Evil Elves...

[Peter_20]

I find evil Elves fascinating.
There's just something about the contrasts that I find really cool.
For example, take fierce dudes like Fëanor and Maeglin: they've got all the physical Elf characteristics, and they're probably considered "beautiful" and everything.
Therefore it's so cool when you consider how evil they became: they stop caring about all the pretty-boy things, but they still are those kinds of characters.
This is really hard to put into words, but I guess you see my point.

I found a really nice drawing of Caranthir a while ago:
http://www.tolkien.com.pl/kasiopea/obrazki/Caranthir_portret1.jpg

Caranthir looks really dangerous on that picture, but he IS an ELF.

I usually associate Elves with cute people like MÃ*riel, Finrod and Glorfindel, and then we have the "dark" characters that forsake their beautiful sides and turn to evil, which makes them resemble servants of Morgoth rather than beautiful Elves.

[Olmer]

Cute Elves? I have never had such impression. Beautiful in their own way, with kind of refined gracefulness, not quite like human in the way of thinking, but with all human traits, and at the same time are very powerful, dangerous and even scary. In other words, aliens. :eek:

Catherine Karina Chmel is a marvelous artist. I love how she portrays people: you can see their character. One of my favorite Maglor and Maedhros (http://img-fan.theonering.net/rolozo/images/chmiel/And_Maglor_took_pity_upon_them.jpg)

[Peter_20]

Haha, "cute" perhaps wasn't a very good term, but you see my point, methinks. :p

I like how they're supposed to be all beautiful and wonderful and whatnot, and still some of them decide "screw it, I ain't no beautiful character, let's kill people! Wait...! Am I still looking beautiful?!"
Like that. :rolleyes:

Oh, and that drawing was wonderful too - Maedhros & Maglor v.s. Elrond & Elros! :D

Elros looks totally freaked out.

[Earniel]

I partially blame the movies for the harmless pretty-boy image the Elves have. Many of the Elves, especially the Silmarillion Elves, I tend to compare to tigers. Beautiful and graceful but fierce and frightening the next moment.

And while the likes of Fëanor, Ëol and Maeglin may be rare, it's frightening to think what if all Elves had been quite like that. We would never have stood a chance, methinks...

[Rían]

And then there's that old Hobbit cartoon-movie, where the elves are really, really ugly! :eek:

It's very clear that the Elves are beautiful physically,and the more you read outside of LOTR and Hobbit, I think you'd have to agree with Earniel about the tigers.

[jammi567]

Elves and men (and maiar and valar) are not evil, simply misguided

[Gwaimir Windgem]

What do you call Sauron and Morgoth? Those who intended to dominate all other wills in the world? The former of whom ordained human sacrifices to the latter? Both of whom held a reign of terror and oppressive fear? Neh. :p

[Blackheart]

All elves are evil. Take my word for it. They opposed their rightful lord Melkor.

Also they tend to dance entirely too much.

[The last sane person]

Not to mention that god awful singing all the time... That with the dancing...It tends to remind me of cats on fire.

[me9996]

Aren't evil elves called 'orcs'? :p

But as to Elves that are still, well, elvish and evilish and the same time I realy don't know.

I don't like the elves in Eragon but the elves of Middle Earth have always seemed good to me :D

And as such I have very little to say on the subject. :rolleyes:

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Aren't evil elves called 'orcs'? :p

But as to Elves that are still, well, elvish and evilish and the same time I realy don't know.

I don't like the elves in Eragon but the elves of Middle Earth have always seemed good to me :D

And as such I have very little to say on the subject. :rolleyes:

Whether orcs are Elves or Men is debatable.

[Elemmírë]

Fëanor wasn't evil. He's a dark character, yes, but I swear he was much too psychotic by the end for him to have enough of an idea about what he was doing to really be considered evil.

[jammi567]

Exactly. And so was Melkor, because Eru was too lazy to help him decide the best carrior(?) option, so Melkor chose the one that was less suied to him.

[Lotesse]

Evil elves are sexy. Sauron, Morgoth, especialy Feanor, oh lord - drop dead sexy, literally. I've always been in love with Feanor... But, then again, blackheart has a point - all elves are kind of "evil," aren't they? Shifty little buggers, the lot of 'em. Never trust an elf.

