Round 9: The Guild of Scholars v The Guild of Eruhini [Archive]

Bethelarien

10-30-2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Aulë
Well every other team manages to get a team in on time...:rolleyes: and because of the Eruhini (mostly), the Tournament keeps on falling further and further behind schedule.
If you can't get a team in, just forfeit the round.

You're right, Aule. Every other team does. BUT every other team also has much more support than ours. Also, there are many members of the GoE who are participating in the debates on behalf of other guilds. You can see (hopefully) how this would be rather frustrating, especially for me, as I am the "debate team captain".

Please realize, Aule, that the members of GoE are busy. We can't do everything. And I certainly can't pull off a miracle when I have ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT from my team.

So please, try to be a little more understanding. This is, may I remind you, GoE's first ever tournament, as we never debated before. It will take a while to get the team off the ground.

Scatha

10-31-2003, 12:11 AM

And to add to Beth's statement, especially you Aule, as a deputy guildmaster of said guild (GoE), should not be attacking our guild like this.

If you would like to rant at a guild, then rant at the one you are debating for, or to a mirror. A little more curtesy from you towards a guild you are part of, is the least we expect from you. I certainly can do without the critique, but very much resent the way it is being pushed towards us, especially aimed at the most active member of our debate team.

I am hereby withdrawing the GoE from the tournament.

Perhaps we will participate in next year's event, provided we get less lip for our first participation in these debates.

Thanks a lot for the support, Aule. :mad:

The thing that stings me most, is that a fellow guildmember and deputy guildmaster of the GoE, is blunt enough to attack us like this, while he damn well knows that most of our members cannot debate for our guild, as they have either participated for other guilds, or still are doing so.

BlackCaptain

10-31-2003, 12:44 AM

This is very out of hand. Aule and Gothmog only wanted to speed up the debates, and we weren't asking you to give up your lives. If you needed more time you probly could've requested it. No one was personally attacking anyone. GoE, I'm disgusted. Aule and Gothmog did nothing aside from looking out for the execution of the Debate tournaments, and you took it far too personal. Sure, he may be managing all this, and all he was doing was asking for you to make a little bit more haste.

There may be other PM's that I don't know about, but judging from what I see, unless Aule said something directly insulting to your guild in a PM I think you're overreacting.

I don't wish to get into any debates beside Tolkien related ones, which it seems like I won't be doing soon, so please don't give me tons of backfire for this post

Gothmog

10-31-2003, 01:58 AM

Very well. As the Guild of Eruhini has withdrawn. This debate is awarded to the Guild of Scholars.

I know that the Scholars will be unhappy to "win" in such a manner but it cannot be helped.

Scatha, Aule's comments about the GoE on this thread were directed to Bethelarien because on this thread only Beth had posted from the GoE.

As for respect for Beth. I have the greatest of respect for her having debated against her and I would gladly have her on the same team as myself. I know just how hard she has worked for the GoE and just how tough an opponent she is.

Debate Closed.

Gothmog

11-01-2003, 01:54 PM

This debate has been re-opened at the request of the Eruhini. If the GoS are willing could they please confirm their team and could the GoE please post their team as soon as possible.

:)

Scatha

11-01-2003, 11:43 PM

The_Swordmaster
Omnipotent_Elf
Scatha
* Ghost

Ready and awake, eager to get a bite out of that scolars guild. ;)

Gothmog

11-02-2003, 12:45 AM

I am posting the question in the hope that the Scholars are willing to continue with this debate.

From The Return of the King. Book VI: Chapter 6: Many Partings.
'No, not dead, so far as I know,' said Treebeard. 'But he is gone. Yes, he is gone seven days. I let him go. There was little left of him when he crawled out, and as for that worm-creature of his, he was like a pale shadow. Now do not tell me, Gandalf, that I promised to keep him safe; for I know it. But things have changed since then. And I kept him until he was safe, safe from doing any more harm. You should know that above all I hate the caging of live things, and I will not keep even such creatures as these caged beyond great need. A snake without fangs may crawl where he will.'
'You may be right,' said Gandalf; 'but this snake had still one tooth left, I think. He had the poison of his voice, and I guess that he persuaded you, even you Treebeard, knowing the soft spot in your heart. Well, he is gone, and there is no more to be said.

So the question is this:

Was Treebeard correct to let Saruman go before Gandalf returned?

The Scholars have choice of sides.

Good luck and a good debate to all. :)

baragund

11-02-2003, 07:16 AM

The Scholar's team is fine as it is. Our opening post will be up shortly.

Thanks, Eruhini, for sticking it out.:) I'm looking forward to having a fun debate and learning something in the process.

baragund

11-04-2003, 04:24 AM

Hi Guys,

Please bear with us for a little while. We are having a small debate among ourselves over which side to take! This is a good thing because there are lots of valid points on either side of the argument!

Like a fine single malt, these things take time:)

baragund

11-05-2003, 03:22 AM

OK, we're finally underway! Whoo-Hoo!!

