "her children" is just wrong.

[Fighteer]

So far as I know, Luthien (daughter of Melian and Thingol) was the only offspring of any Ainu in all of the canonical works, and the only offspring of an Ainu and non-Ainu in any of the works, even the Lost Tales and such. So saying "One example" is a bit misleading, and "her children" is just wrong.
My apologies. I suppose I should have said "her children, and theirs", since her bloodline became the most renowned of all Elves and Men.

[skyclad]

My apologies. I suppose I should have said "her children, and theirs", since her bloodline became the most renowned of all Elves and Men.

Imagine if she had hooked up with Fëanor instead of that loser Thingol. :smallbiggrin:

[Tass]

Enough with the discussion of Sauron? Figtheer have pretty much said it all.

What about the other parrent? Everybody seems to be asuming that it is the villain from "101 dalmatians", but she is called Cruella De Vil. Cruella De Ville is a music band.

Doesn´t make things prettier in my opinion.

[Prince_Rohan]

I actually think the offspring is Mugatu...
Think about it!
He wants to control the world, and he wants a fashionable outfit!
"That Hansel is so hot right now."


http://www.cariboufoot.com/photos/mikes_photos/mugatu.jpg


Pita, I just want to go on record that this could be the most insightful post I've ever seen on this forum.

[Pronounceable]

I think the thread has become a movie debate that I'll be derailing with this bit:

Unfortunately, we won't be having a fanclub of him/her/it. I tried.

[beholder]

everyone is talking about how sauron is not biologically created evil. neither is cruella. the point is the child would be raised by these parents. evil is something you learn, and since your parents shape your life in your early years, id bet a whole bucket of yummy chicken that the kid would be evil

[Fighteer]

everyone is talking about how sauron is not biologically created evil. neither is cruella. the point is the child would be raised by these parents. evil is something you learn, and since your parents shape your life in your early years, id bet a whole bucket of yummy chicken that the kid would be evil
Well... I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Cruella would probably do most of the raising, since Sauron is pretty busy running an Evil empire (or vanquished and wandering around as a bodiless shadow of malice, depending on the timeframe). Then again, look at Scott Evil.

Hmm... maybe Cruella convinces her son to conduct an Eeeeevil Ritual and summon Sauron's spirit back from the netherworld so it can possess him and Take Over The World MWUHAHAHA...

need... caffeine...

[BlythraB]

Anyway, back on topic. It's not the first choices I would have picked for evil female and evil male, but it gets the job done. Personally, I would have went with Sarah Kerrigan and The Joker (or maybe Kefka).

Oddly enough, Joker is (at least in some versions; I'm not old enough to have read most of the comics. Sorry guys) married. His wife's name was Harley Q (Quinn). And, even more oddly, the very evil Joker seems to be pretty faithful to her. (Yay Joker!!!) Sorry, I know it was hypothetical, I just like to pick nits.

[Grushvak]

Anyway, back on topic. It's not the first choices I would have picked for evil female and evil male, but it gets the job done. Personally, I would have went with Sarah Kerrigan and The Joker (or maybe Kefka).

Kefka is, in my humble opinion, the single most evil being ever written. However, we got the FF references out of the way a long time ago with Thog and Elan's prison break, and coming back to this would've shown a lack of creativity on the part of the Giant. Also, we saw from the resulting discussions on the forums that not everyone knows the Final Fantasy universe and the joke would've went above a few too many heads.

As for Sarah Kerrigan... it took me 10 seconds to remember who it was, yet I'm a huge Blizzard fanboy.

His choice for the parents of the evillest of evil offsprings is excellent: everyone knows both of them, and they represent two different kinds of pure undiluted evil.

Also, I whole-heartedly agree that said offspring would be Mugatu.



... eh, for the sake of theorycrafting, I would've picked Lo Pan and the Alien matriarch.

[Furin_Mirado]

I can only assume that Cruella and Sauron's offspring only registers at 5 kilonazis because Cruella is much lower on the evil scale than Sauron. I mean, surely Sauron himself registers at 8 or 9 kilonazis. I'm not sure where Cruella herself registers. Her great claim to evil is her willingness to steal and kill any animal for the sake of fashion. But she hasn't made the great jump to murdering a fellow human, so where does that leave her? 3 kilonazis? Less?