[Peter_20]

Evil elves are sexy. Sauron, Morgoth, especialy Feanor, oh lord - drop dead sexy, literally. I've always been in love with Feanor... But, then again, blackheart has a point - all elves are kind of "evil," aren't they? Shifty little buggers, the lot of 'em. Never trust an elf.Haha, yeah, it's just like Gimli says in the LOTR movie:
"nobody trusts an Elf!" XD

[The last sane person]

I dont trust em, but they sure are nice to look at. But then again, I rarely trust anyone, though dwarves, though hard to get to know, once you get their word, its good for life. Elves have this tendancy to go and spout these overly dramatic/poorly worded and damning oaths when ever things start to get warm.

And Jammi, its career.

[Olmer]

I dont trust em, but they sure are nice to look at..
Are they? Or it was just an impression? What kind of effect will be on somebody, who lived in the woods and suddenly saw a person, dressed in fine clothes, with shiny thrinkets dangling like on a christmas tree, tall, regal in stature...and etc. Of course, you will say it's nice to look at him. Even if his mug is not better than your face. ;)

[Lotesse]

So-called "good elves are a helluva lot more creepy and freaky than enlightened "evil" elves. Anyway evil is downright sexy, sexy sexy SEXY, it is interesting, wild, willful and freakin' sexy. Those other automaton elves have always given me the nervous heebie-jeebies. Galadriel? Are you kidding me? She's WAY, way more "evil" than Feanor could've ever hoped to be - she knew what she was doing, and she had a subtle, terrifying cool method to get what she wanted. She was more "evil" than the in-your-face, this is what we're about elves, by far and away. She was worase than Sauron. Think about it. She really was. Sauron lost his beauty-garb, became some tricked-out giant eye and stuff, but he used to be the most beautiful being on middle-earth. Who's the most beautiful being on middle-earth at the time of LotR? You guesses it - Galadriel, Sauron's spiritual concubine.

Yeah, I'd do her. Hell yeah! Evil is downright sexy, kids, and y'all KNOW it. Anyway, Feanor and I, we're like THIS. *makes crossed fingers, taps heart* Like THIS, homies; believe it! Love that cat.

[Feanaro]

i wasn't evil damn it!, yeah i was deranged, paranoid and lost the plot but my father, who was more dear to me than the silmarils themselves, was slain yet the valar would of had me do nothing like a fool




and yeah i am rather sexy, actually i was the most sexiest elf ever...FACT!

[Landroval]

Those other automaton elves have always given me the nervous heebie-jeebies.
If anything, corrupted beings act like automatons. Corruption means that all the options are bent, biased - the 'automaton' you were talking about.
She was worase than Sauron.
How? Did she have nihilistic tendencies? Did she perform necromancy? Did she torture persons? You must be kidding.
Who's the most beautiful being on middle-earth at the time of LotR?
How about Arwen Evenstar, "in whom it was said that the likeness of Luthien had come on earth again" (~Many Meetings, FotR)?

[Rían]

If anything, corrupted beings act like automatons. Corruption means that all the options are bent, biased - the 'automaton' you were talking about. I agree - evil is the damaging of something good, and is a loss - evil makes someone smaller than they were.

[Peter_20]

I agree - evil is the damaging of something good, and is a loss - evil makes someone smaller than they were.Yeah, of course evil is the damaging of something good, but this evil usually is the very reason other good stuff will happen.

When Doriath and Gondolin were destroyed, this proved the solution, because Eärendil and Elwing were permitted to journey to Aman and ask the help of the Valar, which saved Middle-earth from Morgoth's dominion.

[Lotesse]

Yeah, of course evil is the damaging of something good, but this evil usually is the very reason other good stuff will happen.



Brilliant! Absolutely, such a great point, Peter. And plus, good is not good without evil to give it its meaning. There must be a yin and a yang. If only "good" existed, it wouldn't be "good," would it? There'd be nothing to define it as not-evil, if there were no such thing as evil. Think black/white, male/female, hot/cold. The one concept exists only because of the existence of the other.