It is the Scholar’s opinion that Treebeard was right to release Saruman. Even though he caused mischief in the Shire, it resulted in the best possible outcome because he was 'killed' and his spirit sent back to Aman, presumably in disgrace. If he had been allowed to remain in ME indefinitely, even if guarded by Ents or somebody else, he would remain a 'loose end' that would always have the potential to cause harm.

To answer the question of whether or not Treebeard was right, one needs to look at his motivations at the time he took action, what he knew (or reasonably could be expected to know), the immediate consequences and the long-term consequences.

Regarding motivation, it was pity that moved Treebeard to release Saruman. Treebeard was, by nature, a peaceful soul and the rage that led him to mobilize the Ents to destroy Isengard was something that was out of his element, even though his rage was justified by Saruman’s destruction of Fangorn. When his rage cooled, he realized that he did not have it in him to remain some kind of wizard’s jail warden.

Then, of course, there are the obvious parallels to the pity that Bilbo, Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo felt to Gollum at various times throughout LOTR. Tolkien was very careful in preventing his characters from passing judgment, and we see the continuation of that line of thinking with Treebeard and Saruman. Through this pity, Saruman and Grima Wormtongue are given a chance, once again, to redeem themselves.

Regarding what Treebeard knew (or should have known), he knew that the Ring was destroyed, thus ending any influence it would have on others. The War was won, and King Elessar was re-establishing the combined kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor. He was reconciling with the Dunlendings as well as the Easterlings and Southrons. Saruman was a shattered shadow of his former self, stripped of all of his powers. It was a fair assumption that Saruman posed no significant threat to Middle Earth so there was no real use in keeping Saruman imprisoned in Isengard.

Regarding consequences, the Scouring of the Shire was an absolute necessity, and it would have been impossible without Saruman. Remember, there were still many ‘swarthy’ and unsavory men hanging around the Bree area who were gathered up by Saruman. The Scouring led to the final defeat of these evil men but, most importantly, it resulted in Saruman being ‘killed’ by Wormtongue and his spirit being whisked back to Aman, where he received his true judgment at the hands of the Valar, thus ending the final chapter of the War of the Ring.

omnipotent_elf

11-05-2003, 11:50 PM

no worries bout the time:D (i mean, we'd be a bit hypocritical(sp?) to complain......)

now to the argument

It is our teams opinion (i hope)that Treebeard was not right in releasing Sauruman

indeed, as the very wise gandalf stated
"but this snake had still one tooth left, I think".
indeed, Gandalf is to be believed as
He had the poison of his voice, and I guess that he persuaded you, even you Treebeard, knowing the soft spot in your heart.

this implys that Sauruman still had at least some power through his intelligence. His power, in a sense, was from his intelligence, and not his physical strength, so to still have the power of mind to decieve such a wise creature as treebeard (if gandalfs word is to be believed) is to indeed have a lot of power left

Additionally, as gandalf alludes, Treebeard was decieved. Thus, he was not in the right position to let Sauraman go. If this argument is based on motivation, then Treebeards "motivation" was influenced by Saruman.

he persuaded you, even you Treebeard, knowing the soft spot in your heart
and as argued

Treebeard was, by nature, a peaceful soul and the rage that led him to mobilize the Ents to destroy Isengard was something that was out of his element, even though his rage was justified by Saruman’s destruction of Fangorn. When his rage cooled, he realized that he did not have it in him to remain some kind of wizard’s jail warden.

Saruman was a shattered shadow of his former self, stripped of all of his powers. It was a fair assumption that Saruman posed no significant threat to Middle Earth so there was no real use in keeping Saruman imprisoned in Isengard.

Saurumans knowledge of the ents allowed him to have the influence he needed to allow his freedom. Treebeard was decieved. Does this sound like the work of a "shadow of a man". I dont think so.

Through this pity, Saruman and Grima Wormtongue are given a chance, once again, to redeem themselves.

But their ends meant that, despite their oppertunity to redeem themselves, they retract to their normal ways. Gollum also returned to his ways, in his thrist for the ring.

Remember, there were still many ‘swarthy’ and unsavory men hanging around the Bree area who were gathered up by Saruman

Then why return their master to them?. His influence was key. Why return Sauruman to a position where he can demonstrate and gain power?

BlackCaptain

11-06-2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Omnipotent_elf
this implys that Sauruman still had at least some power through his intelligence. His power, in a sense, was from his intelligence, and not his physical strength, so to still have the power of mind to decieve such a wise creature as treebeard (if gandalfs word is to be believed) is to indeed have a lot of power left

Additionally, as gandalf alludes, Treebeard was decieved. Thus, he was not in the right position to let Sauraman go. If this argument is based on motivation, then Treebeards "motivation" was influenced by Saruman.