[Grushvak]

In the grand scheme of things, skinning puppies is much, much more evil than killing humans.

[Greebo]

As others have said - Sauron is up there in the penultimate evil range (slavery, torture, corruption of the pure and good, defiance of the great creator of all things, vampirism, parking in handicapped spots), while Cruella is the Diet Sprite of Evil (she likes fur coats).

So yeah, the combination of the two would give you a nice, mid-line evil type.

[Grushvak]

As others have said - Sauron is up there in the penultimate evil range (slavery, torture, corruption of the pure and good, defiance of the great creator of all things, vampirism, parking in handicapped spots), while Cruella is the Diet Sprite of Evil (she likes fur coats).

So yeah, the combination of the two would give you a nice, mid-line evil type.

Dude! Skinning. Puppies!

[Kaelaroth]

Dude! Skinning. Puppies!

So? This is kilonazis matey. So... the collective evil of one-thousand Nazis (although not any of the high-ranking ones). On the scale of things killing puppies measures rather low on the charts. However... Sauron massacred thousands of people, corrupted the nice, and was fallen - so pretty damn evil. 9/10 kilonazis?

[Chronos]

Sauron is up there in the penultimate evil rangeHe's not just up there in that range... Sauron is the penultimate evil.

[Max_Sinister]

I really, really wonder what Belkar would've done if Roy hadn't met him, so that the chart makes sense. He isn't the kind of "I'm organizing industrial mass murder" evil guy, but "I'll kill them all with my own hands" evil guy.

One should expect that he would've been killed by some adventurer.

[Charles Phipps]

So? This is kilonazis matey. So... the collective evil of one-thousand Nazis (although not any of the high-ranking ones). On the scale of things killing puppies measures rather low on the charts. However... Sauron massacred thousands of people, corrupted the nice, and was fallen - so pretty damn evil. 9/10 kilonazis?

You fool! These puppies were Protagionists!

Trying to kill a Protagionist is worth several dozen Killonazis by itself!

I mean, the rest are NPCs...

[Deathwisher]

I really, really wonder what Belkar would've done if Roy hadn't met him, so that the chart makes sense. He isn't the kind of "I'm organizing industrial mass murder" evil guy, but "I'll kill them all with my own hands" evil guy.

Eh, did you see what he did to those hobgoblins? Belkar does not need an industry to commit mass murder, just a few rounds of combat and a pair of daggers. And he does turn his enemy's skin into fashion accesories, which is actually something the Nazis did in the camps

[Charles Phipps]

Let's avoid making too much of a joke.

[Legendary]

I don't think we hear about it in the movies, but in the books it's assumed that he took the palantir of Minas Ithil when it fell.

It's in the Fellowship film, right before Gandalf and Saruman start their little fight.... Saruman pulls off the cover, and Gandalf puts it back on, telling him, "They're not all accounted for."

I haven't seen the movies in ages, but for some reason this line has stuck in my head.

[sammiel]

Sauron doesn't strike me as the type to rate at 9 or 10 kilonazis. I'm not denying that he is thoroughly evil, but he seems to lack the depths of depravity that would be a hallmark of 9-10 kilonazis.

The most evil act that Sauron was ever responsible for was convincing King Ar-Pharazon to attack Valinor, resulting in the drowning of Numenor. However, at this point, Numenor was already corrupted and evil, and the few who were faithful to the Valar were spared from the flood. So all he did was steer an evil race to it's downfall in hopes of causing harm to his most powerful enemy.

However, at no point did I ever read about him committing evil that would top the scale of the kilonazi chart. He's responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, but they are always secondary to his goal of dominating the world. He was never evil for the sake of evil, he never scapegoated all the minorities of a region, he never killed just to revel in being evil. He simply kept trying to take over everything.

[Charles Phipps]

The most evil act that Sauron was ever responsible for was convincing King Ar-Pharazon to attack Valinor, resulting in the drowning of Numenor. However, at this point, Numenor was already corrupted and evil, and the few who were faithful to the Valar were spared from the flood. So all he did was steer an evil race to it's downfall in hopes of causing harm to his most powerful enemy.

