'Why I hate 'Lord of the Rings' '

[Storm Raven]

My difference from some may be that I don't see Isildur as a good guy, after he grabbed the ring he became a tool of evil, of the evil ring. There is no means to justify.

But you still use ends to justify the means. Murder remains murder. How you come to claim the Ring (or deal with the current owner of the Ring) determines how quickly it gains power over you.

Evil is on the verge of destruction, at least Sauron's evil, but this wonderful prince decideds, "hell I sure love this ring of pure evil, I'll keep it and obsess over it...", well in my book he became the enemy at that moment. His lawful right to own the ring is overruled by the lawful right of the world to protect itself from the evil he is enabling.

That's not the way the law of the cultures Tolkien was dealing with worked. The right of Kings was strong. The rights of weregeld were so powerful that nature respected them (there are instances where a powerful individual claims weregeld over a natural thing that killed their kin and the beast or feature acquiesces to their claim). Isildur is a king, chosen by the hand of God. His rights predominate. God chose him to make decisions, and through his decisions, God's will is expressed.

P.S. If an Orc was standing there with the ring in the same situation would Elrond have let him walk out with it? After all if he tried to push the Orc in he would have been corrupted right?

It depends. Trying to force the issue with the bnearer of the Ruling Ring corrupts your soul. If an orc held the Ruling Ring at that moment, and Elrond tried to kill him and take it (whether to destroy it or not) he would have been consumed by its power. Trying to take it would have likely destroyed Elrond. Do you think he would have tried under those circumstances?

That's what makes the Ring so dangerous. Trying to claim it no matter the reason, whether to keep it, use it for good, or destroy it, will destroy the individual claiming it. That's why Frodo's possession of the Ring, coming in the fomr of a voluntary inheiritance, makes him uniquely suited to carry it and avoid being corrupted by it too quickly.

 

[KenM]

Yes, he does. But that is Isildur's sin. Trying to force the issue would have corrupted Elrond, and initiated a brand new sin on his part. And then Elrond would have had the blood of thousands on his hands.

IMO if you KNOW something/ someone is evil and do nothing to stop it, that makes you just as evil as the person commiting the evil. So the blood is on Elrond's hands as well.
Say you had a chance to destroy someone evil, and you do not, then that person goes out and commits unspeakible acts. But your soul is pure becuase you did not try to stop it? I don't think it works that way. You did nothing, that makes you partly responsable.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I do get what you are saying, but don't agree with the morality of it. The realities of the ring sure, but that morality is f%!&@d up IMO.

It's not a problem in the book though, just the movie since they go into detail about the event.

 

[Corinth]

If Elrond were to shove Isildur into the fires of Mount Doom, then he wouldn't be committing murder; that would be an act in the defense of the Free Peoples of Middle-Earth because he would've acted to destroy the One Ring. The One Ring is an aspect of Sauron, and therefore is a part of him, so destroying the One Ring (even at the cost of Isildur's life, and likely Elrond's as well) is a good act. Issues of property don't matter when the freedom of the entire host of the Free Peoples is on the line: freedom is more important than property.

 

[Bob Aberton]

I do get what you are saying, but don't agree with the morality of it. The realities of the ring sure, but that morality is f%!&@d up IMO.

It's not a problem in the book though, just the movie since they go into detail about the event.

It doesn't matter if that morality is f%!&@d up IYO, or IRL. It's the way morality works in Tolkien. It shouldn't be a problem in the movies either, since the movies, like the books, use Tolkien morality. The only reason it's a problem to you is that you either can't or won't stop insisting on using RL morality in a most definately un-RL world. Tolkien's world has a different set of rules than this world, and if you don't apply Tolkien's rules to Tolkien's world, then it will never make sense to you.

Besides which, it's not a given that Elrond could push Isildur in if he wanted to. Isildur, as has been stated many times before, is no pushover. He and Elrond would have to fight. If Isildur and Elrond fought for the Ring, so would their armies. And it then wouldn't matter whether or not Sauron wasn't present to enjoy it, he would have won. Because, as has been stated before, either Men or Elves would be destroyed, and either Elrond or Isildur would rise as the new Dark Lord.