[Landroval]

Yeah, of course evil is the damaging of something good, but this evil usually is the very reason other good stuff will happen.

When Doriath and Gondolin were destroyed, this proved the solution, because Eärendil and Elwing were permitted to journey to Aman and ask the help of the Valar, which saved Middle-earth from Morgoth's dominion.
Although Tolkien admitted that Eru can turn all the evils of the Marrer into good, this is no reason to praise evil deeds; they remain evil in and of themselves. Commenting on Gollum's evil, he said it may work for good 'macrocosmically', but Gollum, as an individual, personifies persistence in wickedness, and is "damnable".

I believe it is also pertinent to our discussion to quote Tolkien's statement that he considers the "quick satiety with good" as the "most regrettable feature of the human nature" (letter #256).

[Peter_20]

Yeah, but turning evil into preparation for good things to happen is a very fascinating view of life. :)

Anyway, I just can't stop being fascinated by evil Elves.
I mean, think about it: Elves are often portraited as the beautiful, merry people that always laugh and sing and so on, like Gildor and his people from FOTR.
And then consider fell dudes like Fëanor and his sons - it's pretty hard to realize that these people are Elves - they just don't fit into how I picture the race.
Crazy people that murder and threaten their kin, commit rape etc - and they STILL keep those Elven characteristics, like beauty and immortality.

[Landroval]

but turning evil into preparation for good things to happen is a very fascinating view of life.
Yeah, but even the Divine doesn't do evil and then turns into evil; nor does He consider evil acceptable. He may allow it, but it is still 'hateful' to him.
commit rape etc - and they STILL keep those Elven characteristics, like beauty and immortality
What elf committed that?

[Peter_20]

What elf committed that?Damn it, I used the wrong term. XD

I guess kidnapping is a better word.
Anyway, I'm talking about Curufin when he lifted Lúthien into his saddle.

I really can't explain my feelings towards such characters, but it's such a cool combination.
Curufin belongs to the beautiful Elven race, because he is an Elf, the race that so many people find wonderous fair.
But Curufin, along with Fëanor, Eöl, Maeglin and company, is a dangerous dude that you definitely won't like to meet in a forest at night.

[The Telcontarion]

Actually Peter_20, I don't think it is accurate for u to compare celegorm and curufin to feanor. I would be scared to meet the former in the woods yes, but not feanor.

Feanor was not a blood thirsty murderer, those 2 were. All that he did was for grief and desperation not for self. Even the kin slaying to take the teleri ships was not so. The only truly vindictive thing he did was to burn said ships so that the followers of fingolfin could not come with him to middle earth; he did not expect that fingolfin voronwe would steadfastly hold to course and cross the "grinding ice."

[Peter_20]

Actually Peter_20, I don't think it is accurate for u to compare celegorm and curufin to feanor. I would be scared to meet the former in the woods yes, but not feanor.

Feanor was not a blood thirsty murderer, those 2 were. All that he did was for grief and desperation not for self. Even the kin slaying to take the teleri ships was not so. The only truly vindictive thing he did was to burn said ships so that the followers of fingolfin could not come with him to middle earth; he did not expect that fingolfin voronwe would steadfastly hold to course and cross the "grinding ice."Anyhow, Celegorm and Curufin are great examples on Elves that I find fascinating.

I mean, think about it:
those crazy bastards BELONG to the beautiful Elven race, the race that everyone finds adorable and so on.
But those brothers don't give a damn about that - "we're Elves, sure, but who cares? Let's behave violently anyway!" :D

Personally I always associated Elves with characters like Gildor and his people from The Lord of the Rings: the merry, sympatethic people that act nicely towards everyone.
Celegorm and Curufin are the complete opposite, but they inevitably belong to the Elven race anyway.
It's kinda cool.

[Rían]

Yeah, of course evil is the damaging of something good, but this evil usually is the very reason other good stuff will happen.