I think most people took from the books that Sauron set himself up as an idolatrous god in an explicitly monotheistic universe, participated in the corruption of Elves to Orcs, tortures Gollum, torments Thorin's father to insanity in the pits of his castle, enslaved countless cultures, orchestrated genocides against the Free Peoples of Middle Earth, and transformed a bunch of people into undead horrors.


He simply kept trying to take over everything.

This may be my problem, I'm not from the school where motive mitigates anything. But yeah, "World domination" is not a motive that really gives me much sympathy.

[Fighteer]

Not to mention that in the Silmarillion, Sauron was in charge of tormenting and torturing Melkor's captives, and after the Battle of Unnumbered Tears, he took up residence in a tower guarding the western approaches to Angband and liked to hunt people in the form of a werewolf. He was an instrumental foe in the tale of Beren and Luthien.

Tolkien wasn't too big on actual descriptions of torture and depravity, so we can be spared the ugly details, but to say that Sauron was responsible for the death, torture, or corruption of many hundreds of thousands of souls is not going too far.

As for Numenor, while the corruption in the hearts of Men was already well at work when he took up residence there, he was the one who turned them over to devil worship and convinced them to burn the White Tree, among other nastiness.

[FujinAkari]

Let's avoid making too much of a joke.

You must be new to the forums :P

[Leliel]

Male: An evil socerer who costantly worries about his image, and reguarly kills people for the sake of gaining "badass" items.

Female: Two words: Femme Fatale:smallbiggrin:

[NerfTW]

Male: An evil socerer who costantly worries about his image, and reguarly kills people for the sake of gaining "badass" items.

Female: Two words: Femme Fatale:smallbiggrin:

Wouldn't the first describe.... Xykon? :smalleek:

[Ancalagon]

It cannot get much more evil than "Sauron". Melkor is the concept if "evil" in the song of ainur. He works against them because he wants to, he wants to destroy what they do because he wants to be more powerful than them. Melkor is the very definition of EVIL and the level of gods and Sauron, as his follower and also as corrupted super-human power (I know that calling Maia "gods" is tricky, thus I wont do that here), is also pure evil.

That goes so far that Sauron is not even a foe with body in the Lord of the Rings, Sauron is the very concept of evil and corruption. You do not defeat "evil" by whacking some dude who wields a big hammer and wears a nasty, black armour, Tolkien solved that problem very well.

(As a sidenote: Most roleplayers think that whacking the evil-overdude is actually the same as defeating "evil". Computergames are a classic here, you usually fight evil and the last boss enemy is the Avatar of the Evil God (TM), you whack him and everything is fine. Stupid concept. :))

[UncleWolf]

i have to agree with you on that one but I think that Sauron was not the true evil villian. It would have to be the ring. If I remember right he poured in all of his "essence" into it. Therefore when he was defeated, it took all of his powers with it. so when sauron reformed, he was substantally weaker than the ring in power.

[Charles Phipps]

(As a sidenote: Most roleplayers think that whacking the evil-overdude is actually the same as defeating "evil". Computergames are a classic here, you usually fight evil and the last boss enemy is the Avatar of the Evil God (TM), you whack him and everything is fine. Stupid concept. :))

I always was very clear the Journey was the important thing in Roleplaying Games. "If you went up and whacked EvilOverlordTM now then the country would descend into chaos. If you smashed his armies left and right then maybe, just maybe, when he dies then the entire Army of EvilTM will collapse."


i have to agree with you on that one but I think that Sauron was not the true evil villian. It would have to be the ring. If I remember right he poured in all of his "essence" into it. Therefore when he was defeated, it took all of his powers with it. so when sauron reformed, he was substantally weaker than the ring in power.

Tolkien, basically, said the Ring is Sauron. That's why its tempting everyone towards monstrous evil and villainy. It's also why it can't be used for good or against Sauron.

Tolkien is pretty sparse on D&D Details but the implication is that Sauron, by himself, wields tremendous mystical power in addition to having every ring but the Elvish Rings (that allows Gandalf to enhance his magic enough to defeat a Balrog and Galadriel to preserve her forrest kingdom from time's effects)

At the very least; Gandalf and Saruman both consider a direct fight against him to be suicide. I also liked the movie's depiction of the battle with Isildur because it was instead outright luck rather than goodness that won the day.