Decieved? Persuaded rather. He may have had that, but if there was no pity at all to be found in Fangorn then he would have kept him locked up. Saruman's persuasion (in this example) is used to find that pity and bring it to surface. If there was no pity to find, what good does your argument make?

Saurumans knowledge of the ents allowed him to have the influence he needed to allow his freedom. Treebeard was decieved. Does this sound like the work of a "shadow of a man". I dont think so.

Perhaps so, but what did Saruman do then? Took over the Shire. Now honestly, do you think that the greatest of the Istari (a very elite member of the Maiar) could be considered anything but on a downward spiral when he's reduced to controlling the pipe weed import/export of the Land of Halflings? Persuasion isn't a skill you can loose... it's something that once you know how to do it, it stays with you. As long as he doesnt damage his voice in any way...

But their ends meant that, despite their oppertunity to redeem themselves, they retract to their normal ways. Gollum also returned to his ways, in his thrist for the ring.
Did Treebeard know a thing about Gollum? Could Treebeard know what it's like to be betrayed? You can't blame him one bit for thinking Saruman was reconciled. Who knows? Maybe Treebeard knew that Saruman couldn't do much damage besides the damage he'd do in his inferior state. Even if he didnt, he was still correct to release Saruman. He can't be entirely dumbfounded and blind to what Saruman still has left.

omnipotent_elf

11-06-2003, 08:37 AM

Persuade: "to induce to a belief,convince, manipulate"
- webster Comprehensive dictionar, Encylcopedic edition. (1992, if you want the make)
Given, the use of the word Decieve doesnt change much...

I dont mind if we use persuade. Are you trying to say that Sauruman did not influence to impose upon treebeards descision by playing on his conscience?
Saruman manipulated treebeard

If there was no pity to find

look:
knowing the soft spot in your heart
IF that is not pity, please tell me what is

what good does your argument make
that imply's my argument is good :D ;)

now

Now honestly, do you think that the greatest of the Istari (a very elite member of the Maiar) could be considered anything but on a downward spiral when he's reduced to controlling the pipe weed import/export of the Land of Halflings?

A interesting comment, but I would have thought that was a great great improvement on being "trapped" within fangorn forest. Indeed, for him to control the land of the halflings after being assumend merely a shadow surely implies that he had great power
additionally, as he was the greatest of the Istari(a very elite member of the Maiar), then why is it safe to let him go?. Surely, Sauruman's greatness would have meant that the safest option was to keep him within fangorn!!!

Even if he didnt, he was still correct to release Saruman

why???

He can't be entirely dumbfounded and blind to what Saruman still has left

well, it depends how good at persuasion Sauruman was. As "the greatest of the Istari (according to you) and a "elite member of the Maiar" I would have thought that would have meant he was brilliant at persuasion. Do not also forget, that Treebeard was unaware of what great damage to the woods which Sauruman was doing!

Persuasion isn't a skill you can loose

thus Sauruman was still a great danger!!!

Inderjit S

11-06-2003, 08:16 PM

What good would it do to leave Saruman in Isengard?

Who would or could have removed him?

Great service he could have rendered. But he has chosen to withhold it, and keep the power of Orthanc

The 'power' of Orthanc? So he evidently had some power whilst he was in Orthanc. I can back this up by the following statements:

For Isengard may be ruined, yet he is still safe in Orthanc

. He has power still, I think, while in Orthanc, to resist the Nine Riders. He may try to do so. He may try to trap the Nazgûl, or at least to slay the thing on which it now rides the air. In that case let Rohan look to its horses!

Evidently Saruman still had some power whilst in Orthanc. Who would ever be able to oust him if he elected to remain? Or could he have caused still some ruin to the Rohirrim from Orthanc?

But there it is, Saruman remains to nurse his hatred and weave again such webs as he can.

He will not serve, only command. He lives now in terror of the shadow of Mordor, and yet he still dreams of riding the storm. Unhappy fool

Saruman would indeed have been a potent threat from Orthanc. What could Gandalf or anyone do? Nothing. Gandalf states so himself twice.

With the passing of Saruman he was robbed of all-his pride, home and his place of power, once he was ousted from Orthanc this toothless snake (Or one tooth snake) had little power or influence upon the affairs of Middle-Earth, he was left to wonder and to end his life howsoever he wished,

So long as he remained in Orthanc Saruman was a threat.

There was still some use in him going to the Shire. Gandalf states;

am with you at present,’ said Gandalf, ‘but soon I shall not be. I am not coming to the Shire. You must settle its affairs yourselves; that is what you have been trained for. Do you not yet understand?

It allowed for the Hobbits to rescue the shire. "That is what you have been trained for". At last the Hobbits must deal with their own problems themselves, they had "grown exiling Saruman and his Men out of Bag End.