When Doriath and Gondolin were destroyed, this proved the solution, because Eärendil and Elwing were permitted to journey to Aman and ask the help of the Valar, which saved Middle-earth from Morgoth's dominion.Kinda cold comfort for the family and friends of those killed in Doriath and Gondolin ... And Middle-earth wouldn't have had to be saved from Morgoth's dominion if Morgoth didn't do evil things.

I think there's a difficult-to-define difference between "evil is good/necessary because it stimulates good things to happen" and "evil is evil, although it's trumped by good actions in response to it". I think the second statement is true, not the first. The first one would be like, "Gee, I'm so happy that my husband and children were cruelly killed because it led to Eärendil's journey and that saved Middle-earth!" The second, which I think is the right one, would be like, "My husband and children were cruelly killed, and that is a terrible tragedy and I wish it didn't happen, yet evil eventually is always overcome by good, and in this case the evil was used to drive Eärendil to his journey, which saved Middle-earth."

It's hard to describe the difference, but do you see what I mean?

And plus, good is not good without evil to give it its meaning. There must be a yin and a yang. If only "good" existed, it wouldn't be "good," would it? There'd be nothing to define it as not-evil, if there were no such thing as evil. Think black/white, male/female, hot/cold. The one concept exists only because of the existence of the other.I disagree. I agree with Tolkien that good and evil are not opposites; evil is a diminishing of a good, and absolute evil cannot exist because it is a zero - existence itself is a good.

[Kevin McIntyre]

Whether orcs are Elves or Men is debatable.

Really? Orcs first appeared during the Chaining of Melkor, long before the the awakening of men. The myth is that Melkor corrupted stray elves after their awakening near the shored of Cuivienen. This of course is elvish speculation.

[Blackheart]

Anyway evil is downright sexy, sexy sexy SEXY, it is interesting, wild, willful and freakin' sexy.

Well duh... of course I am.. I mean.. it is.

[Blackheart]

I agree - evil is the damaging of something good, and is a loss - evil makes someone smaller than they were.

Evil is the exercise of free will in opposition to "the plan" or "the music". At least in Tolkien's world.

What you refer to as automatons are soulless creatures dominated by a greater evil. And even that didn't apply to orcs in the later ages.. They acquired a good bit of free will.

The Nazgul are a better example of that kind of possession.

[Rían]

Evil is the exercise of free will in opposition to "the plan" or "the music". At least in Tolkien's world. That's one way to put it. My bit of post that you quoted was trying to describe the effect of that evil on the being that chooses it.

What you refer to as automatons are soulless creatures dominated by a greater evil. And even that didn't apply to orcs in the later ages.. They acquired a good bit of free will. I didn't refer to them as automatons - Landroval did.

Tolkien had various ideas about orcs, that's for sure.

[Blackheart]

I didn't refer to them as automatons - Landroval did.

It's not for you! Tell him that!

Aye but that is the logical conclusion if you follow the idea that evil diminishes an entity's choices.

I don't particularly agree of course. I find it to be the exact opposite. If there is an "ultimate good", then there can be only one "perfect choice", as opposed to many many more "imperfect choices"... Having more choices would tend to lead one to the conclusion that one has more freedom of action... and less like an automaton...

[Rían]

Aye but that is the logical conclusion if you follow the idea that evil diminishes an entity's choices. That seems to be what Landroval was saying.

If there is an "ultimate good", then there can be only one "perfect choice", as opposed to many many more "imperfect choices"... I don't think there's an "ultimate good" existing as some impersonal standard, so I don't agree with your conclusion. I think that Eru (and God) are beings that are perfectly good, though, and that there are many choices that can be considered "perfect".

[Blackheart]

I don't think there's an "ultimate good" existing as some impersonal standard, so I don't agree with your conclusion. I think that Eru (and God) are beings that are perfectly good, though, and that there are many choices that can be considered "perfect".

What would be the difference in an ultimate good, a perfect good, and an absolute good?

Functionally there is little difference. In Order to be perfect, something must be ultimate and absolute. That leaves out the idea of a multitude of "perfect choices".

Or I could just go bother Socrates and get him to ask you "What is good?"

[brownjenkins]

Or I could just go bother Socrates and get him to ask you "What is good?"