[UncleWolf]

It cannot get much more evil than "Sauron". Melkor is the concept if "evil" in the song of ainur. He works against them because he wants to, he wants to destroy what they do because he wants to be more powerful than them.:))

Hmm. sounds a bit like Belkar

[sum1won]

In the grand scheme of depravity, Lord Foul makes Sauron look like bambi.

[Greebo]

In the grand scheme of depravity, Lord Foul makes Sauron look like bambi.
Think so? I'm not convinced...

Oh, sure, Donaldson was much more willing to expound on Lord Foul's depravity... but the fact that JRR didn't like to get graphic doesn't mean that Sauron wasn't everything Foul was.

Me, I'd put Foul and Sauron neck and neck.

[sum1won]

Think so? I'm not convinced...

Oh, sure, Donaldson was much more willing to expound on Lord Foul's depravity... but the fact that JRR didn't like to get graphic doesn't mean that Sauron wasn't everything Foul was.

Me, I'd put Foul and Sauron neck and neck.

I dosagree. In terms of what they may have done, Foul and sauron are neck and neck. However, Foul's why seems to be far more viscous than Sauron's. Sauron causes misery to defeat his enemies. Foul's goal isn't winning so much as it is causing misery. Foul could win rather easily, without much effort, or at least so he says. Instead, he tries to erase hope, to force his enemies to destroy eachother and that which they most love. Given the choice, Sauron would put his boot on everyone's neck, and stomp down. Foul would attempt to force you to put your boot on the neck of everyone you loved- and he would risk victory to do so.

[Fighteer]

Tolkien, basically, said the Ring is Sauron. That's why its tempting everyone towards monstrous evil and villainy. It's also why it can't be used for good or against Sauron.
This is not strictly true. Tolkien used the Ring as a metaphor for the desire for power over other people. Although he explicitly rejected the idea that LotR was allegory, he was very concerned with the advent of industrialized warfare and particularly nuclear weapons. The forces of evil are characterized by destruction of nature, wanton pollution, machinery, and lack of individuality, while the forces of good stand for the exact opposite.

The Ring could very easily have been used against Sauron; that's one of the things that makes it so tempting. Gandalf, Aragorn, and Galadriel all considered taking the Ring and knew that if they did so, they would have the power to rival and overthrow Sauron. However, the use of that power would inevitably corrupt them until they were just as evil as he.


Tolkien is pretty sparse on D&D Details but the implication is that Sauron, by himself, wields tremendous mystical power in addition to having every ring but the Elvish Rings (that allows Gandalf to enhance his magic enough to defeat a Balrog and Galadriel to preserve her forrest kingdom from time's effects)

At the very least; Gandalf and Saruman both consider a direct fight against him to be suicide. I also liked the movie's depiction of the battle with Isildur because it was instead outright luck rather than goodness that won the day.
Tolkien goes into great detail in describing a universal hierarchy of beings, whose power relative to one another is quite clearly defined. Iluvatar > Vala > Maia > Eldar (elf) > Atani (human). In that context, no Elf or Man could ever hope to defeat a Maia or Vala in single confrontation without aid. Each of these beings, however, could imbue a portion of their power into something of their creation or into their underlings, diminishing themselves in the process. Melkor spent his spirit in corrupting the Orcs, Dragons, and other creatures of Middle Earth and in performing his works of malice, but was still too powerful for Elves and Men to overcome. Sauron did the same, but his greatest work by far was the Ring, which needed an incredible amount of power to be capable of subduing all the other Rings of Power. Without the Ring, he lost a great deal of his strength and could be successfully challenged.

Gandalf and Saruman (all the Wizards, in fact) were indeed Maiar, as is made very clear by a careful reading of the lore. Gandalf could have been a rival to Sauron all by himself, but chose not to as that was not his purpose. Saruman attempted to set himself up as a rival to Sauron, but didn't have enough time and created too many enemies. Galadriel was not a match for Sauron, but with the One Ring would have been greater than he, as she would take a portion of his strength into herself, as would any other mortal who was strong-willed enough to take the Ring and wrest it to his/her control. Since you brought up the Balrog, all of those creatures were originally Maiar as well that were corrupted by Melkor, so they were coeval and roughly equal in power to Gandalf. Some of the Elves of the First Age also fought Balrogs and killed them, although they also died in the attempt.