Saruman, was of course, leaving The Shire himself at that time, to leave it to the mercy (or lack of thereof) of his Men. It allowed for the Hobbits to establish themselves and more importantly-to stick up for themselves. 'There is a seed of courage in even the most timid Hobbits'-the Hobbits had been doormats for far too long, they needed to be roused (In a similar way to the Ents) and with the aid of Merry, Pippin, Frodo and Sam they were able to defeat Saruman-and show him how low he had gone, to be thrust out like a beggar by the simple Hobbits, who were now clearly strong enough to take care of themselves. It was one of Gandalf's aims to "educated" Hobbits, and this acted as a swift and lasting education.

Fate, plays a big part in Middle-Earth. Who is to say that this wasn't fate working it's way for the best of Middle-Earth? What would Saruman have done to been reduced to, gnawing his hatred for years?

It also allows for Saruman to be given a last chance to repent, he is set free by Frodo, and it also gives Wormtounge a chance to repent too, but alas-they do not take it and their fates are sealed.

additionally, as he was the greatest of the Istari(a very elite member of the Maiar), then why is it safe to let him go?.

Saruman was pretty powerless. Gandalf was the greatest of the Istari. But Saruman was almost impotent, he had little power outside Orthanc.

Do not also forget, that Treebeard was unaware of what great damage to the woods which Sauruman was doing!

Treebeard was aware of the damage Saruman was doing-in a way he was the woods-he was the lord of his forest-how could he not know what was going on in them?

Scatha

11-06-2003, 09:09 PM

BlackCaptain

11-06-2003, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Scatha
In that light of day, with his powers of persuasion still intact, Saruman was in fact still a menace, leading to events that would not have happened if the Ent had held the former white wizard in check.

And for what? How could you possibly leave this menace locked up forever? Sure, Gandalf could have kept him in, but Gandalf only. I dont think that anyone in middle earth but Gandalf could endure the voice of Saruman. And what happens when Gandalf is sick of playing baby-sitter for Saruman? What happens when Gandalf realizes his mission in Middle Earth is done? He can't stay just to stop Saruman's futile attacks against the insignificant Shire. It was a problem that could (and was) be easily dealt with.

Simply, Gandalf couldnt stay in Isengard forever defending the Gap of Rohan against Saruman's voice. When he would leave, who would there be to prevent Saruman from getting out? If Treebeard just left Isengard, Saruman could escape with some type of ladder. With Fangorn there, he could easily persuade him.

It wasn't in Treebeard's power to hold Saruman in the Moon Fang. And why would he want to leave him in anyways? So he could escape at a later time (Probably recovered and full of plans)?

He would have escaped sooner or later; why not sooner? Fangorn made the right choice without even knowing it. But it's not the question whether or not he consciencely made the choice or not.

Inderjit S

11-06-2003, 10:46 PM

The question of this debate, is not whether Saruman was powerless or not, which he clearly wasn't if he managed to persuade Treebeard to release him, nor powerless enough not to have caused havoc in the Shire, but more about Treebeard being right or not by releasing him.

The power of Saruman ties in with this topic. You cannot take a narrow stance when looking at the question, the power of Saruman irrevocably links with this question, Saruman being released, or not so, links with the question at hand since his power, or lack of it, would be a issue or consequence, if you will, of Treebeard's decisions. You cannot hinge you argument upon one argument and dismiss all others as being out of bounds of the question at hand, since they irreversibly link with the consequences of Treebeard's decisions of releasing Saruman.

release him, nor powerless enough not to have caused havoc in the Shire, but more about Treebeard being right or not by releasing him.

What about the 'havoc' that he may have caused if he was left to his own devices? What if years later he had fooled Treebeard or someone else with his voice? Would they have the wisdom of Gandalf? They could not lock Saruman in there forever, as long as he lived he was a threat, as soon as a threat is removed the better, and in releasing Saruman Treebeard ensured Saruman's demise and death. Saruman may have wreaked more havoc in the Shire then he did if he was released say after the deaths of Pippin and Merry and the passing of Sam and Frodo.

The Hobbits were 'awakened' they were able to protect themselves, for a while, and got a taste of what the wide world was like due to Saruman's men (And his 'deal' or alliance with Lotho) and the Shire would have been damaged anyway, but the whole point is that it was eventually cured, and made whole again. 'All's well that end's better' as the Gaffer would say.

Saruman in Isengard, his impenetrable fortress would have been a threat. Saruman dead would have been one less threat.

Therefor, no other conclusion can be made, then that Treebeard was wrong in releasing him, even though Saruman himself persuaded the Ent to let him go.

'Justice' or the right decision cannot be seen universally, that is, not everyone interprets justice in the same way. What is just to one person may not be just to another one. Was it wise for Treebeard to release Saruman, moved seemingly by pity, enhanced by Saruman's? Who can say. Pity is for each individual to give as freely as he or she wishes.