Furthermore, the Ring would not stand idly by and let itself be destroyed. It has a mind of its own. The only reason it hadn't already dominated Elrond was because he knew what it was, and he never touched it. But if he tried to murder Isildur, then rest assured that whoever won would end up claiming the Ring, regardless of their original intentions. Gollum murdered the Ring's rightful owner (Deagol, at the time). Look what happened to him; before he even put his hands on Deagol's neck, the Ring had claimed him. By the time Deagol was dead, it was already "The Precious." The same would have happened to Elrond, only on a larger scale.

But, like I said before, if you still insist on blocking your ears and bashing your heads against the wall, by all means keep at it. Keep in mind, though, no matter how much you argue, you're never going accept the course of events as they are unless you apply TOLKIEN'S RULES to TOLKIEN'S WORLD.

Apologies if you don't like my tone. But for the past two pages or so, you've just been repeating the same thing over and over again, and completely ignored the points made by the "other side." It's getting a little frustrating...

 

[barsoomcore]

Hey StormRaven, want a stick to beat yourself over the head with? It's gotta be less painful than what I'm watching in this thread.

Can I add my voice to the chorus saying, "People, your ideas on what is or isn't moral are BESIDE THE POINT. This is Tolkien's world and it plays by Tolkien's rules. You can disagree with those rules, but you can't fault his world for playing by them." So if you want to say, "I think the end justifies the means in my world," go right ahead. But it doesn't in Middle-Earth.

And IN ANY EVENT, the fact that Elrond did not murder Isildur is in no way shape or fact

A LOGICAL ERROR.

It may or may not be a bad move on Elrond's part, but it's not a logical error on either Tolkien's or Jackson's part. It's simply the action a character takes -- whether a character behaves intelligently or not has nothing to do with the logic of the story that character inhabits.

The Ents popping out of Fangorn as though they'd just been hiding around the nearby tree trunks waiting for Treebeard to notice the devastation -- THAT was a logical hole. But Elrond deciding not to murder someone -- that's a character decision. And not many people make decisions based purely on logic.

 

[Berandor]

Well, first of all, by the morality put forth here all characters in the LotR except for Frodo maybe are murderers, because they kills Orcs etc. Only because these orks etc. don't wear the One Ring do they not become corrupted, right? If so, that's a silly morale to me.
Second, some fanwank if you really need an explanation other than maybe "It's Elrond's action, he makes a mistake, but it's what he does, and perhaps is." Isildur wielded the Ring of Power (as has been said, perhaps Elrond simply didn't dare to attack the Ringbearer while wearing his own ring and not being really used to its power). The Ring can act on its own. Perhaps it had enough influence on Elrond the other Ringbearer that he could keep him from attacking? Not really dominating Elrond, but having him refrain from aggressive actions?

 

[barsoomcore]

Berandor:

Exactly. I'm not sure if killing Orcs counts as murder (Orcs are different), but certainly no shortage of Men were killed by the "good guys" at Pelennor, and yes, that would have been an act of evil by Tolkien's standards -- but one CAN be absolved of evil acts in Tolkien's view (remember, we're dealing with a Catholic here).

The difference between smiting Southrons on Pelennor and pushing Isildur into the Fire is the Ring -- the former, while evil, is not necessarily all that dangerous for, say, Aragorn, while the latter is almost certain to destroy Elrond immediately.

 

[WizarDru]

Well, first of all, by the morality put forth here all characters in the LotR except for Frodo maybe are murderers, because they kills Orcs etc. Only because these orks etc. don't wear the One Ring do they not become corrupted, right? If so, that's a silly morale to me.

There's a big difference between murdering someone for the Ring of Power and defending yourself against orcs who are attacking you with murderous intent. If you don't see a difference between the two, I'm not sure what to tell you. I can't recall a single incident where the Fellowship or Free Peoples initiates a senseless attack of murderous violence, but plenty of cases where they defend themselves from such attacks.

 

[Berandor]

There's a big difference between murdering someone for the Ring of Power and defending yourself against orcs who are attacking you with murderous intent. If you don't see a difference between the two, I'm not sure what to tell you. I can't recall a single incident where the Fellowship or Free Peoples initiates a senseless attack of murderous violence, but plenty of cases where they defend themselves from such attacks.

Well, he wouldn't attack him for the Ring, only because of the Ring. And I mainly refer to the example that even if an orc had wielded the ring at that point, attacking or even killing him would have been murder.
The other things, I can agree on, actually.