You may have found the movies' depiction of Sauron's defeat dramatically appropriate, but in the books it was no accident. It took the combined might of the greatest leaders of Elves and Men to subdue him in the Siege of Barad-dur, and in his fall he killed the high kings of both races. It was not until after he was cast down that Isildur cut the Ring from his finger.

Therefore, we can come to the following conclusions:

Sauron with Ring > any other individual in Middle Earth
Sauron without Ring ~= Gandalf, Saruman
Sauron without Ring > Galadriel, Elrond, mortal men
Sauron with Ring < Gil-galad + Elendil + Anarion + Isildur
Gandalf, Saruman, Aragorn, Galadriel, or Elrond with Ring > Sauron

By the way, saying Tolkien was "sparse with D&D details" is kind of like saying that Einstein should have taken apart a nuclear bomb to find out how atomic power worked. Pen and paper RPGs did not exist before long after LotR was published, and there was no reason why Tolkien ever should have considered "statting out" his characters when no system for doing so existed or was even conceived of at the time. Tolkien inspired D&D. He himself probably would have considered it a waste of time, although I can't presume to speak for him.

Also he didn't have all the other Rings. He had recovered all of the Nine rings, and three of the Seven (the other four being destroyed). But those rings were useless to him while in his possession; their power was in their ability to dominate whomever he gave them to.

[Deathwisher]

Gandalf and Saruman (all the Wizards, in fact) were indeed Maiar, as is made very clear by a careful reading of the lore. Gandalf could have been a rival to Sauron all by himself, but chose not to as that was not his purpose. Saruman attempted to set himself up as a rival to Sauron, but didn't have enough time and created too many enemies. Galadriel was not a match for Sauron, but with the One Ring would have been greater than he, as she would take a portion of his strength into herself, as would any other mortal who was strong-willed enough to take the Ring and wrest it to his/her control. Since you brought up the Balrog, all of those creatures were originally Maiar as well that were corrupted by Melkor, so they were coeval and roughly equal in power to Gandalf. Some of the Elves of the First Age also fought Balrogs and killed them, although they also died in the attempt.

You may have found the movies' depiction of Sauron's defeat dramatically appropriate, but in the books it was no accident. It took the combined might of the greatest leaders of Elves and Men to subdue him in the Siege of Barad-dur, and in his fall he killed the high kings of both races. It was not until after he was cast down that Isildur cut the Ring from his finger.

Therefore, we can come to the following conclusions:

Sauron with Ring > any other individual in Middle Earth
Sauron without Ring ~= Gandalf, Saruman
Sauron without Ring > Galadriel, Elrond, mortal men
Sauron with Ring < Gil-galad + Elendil + Anarion + Isildur
Gandalf, Saruman, Aragorn, Galadriel, or Elrond with Ring > Sauron

Also he didn't have all the other Rings. He had recovered all of the Nine rings, and three of the Seven (the other four being destroyed). But those rings were useless to him while in his possession; their power was in their ability to dominate whomever he gave them to.

In fact it looks like Gandalf and Saruman had been hamstrung somehow to limit their power. Gandalf states explicitly that Saruman can not effectively compete with Sauron when neither has the ring, so Saruman is not even on the same level with a weak Sauron, let alone a complete Sauron.

From the way the Ainur and Maiar are described in the Silmarilon there seem to be distinctions in power even between beings of the same 'class'. Perhaps Sauron was very strong for a Maia, while Saruman and Gandalf were just a bit weaker.

Gandalf himself has trouble with the witchking (though the movie makes him weaker than the book. In the book the confrontation is interrupted before they actually fight.) and admits in the book that he is afraid of the confrontation, though that may be due to the prophecy that no living man would kill the witchking. (Since Gandalf is not really a living man that shouldn't be a problem, but Tolkien was not always consistent in those things.)