It's a point of view. :D

[Rían]

What would be the difference in an ultimate good, a perfect good, and an absolute good? I'm in a lazy mood today, and since that's totally irrelevant to what I was saying, I won't give my opinion on that, besides saying, "They're all good!" :D You can give your opinion if you want, though. :)

What I was saying was that I think there is a huge difference between a perfect standard of something, and a being who is perfect, and with the latter, there's not necessarily one perfect decision that the perfect being has to make on a given topic. Kind of like ice cream flavors - several can be "perfect" for me, and if I choose chocolate chip cookie dough over English toffee today, then that doesn't mean that English toffee is "wrong".

Functionally there is little difference. In Order to be perfect, something must be ultimate and absolute. That leaves out the idea of a multitude of "perfect choices". Again, I disagree - I'm using "perfect" in the sense of "complete in all respects; without defect or omission; sound; flawless." (Webster's). I think you're using it in a different sense, from what I can tell. Both senses are valid. I don't think perfection in a given area is necessarily a singularity, and it looks like you have a different opinion. :)

Or I could just go bother Socrates and get him to ask you "What is good?"Is he around there? ;) I'm always up for a polite conversation, and if he's interested in my opinion, then fine :)

[Blackheart]

What I was saying was that I think there is a huge difference between a perfect standard of something, and a being who is perfect, and with the latter, there's not necessarily one perfect decision that the perfect being has to make on a given topic. Kind of like ice cream flavors - several can be "perfect" for me, and if I choose chocolate chip cookie dough over English toffee today, then that doesn't mean that English toffee is "wrong".


I think what you're trying to say is there's more than one right answer. True enough.

But I can't stretch that into there's more than one perfect answer... no matter how I try.

As for the concept of a perfect being, in what circumstances would you see this perfect being making a less than perfect answer?

You could say when it doesn't matter.. but if it doesn't matter.. it's not really a decision leading to action with consequence, which makes it difficult to conceive how such an act could be quantified as good, evil, or even of substance.... I don't think it matters to the integrity of the universe what flavor ice cream the Buddha prefers on Wednesdays...

Here's a the question from a slightly different viewpoint:

can you have a perfect evil being?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

IBut I can't stretch that into there's more than one perfect answer... no matter how I try.
Why not?

6=4+2
6=2+4
6=3+3
6=5=1
6=1+5
6=10-4
6=16-10
6=2x3
6=3x2
6=1x6.....
Which of these is the perfect answer?

[Blackheart]

Why not?

6=4+2
6=2+4
6=3+3
6=5=1
6=1+5
6=10-4
6=16-10
6=2x3
6=3x2
6=1x6.....
Which of these is the perfect answer?

6.

The others consist of more than one part. Which means they are less than perfect.

6=6 was left out of the running... but then a tautology is pretty constrained... much like a perfect being would be...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

6.

The others consist of more than one part. Which means they are less than perfect.

6=6 was left out of the running... but then a tautology is pretty constrained... much like a perfect being would be...
You don't see that as a point of view? Why would perfection be more white light than rainbow? I disagree.

[Blackheart]

You don't see that as a point of view? Why would perfection be more white light than rainbow? I disagree.

No, I don't see it as a point of view. Which is "more perfect"... something whole unto itself, or the various pieces that compose it?

"Why would perfection be more an entire human being than scattered body parts?"

"Why would perfection be more an auto than scattered bits of metal?"

because the sum is more than the parts...

A rainbow really isn't light anyway.. it's an illusion created by the refraction of light...

You could have a perfect red or green or blue light... in fact we do, they are called lasers... But they are just pieces of the whole.

How can you consider a piece of something "more perfect" than the whole?

[Rían]

I don't think sis's example were pieces of the whole. Each one was a correct answer in itself - it was NOT incomplete by itself. 2 + 4 = 6, whether you list other ways to get to 6 or not.

How about this question - what is an element with 6 neutrons?

Is "carbon" the perfect answer to that?

[Blackheart]

. Each one was a correct answer in itself - it was NOT incomplete by itself.

There's a difference between "correct" and "perfect" however.

Which leads one to the assumption that not all questions have perfect answers. Especially those without context.