The more important part of this is not a criticisms of Treebeards pity, but of the consequences of his actions. In the long and short run, we can see that his decisions was a good one. The Hobbits realised what the big bad world was like and about, after years of isolation, the four Hobbits were able to 'prove themselves', the Shire was eventually brought back to it's former glory, in fact it prospered even more then before, Saruman was removed from Orthanc, King Ellesar issued his edict which preserved Hobbit's livelihoods for a great amount of time, and Orthanc was open again, and the threat to Gondor and Rohan didn't exist there any-more and it was a fortress of Gondor again, and many stolen treasures were recovered, it eased passage between the north-south Kingdom, which would have been great in the long days after, Saruman was dead, or rendered impotent, and all's well that ends better. ;)

After Saruman's release, still trees were being damaged in the Shire, due to Saruman's influence

Trees were always being 'damaged' for say fire-wood, or timber for ships and other purposes. Of course this damage was senseless, but how many of these Trees that were cut down for the needs of various people were replenisd. (i.e The Númenóreans ravaged the Eriadorian woods in the S.A.) The Shire was restored and the trees grew back-what's the problem? Everything worked out O.K in the end.

Scatha

11-07-2003, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Inderjit S
What about the 'havoc' that he may have caused if he was left to his own devices? What if years later he had fooled Treebeard or someone else with his voice? Would they have the wisdom of Gandalf? They could not lock Saruman in there forever, as long as he lived he was a threat, as soon as a threat is removed the better, and in releasing Saruman Treebeard ensured Saruman's demise and death. Saruman may have wreaked more havoc in the Shire then he did if he was released say after the deaths of Pippin and Merry and the passing of Sam and Frodo.

Gandalf did not come by years later to see what became of Saruman, now did he? At that point, the fallen wizard would have been rendered powerless altogether, without the given circumstances in the book of his later demise by the hand of his own minion.

Saruman in Isengard, his impenetrable fortress would have been a threat. Saruman dead would have been one less threat.

Impenetrable? With most of Saruman's powers gone, Gandalf could have easily gotten in. Nor would there have been a risk of being persuaded to release him, as the old stormcrow would not have fallen for it.

'Justice' or the right decision cannot be seen universally, that is, not everyone interprets justice in the same way. What is just to one person may not be just to another one. Was it wise for Treebeard to release Saruman, moved seemingly by pity, enhanced by Saruman's? Who can say. Pity is for each individual to give as freely as he or she wishes.

Correct, inderjit. Justice is interpreted by each in a different fashion. Pity however, is greatly influenced by circumstance, whether the idea that sprouted it, may nontheless be wrong.

the four Hobbits were able to 'prove themselves', the Shire was eventually brought back to it's former glory, in fact it prospered even more then before, Saruman was removed from Orthanc, King Ellesar issued his edict which preserved Hobbit's livelihoods for a great amount of time, and Orthanc was open again,

Whether or not this would not have happened by another means, remains to be seen. After all, Tolkien did not write a secondary outcome of his book. Orthanc would have been liberated one way or another and Saruman removed from it.

The Shire was restored and the trees grew back-what's the problem? Everything worked out O.K in the end.

The problem lies in the fact that this could have been accomplished much easier, without more fighting in the Shire. Gandalf would never have left Orthanc to Saruman, knowing his power to be replenished in time. There and at that moment, the same demise for Saruman could have been accomplished, as Grima would probably have dealt Saruman the same faith, when confronted by Gandalf. Saruman was not able to withstand Gandalf anymore, not at a distance, nor at close range.

As for BC's arguement, that the fallen wizard could have escaped by other means, this is rather far fetched, as he could not even get through the circle of Ents that were guarding it. All they had to do is keep him there long enough for Gandalf to end the matter, which in fact would only have been a little longer.

And I doubt a ladder would have done the trick, by the description of Orthanc itself, BC. :p

BlackCaptain

11-07-2003, 02:59 AM

As for BC's arguement, that the fallen wizard could have escaped by other means, this is rather far fetched, as he could not even get through the circle of Ents that were guarding it. All they had to do is keep him there long enough for Gandalf to end the matter, which in fact would only have been a little longer.

And I doubt a ladder would have done the trick, by the description of Orthanc itself, BC.

Well if the Ents were gaurding the border he could have just persuaded them to let him out. It's only 800 meters to the wall, I'm sure if he yelled loud enough he could have had one of them come over and help him down.

And if Gandalf had come what would have happened?
He would have condemned Saruman to eternity locked up in this thing, which we know would have resulted in Saruman's potential escape. What else could he have done to keep him locked up forever that Saruman couldn't talk himself out of? Gandalf couldn't stay, and he's the only person resistant to Saruman's Tongue.

And why wouldn't a ladder've worked? He could just lower one from the balcony to the steps. If he can devise bombs to break the previously impenitrable Helm's Wall I'm sure he could've devised a simple ladder. What's so hard to believe about that?

The point of my post was that Saruman would have gotten out even if Gandalf had come, so what was so wrong with Fangorn letting him out then?

Scatha

11-07-2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by BlackCaptain
Well if the Ents were gaurding the border he could have just persuaded them to let him out. It's only 800 meters to the wall, I'm sure if he yelled loud enough he could have had one of them come over and help him down.

