Stat Challenge: Gollum

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

It's not that Frodo was quite 'fooled'. Gollum/Smeagol was genuinely torn two ways, his pitiable-ness was partly real, alongside his very real evil.

How about some skill in riddles?

Was he really evil? He seemed more mentally ill / destroyed by the ring and lacked any sense of right and wrong. One can be dangerous without being evil.

[Purple Haze]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Was he really evil? He seemed more mentally ill / destroyed by the ring and lacked any sense of right and wrong. One can be dangerous without being evil.

He saw the ring, thought that it was valuable, and murdered his brother to gain possession of it. He was evil.

At best, one could make the case that by the time of LotR he had begun to repent.

[Fionn The Otaku]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Was he really evil? He seemed more mentally ill / destroyed by the ring and lacked any sense of right and wrong. One can be dangerous without being evil.

If I remember correctly before Smeagol even saw the ring he was a unpleasent person who care much about anyone other than his best friend and Grandmother, his first act after seeing it was to strangle his bestfriend then take it, he then used it to steal and make lots of mishchef until his community exiled him.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Purple Haze

He saw the ring, thought that it was valuable, and murdered his brother to gain possession of it. He was evil.

At best, one could make the case that by the time of LotR he had begun to repent.

It's the one ring. It turns everyone "evil" given enough time. Normal people would have no chance to resist it for even moments. Unless there was much more given in the books than movies, which I imagine there was. If Smeagol really was evil, then wouldn't his brother have been prepared for sudden murderous actions?

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It's the one ring. It turns everyone "evil" given enough time. Normal people would have no chance to resist it for even moments. Unless there was much more given in the books than movies, which I imagine there was. If Smeagol really was evil, then wouldn't his brother have been prepared for sudden murderous actions?

It's more insidious than that. But yeah, the book states that Gollum was hit harder than Bilbo because Smeagol murdered Deagol and Bilbo didn't murder Gollum.

‘Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began the ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.’

[Fionn The Otaku]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It's the one ring. It turns everyone "evil" given enough time. Normal people would have no chance to resist it for even moments. Unless there was much more given in the books than movies, which I imagine there was. If Smeagol really was evil, then wouldn't his brother have been prepared for sudden murderous actions?

Not if he was genuinly fond of his cousin/best friend Déagol and not violent or murderous until he killed Déagol over the ring.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Fionn The Otaku

Not if he was genuinly fond of his cousin/best friend Déagol and not violent or murderous until he killed Déagol over the ring.

That makes my point then. That it was the overpowering control of the ring that made him do it not any innate act of inherent evil. One can't be evil if there is no ability to choose.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That makes my point then. That it was the overpowering control of the ring that made him do it not any innate act of inherent evil. One can't be evil if there is no ability to choose.

Well first of all, there was an ability to choose. Frodo and Bilbo managed to refrain from murdering their companions and family members much longer than Smeagol did.

And secondly I reject the whole definitional premise. The orcs were not somehow not evil just because they were hardwired to be a dark lord's goons.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That makes my point then. That it was the overpowering control of the ring that made him do it not any innate act of inherent evil. One can't be evil if there is no ability to choose.

The Ring doesn't work that fast, not on its own. One fleeting glimpse doesn't turn an otherwise decent person into a murderer, unless there was already a significant amount of corruption to work with. Otherwise, the effects are slow, insidious, creeping. Of course each act of Ring-influenced corruption (including thoughts) makes further ones come easier and faster.

To use an example of someone else affected by a single glimpse, we can cite Boromir. He saw it briefly in Rivendell, and eventually tried to take it from Frodo by force...months afterward, and after dwelling and obsessing on it throughout that time. It had his genuine fear for Gondor's safety to work on, along with his own outsized ego and pride and conceit, and yet it still took months before Boromir gave in to the temptation, and even then he wasn't consciously planning murder, just theft.

Meriadoc likewise caught a glimpse of the Ring at one point...and was scarecly affected at all. A lot depends on what's already present in the soul of the victim/offender.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Well first of all, there was an ability to choose. Frodo and Bilbo managed to refrain from murdering their companions and family members much longer than Smeagol did.

And secondly I reject the whole definitional premise. The orcs were not somehow not evil just because they were hardwired to be a dark lord's goons.

The fact that a couple of heroes could resist the unresistable means very little.
Evil requires choice, otherwise you're calling attacking wild animals, the violent mentally ill, and tornadoes evil.
That good intentioned road leads somewhere unpleasant.