No one tried to answer my question "Can a perfect evil being exist?"

You're tossing out questions dealing with abstractions and forms.. which also have no real MORAL or ETHICAL implications... it's like the question about the ice cream. It really doesn't matter what flavor ice cream Thor likes... unless you're the one that has to go get it...

asking whether 2+4 or 1x6 is more or less perfect means nothing without a context.

Unless your concept of perfection is more akin to the void.. i.e. something perfectly neutral that interacts with, and is affected by.. nothing.

[Rían]

You're tossing out questions dealing with abstractions and forms.. And now you're trying to limit the type of questions we're dealing with so your answer will fit!

No one tried to answer my question "Can a perfect evil being exist?" You're not patient enough ;)

I'll go with Tolkien's answer, which I think is the correct one: No, because a perfectly evil being would be the taking away of everything good, which leaves ... nothing.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

No, I don't see it as a point of view. Which is "more perfect"... something whole unto itself, or the various pieces that compose it?

"Why would perfection be more an entire human being than scattered body parts?"

"Why would perfection be more an auto than scattered bits of metal?"

because the sum is more than the parts...

A rainbow really isn't light anyway.. it's an illusion created by the refraction of light...

You could have a perfect red or green or blue light... in fact we do, they are called lasers... But they are just pieces of the whole.

How can you consider a piece of something "more perfect" than the whole? I consider "whole as all pieces" equally valid as "whole that subsumes pieces". In traditional Christian theology, the Trinity would be a good example of that. ;)

And, as to the rainbow... why would light that includes a refractive component and an observer be "less perfect" than light without? The trend of this argument is that creation is a step away from perfection, rather than a movement towards fullfillment of it. If so, why bother to create at all?

[me9996]

Nope, no perfect evil people, being evil is a (Realy realy big) flaw

[Landroval]

What you refer to as automatons are soulless creatures dominated by a greater evil. And even that didn't apply to orcs in the later ages.. They acquired a good bit of free will.
As you can see from my post, I explained why I used that word with quote marks - to reflect the diminishing of free will.

[Wayfarer]

You don't see that as a point of view? Why would perfection be more white light than rainbow? I disagree.
No, I don't see it as a point of view. Which is "more perfect"... something whole unto itself, or the various pieces that compose it?

"Why would perfection be more an entire human being than scattered body parts?"

"Why would perfection be more an auto than scattered bits of metal?"

because the sum is more than the parts...

A rainbow really isn't light anyway.. it's an illusion created by the refraction of light...

You could have a perfect red or green or blue light... in fact we do, they are called lasers... But they are just pieces of the whole.

How can you consider a piece of something "more perfect" than the whole?

I am going to go ahead and agree with Blackheart on this matter.

"And here you will stay, Gandalf the Grey, and rest from journeys. For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours! "
'I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not
so, but were woven of all colours. and if he moved they shimmered and
changed hue so that the eye was bewildered.
"I liked white better," I said.
"White!" he sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."
"In which case it is no longer white," said I. "And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

This is of course merely a clever "gotcha" on my part. Gandalf said it, and Gandalf was the good guy, which means I'm right and you're Saruman. But there is (I should think obviously) a bit more too it than that.

For a thing to function perfectly requires more than an assemblage of parts. That is necessary, true, but in addition the parts need to be in the proper relation to each other, and the whole thing must be put to the proper use.

Now a ray of light, or a car, or a human being consists of a set of parts in a certain arrangement. To keep the pieces but break them apart is to destroy the whole - a rainbow may be beautiful, but it is not perfect when compared to the sunbeam.

Anyway, in regards to the question "can a perfect evil being exist" I'll agree that the answer is no. The logic of this is actually fairly simple, and it goes like this:

Suppose we define 'Good' arbitrarily as a value 'close to six.'
Good -> 6
Suppose then that we define Evil as 'not good' or 'not close to six.'
Evil != 6
Suppose also that 'Perfection' is 'the utmost good' or 'the closest to six.'
Perfect = 6
Then if X == Evil is true, X == Perfect cannot also be true.

This is not a rigorous proof, of course, but I'll leave it at that all the same.