You'd have to yell VERY loud to carry your voice across that distance. Try it sometime. ;)

And if Gandalf had come what would have happened?
He would have condemned Saruman to eternity locked up in this thing, which we know would have resulted in Saruman's potential escape. What else could he have done to keep him locked up forever that Saruman couldn't talk himself out of? Gandalf couldn't stay, and he's the only person resistant to Saruman's Tongue.

So far as the book tells us, Saruman's demise was one of pure luck, so if you look at it like that, Treebeard's choice was wrong.
What would have happened is that Saruman and Gandalf most likely would have fought inside Orthanc.

And why wouldn't a ladder've worked? He could just lower one from the balcony to the steps. If he can devise bombs to break the previously impenitrable Helm's Wall I'm sure he could've devised a simple ladder. What's so hard to believe about that?

What would he have made the ladder of? Trees? I'm sure Treebeard would have loved that. :P

The point of my post was that Saruman would have gotten out even if Gandalf had come, so what was so wrong with Fangorn letting him out then?

Treebeard could not have foreseen the outcome of Saruman's release, therefor was wrong to let him go. He already was aware of the havoc and mayhem the wizard caused and could (or should) have expected it to happen again.

Inderjit S

11-07-2003, 03:13 PM

Gandalf did not come by years later to see what became of Saruman, now did he? At that point, the fallen wizard would have been rendered powerless altogether

Rendered powerless? What would lead to a decrease in his power exactly? You do not lose 'power' (The kind Saruman had, rather then say a warrior) by staying in your tower.

Gandalf could have easily gotten in. Nor would there have been a risk of being persuaded to release him, as the old stormcrow would not have fallen for it.

But did he? Did he want to? Saruman was out of Gandalf's plans-he didn't desire mastery. But with Gandalf gone there goes one of the few people who could resist the voice of Saruman, apart from Galadriel and Elrond maybe. 'Much evil festers in that tower' if the evil remained in the tower then maybe evil would fester in there for a long time after-Treebeard's decision was more effective in the long run, it rid them of one large problem. Saruman's power was greatly enhanced in Orthanc, as shown by several quotes I have provided.

It was impentrable-Gandalf states so, even a Nazgul would have diffculty getting in there, the Ents barely scratched it-who could ever have gotten into it without Saruman's leave?

Justice is interpreted by each in a different fashion. Pity however, is greatly influenced by circumstance, whether the idea that sprouted it, may nontheless be wrong.

Nay, they are one and the same. Pity and justice, like two peas in a pod, so to speak. Isn't justice too influenced by circumstance? As much as pity? You cannot state one is and one isn't, they both entail the same thing-was it pity or justice that let Treebeard release Saruman? Was it just for his pity to move him this act of kindness? Pity is for each person to give, in his own fashion, you cannot criticize Treebeard's decisions born out of pity, when pity is often the tool whereby good comes from, as was the case of Saruman's release from Orthanc. Good came out of it. What if Bilbo had killed Gollum when he had the chance, or Sam and Frodo tied him up or killed him in the Emyn Muil? It may have been a good decision in the short-term, or in their eyes, but pity stayed their hands and out of pity came good and their ultimate victory.

Whether or not this would not have happened by another means, remains to be seen. After all, Tolkien did not write a secondary outcome of his book. Orthanc would have been liberated one way or another and Saruman removed from it.

But was it? We can say that about any situation in Tolkien's world, another circumstance may have come along, but it didn't Tolkien wrote it like he did for a reason.

The problem lies in the fact that this could have been accomplished much easier, without more fighting in the Shire. Gandalf would never have left Orthanc to Saruman, knowing his power to be replenished in time.

'And what if Sauron does not conquer? What will you do to him?' asked Pippin.
'I? Nothing!' said Gandalf. 'I will do nothing to him. I do not wish for mastery. What w ill become of him? I cannot say. I grieve that so much that was good now festers in the tower. Still for us things have not gone badly. Strange are the turns of fortune! Often does hatred hurt itself!

Treebeard could not have foreseen the outcome of Saruman's release, therefor was wrong to let him go. He already was aware of the havoc and mayhem the wizard caused and could (or should) have expected it to happen again.

Treebeard though Saruman was impotent. He states so to Gandalf.

Scatha

11-07-2003, 04:54 PM

Justice and pity are hardly the same thing, or do I have to quote you the definitions from the dictionary, Inderjit, to prove they are not?

Treebeard did not have the same priorities as the other living creatures in ME do, which he was aware of. Therefor his action of releasing Saruman, is one decision he should not have made by himself.

(Plus the fact that 'impotent or not' is hardly an issue, we already know Saruman did not have children. :p )

BlackCaptain

11-07-2003, 08:41 PM

You'd have to yell VERY loud to carry your voice across that distance. Try it sometime.
Not if your Saruman and have the kind of voice he had... and why would the Ents ONLY be gaurding the border?