[Chronos]

Tolkien goes into great detail in describing a universal hierarchy of beings, whose power relative to one another is quite clearly defined. Iluvatar > Vala > Maia > Eldar (elf) > Atani (human). In that context, no Elf or Man could ever hope to defeat a Maia or Vala in single confrontation without aid.The hierarchy isn't quite universal, with Tom Bombadil being distinctly outside of it. And fey (who you didn't list) range from more powerful than Maiar (such as Ungoliant) to comparable to the Children.

And Fingolfin not only hoped to defeat a Vala, but he actually did inflict a fair amount of hurt on Morgoth, before getting squished. The two Elves you mentioned (Ecthelion and Glorfindel) who slew Balrogs also demonstrate that the hierarchy isn't quite as hard and fast as you make out.

As to Deathwisher's comments, yes, the Wizards were limited in some ways when they came to Middle-Earth (Gandalf had some, but not all, of his limitations lifted when he became the White), and Sauron was, indeed, the most powerful of all of the Maiar. Gandalf, meanwhile, is said to have been the most wise.

[Fighteer]

In fact it looks like Gandalf and Saruman had been hamstrung somehow to limit their power. Gandalf states explicitly that Saruman can not effectively compete with Sauron when neither has the ring, so Saruman is not even on the same level with a weak Sauron, let alone a complete Sauron.

From the way the Ainur and Maiar are described in the Silmarilon there seem to be distinctions in power even between beings of the same 'class'. Perhaps Sauron was very strong for a Maia, while Saruman and Gandalf were just a bit weaker.
This is true, but it probably comes down to the rules that the Wizards agreed to be bound to when they took on mortal bodies and entered Middle Earth. Sauron was certainly more powerful in the sense of raw force, and he had received a great deal of tutelage from Melkor. It's clear that Tolkien believed that knowledge was a key factor in how much power one has over the forces of the world. Sauron had also had millennia in which to build his strength, plus the advantage that the Ring, while it continued to exist and was not claimed by another, would give him a source of strength outside of what remained to him. He became more powerful after crafting the Ring, but his power became limited by the need to possess it.


Gandalf himself has trouble with the witchking (though the movie makes him weaker than the book. In the book the confrontation is interrupted before they actually fight.) and admits in the book that he is afraid of the confrontation, though that may be due to the prophecy that no living man would kill the witchking. (Since Gandalf is not really a living man that shouldn't be a problem, but Tolkien was not always consistent in those things.)
Gandalf wore the form of a man; therefore he was bound by many of the same limitations. In the books, Gandalf expresses doubt about his ability to confront the Witch King, but Tolkien intentionally (in my opinion) left the question unanswered of whether Gandalf was included in the prophecy, specifically to build the dramatic tension that is resolved when Eowyn challenges him.

The Witch King was also having his strength bolstered by his link with Sauron, and his power was said to have waxed to its fullest on the fields of the Pellenor. It was "his hour", as he said, reflecting another of Tolkien's dramatic themes - the idea that things done at a certain time or in a certain place were inherently of greater value or effect.

Basically, Eowyn was foretold to defeat the Witch King at that moment, and therefore Gandalf could not have done so. At best their encounter would have been a draw. But Gandalf himself considered the two of them equals.


The hierarchy isn't quite universal, with Tom Bombadil being distinctly outside of it. And fey (who you didn't list) range from more powerful than Maiar (such as Ungoliant) to comparable to the Children.
The Silmarillion states that Ungoliant was a spirit that came to Middle Earth independently from the Valar, implying that she was coeval to them - perhaps another corrupted Ainu not mentioned in the Ainulindale. By definition, nothing could exist that was not in the mind of Iluvatar or foretold by the Music; therefore she must have been a part of those things. This applies to Tom Bombadil too, and since Gandalf seems to know something about who or what he is, I presume that he is also a Maia or of their approximate level of power.


And Fingolfin not only hoped to defeat a Vala, but he actually did inflict a fair amount of hurt on Morgoth, before getting squished. The two Elves you mentioned (Ecthelion and Glorfindel) who slew Balrogs also demonstrate that the hierarchy isn't quite as hard and fast as you make out.
Like Melkor, the Balrogs, in assuming physical forms, became vulnerable to being destroyed in those forms, the more so as they chained themselves to them by the squandering of power. While I presume that Fingolfin could, in theory, have destroyed Morgoth's body, he would not have "killed" him any more than Isildur could "kill" Sauron, and the backlash of doing so would probably have killed him instead. But it's an irrelevant speculation, as the fate of the Noldor was foretold: their war against Morgoth was ultimately hopeless.