Oh well, we're getting off topic by debating that...

Treebeard did not have the same priorities as the other living creatures in ME do, which he was aware of. Therefor his action of releasing Saruman, is one decision he should not have made by himself.

And what was so bad about making it by himself? If authority belonged to anyone it would be Treebeard because he was the one who destroyed Isengard in the first place. What was even wrong about the decision? Could it have been a better desicon when ends met ends? What could Gandalf have done to possibly have a better outcome.

The scouring of the Shire was a nescesity. If the Scouring never took place then what would the point of Frodo sacraficing everything be? The quest (Frodo knew) would destroy everything he once knew. He knew he needed to sacrafice his life and his once calm home for Middle Earth. So if Saruman had never Scoured the Shire, where does that esscence go?

Gandalf could have done nothing more than Treebeard. Treebeard's descicion was a right one, and I can't percieve otherwise.

Inderjit S

11-08-2003, 10:24 AM

Justice and pity are hardly the same thing, or do I have to quote you the definitions from the dictionary, Inderjit, to prove they are not?

I did no say they are the same "thing" they have the same connotation, the reasons for the giving of justice and pity are one and the same.

Treebeard did not have the same priorities as the other living creatures in ME do, which he was aware of. Therefor his action of releasing Saruman, is one decision he should not have made by himself.

Consult others? Gandalf already stated that he would have nothing to do with Saruman. Would anyone else want to get involved? Gandalf states Aragorn would have shown Saruman ‘wisdom and pity’-it seems that Saruman would have remained in Isengard, since they couldn’t remove him from without.

Also on the meaning of impotent (here’s where I think you should be reaching for your dictionary) it also means powerless. Some constructive criticism please. and

Scatha

11-09-2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by Inderjit S
Also on the meaning of impotent (here’s where I think you should be reaching for your dictionary) it also means powerless. Some constructive criticism please. and

Indy, why do you think there is a :p behind that sentence? :rolleyes: I hardly need a dictionary for this language, even though it is not my native one. Ever heard of the term "Joke"?

Some constructive criticism please and..... and what???

Consult others? Gandalf already stated that he would have nothing to do with Saruman.

Yes, consult others. Certainly when knowing your own priorities do not match those of the world around you.

If authority belonged to anyone it would be Treebeard because he was the one who destroyed Isengard in the first place.

By your logic here, BC, Frodo would have needed Sauron's permission to wish to throw the ring into the abyss of mount doom.

I did no say they are the same "thing" they have the same connotation, the reasons for the giving of justice and pity are one and the same.

Justice is given to someone by somebody in authority, pity however is given by anyone who feels sorry for the situation omebody is in. Where does that have the same connotation?

BlackCaptain

11-09-2003, 06:52 AM

By your logic here, BC, Frodo would have needed Sauron's permission to wish to throw the ring into the abyss of mount doom.

First of all, that doesn't follow my logic, and even if it did they are on two completely different and uncomparable stages

omnipotent_elf

11-09-2003, 09:15 AM

Saruman's power was greatly enhanced in Orthanc, as shown by several quotes I have provided.

good, because that is a good reason to keep Saruman imprisoned, so as the prevent even the slightest hope he would return.

By your logic here, BC, Frodo would have needed Sauron's permission to wish to throw the ring into the abyss of mount doom.

i have to agree with Scatha, thats what it sounded like to me also....

Yes, consult others. Certainly when knowing your own priorities do not match those of the world around you.

indeed, treebeard did not consider the ideals of others living in ME. This is elfish, and thus a descision that was not wise for any race, let alone an ent.

I did no say they are the same "thing" they have the same connotation, the reasons for the giving of justice and pity are one and the same.

wheres the justice in releasing Saruman go?. Pity is certainly there, but wheres the justice in allowing a creature, who has killed many lives, to go free to join with the faction he was previously involved with. He certaintly met up with them pretty quick....

Inderjit S

11-09-2003, 06:58 PM

Ever heard of the term "Joke"?

Can't say that I have.

Some constructive criticism please and..... and what???

Sorry my computer is a bit doo-lally, it posts certain words again and again for no reason, so bear with me, if you ever see a word that stands alone and makes no sense.

Yes, consult others. Certainly when knowing your own priorities do not match those of the world around you.

Just because Ents priorities differ from other people in most cases doesn't mean they differ from them in all cases. Why exactly would their priorities differ from others in the case of Saruman? They wouldn't. The problem would be universal.

Justice is given to someone by somebody in authority, pity however is given by anyone who feels sorry for the situation omebody is in. Where does that have the same connotation?

Stop generalising. You contradict yourself. Wasn't Treebeard in a position of authority when he allowed for Saruman to go free? Therefore wasn't he in a authoritative position when he let Saruman go free? So doesn't justice and pity have the same connotation in this system? Or was your semantic paradox intentional?

good, because that is a good reason to keep Saruman imprisoned, so as the prevent even the slightest hope he would return.