I'm not sure that the duels of Ecthelion and Glorfindel really breaks the hierarchy as much as it contrasts the might of the Noldor in the First Age with what they became afterwards. It is a valid point, however - the lines aren't always perfectly clear cut.

[Deathwisher]

Like Melkor, the Balrogs, in assuming physical forms, became vulnerable to being destroyed in those forms, the more so as they chained themselves to them by the squandering of power. While I presume that Fingolfin could, in theory, have destroyed Morgoth's body, he would not have "killed" him any more than Isildur could "kill" Sauron, and the backlash of doing so would probably have killed him instead. But it's an irrelevant speculation, as the fate of the Noldor was foretold: their war against Morgoth was ultimately hopeless.

I'm not sure that the duels of Ecthelion and Glorfindel really breaks the hierarchy as much as it contrasts the might of the Noldor in the First Age with what they became afterwards. It is a valid point, however - the lines aren't always perfectly clear cut.

If I remember correctly, Gandalf says something like this about killing an opponent stronger than yourself:

"Those who attempt it must be stronger than iron or the shock will kill them"

Sorry, but I don't have the books with me. In any case, the implication is that you can kill someone on a different level of power. (Realistic too, that is what backstabbing is all about) So the Noldor killing Balrogs is not out of order. With luck and skill you can kill someone stronger than you, under the right circumstances. Fingon was fighting multiple Balrogs until he got roped from behind.

Ecthelion and Glorfindel are a bit doubtful anyway. Both died killing a Balrog. Of Ecthelion it is said that he and Gothmog killed each other, which can mean either that the shock of killing a Balrog killed him, or that he just got mortally wounded in the battle.
Glorfindel is even less clear. It is just said that he died saving refugees from a Balrog.

[Charity322]

Wouldn't the first describe.... Xykon? :smalleek:

Nah it has to be Thog. Hasn't he always wanted a puppy. It's cause his mother skinned all potential puppies when he was a child. :smallbiggrin:

[Deathwisher]

Nah it has to be Thog. Hasn't he always wanted a puppy. It's cause his mother skinned all potential puppies when he was a child. :smallbiggrin:

Since Belkar would probably do the same thing I don't think Thog would be very pleased.:smallbiggrin:

[nybbler]

That goes so far that Sauron is not even a foe with body in the Lord of the Rings, Sauron is the very concept of evil and corruption. You do not defeat "evil" by whacking some dude who wields a big hammer and wears a nasty, black armour, Tolkien solved that problem very well.


By having them defeat evil by tossing the dude's jewelry into a volcano?

[Fighteer]

By having them defeat evil by tossing the dude's jewelry into a volcano?
The destruction of the Ring symbolizes the rejection of evil - or, more specifically, the rejection of the temptation to use the power of evil against it.

But you can only take analogies so far. At its heart, LotR is a work of dramatic fiction, and as such, it uses the classic MacGuffin plot: destroy the all-powerful object to defeat the BBEG. Asking "why" is pointless; you might as well ask why George Lucas chose lightsabers to be the weapon of the Jedi. Answer: because he wanted it that way.

[Corinthian]

If someone can make a Mugatu clad in really, really good looking armor and flame eyes, you will be so hot right now

[Greyhame]

The Immaculate Misconception? *S*


A mixture of both? Oh my God!!! It's Zz'dtri!


However, Cruella de Ville is married. And Sauron's a freaking eyeball... how'd it work?

[dragongirl13]

Aw, man, I just did a really awesome pic of the "hypothetical offspring," but now I can't post it! Can someone please tell me how to post it?

Imagine what the kid would be saying to his/her parents? "Mommy, I want a black fur cape." "Daddy, I made a magic ring today in Evil School." Lol.

Someone, please tell me how to get an image up here!

[MCerberus]

His/Her ring would be made of puppy bone.