So it is good to keep him in Orthanc because he was at his most powerful there? Hm...
I tell you what prevented him from returning, his death, because Treebeard chose to release him. I don't know what you mean by "return" return to what exactly? If he was released from Orthanc, as he was, he would never return. If he stayed in Orthanc then he would have nothing to return to. Maybe you mean they would know where he was? Well, he could have escaped (Gandalf comments on the many secret underground entrances beneath Orthanc, which would have been free once the waters of the Isen had cleared) or he could have hundreds have years later built up a new following (Tolkien states that Men were apt to turn evil, as indeed happened in the F.A story 'The New Shadow (HoME 12)) because of his glory and reputation, or he may have convinced another, less-wise leader, hundreds of years later to release him.

wheres the justice in releasing Saruman go?. Pity is certainly there, but wheres the justice in allowing a creature, who has killed many lives, to go free to join with the faction he was previously involved with. He certaintly met up with them pretty quick

Where's the justice in Gandalf doing nothing to Saruman, in Frodo telling the Hobbits not to slay Saruman? Where is the justice in the world? In the hearts of the person that is dealing it out.

Scatha

11-09-2003, 10:27 PM

OK, Indy, so jokes are not spent on you inside a debate.
(We'll see about outside of them sometimes. ;) )
Meanwhile i'll be bearing with you if another of those random words pop up. :)

he could have hundreds have years later built up a new following (Tolkien states that Men were apt to turn evil, as indeed happened in the F.A story 'The New Shadow (HoME 12)) because of his glory and reputation, or he may have convinced another, less-wise leader, hundreds of years later to release him.

Saruman had no glory left, but was left with a reputation as a destructor. Hardly and example to gather followers.

As for convincing a less wise leader of his release:

*How would he get word to that leader?
*How would he know the time is right to make the demand?
*Would he have hundreds of years left in him?

Fact of the matter of this debate remains, that Treebeard should at least have waited to execute his decision for Gandalf to turn up, or Elessar. With an enemy that had destroyed so many lives and did this amount of harm to the world, the Ent should have consulted others. I'm sure the elves, humans and hobbits would agree with that.

Regarding the scouring, with Saruman not causing the havoc he did in the Shire, the need for this scouring would not have been this great. It would have been dealt with in a less violent fashion.

Within Orthanc, Saruman would not have been a threat to Treebeard, nor the surrounding lands for a great deal of time. It certainly would have taken him countless years to ever become a menace again, instead of only a short period of time after the Ent released him. More time to prepare for the eventuality of Saruman's deeds in the future.

Treebeard's choice to let Saruman go, was premature and only plain luck made the outcome of it a good one. Therefor, even though it turned out right, the decision was still a wrong one.

omnipotent_elf

11-09-2003, 11:18 PM

So it is good to keep him in Orthanc because he was at his most powerful there? Hm...

i think you misreed my intention. It was good to keep him IMPRISONED while in orthanc. But to release him is just careless. To allow Saruman to go, to even give him a hope of returning to his former power, was dangerous.

thus

Treebeard's choice to let Saruman go, was premature and only plain luck made the outcome of it a good one

Where's the justice in Gandalf doing nothing to Saruman, in Frodo telling the Hobbits not to slay Saruman? Where is the justice in the world? In the hearts of the person that is dealing it out.

but wheres the justice in a selfish descision, one made out of pity rather then for the good of ME?
Treebeards descision was premature!

BlackCaptain

11-09-2003, 11:39 PM

Posted by Omipotent Elf:
i think you misreed my intention. It was good to keep him IMPRISONED while in orthanc. But to release him is just careless. To allow Saruman to go, to even give him a hope of returning to his former power, was dangerous.

Can you explain why he was careless?
I keep saying over and over that Saruman was NOT dangerous.

Here we have the former head of the greatest Maiar ''team'' to step foot on Middle Earth and he takes over the vulnerable and weak halflings (an extremely cowardice act), when he is fully capable of taking over Middle Earth and ruling with an iron fist.

Yes, I would say he is very dangerous at this point:rolleyes:

And him taking over the Shire was nesescary for the story, making his escape turn out for the better.

Scatha

11-10-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by BlackCaptain
Can you explain why he was careless?
I keep saying over and over that Saruman was NOT dangerous.

Originally posted by BlackCaptain

Yes, I would say he is very dangerous at this point:rolleyes:

And him taking over the Shire was nesescary for the story, making his escape turn out for the better.

BC, that is two parts of one post, that are contradicting eachother greatly. You teammate is also stating this:

Originally posted by Inderjit_S

Rendered powerless? What would lead to a decrease in his power exactly? You do not lose 'power' (The kind Saruman had, rather then say a warrior) by staying in your tower.

Will you please make up your mind whether he was powerless or not, instead of argueing it both ways?

BlackCaptain

11-11-2003, 12:21 AM

Notice the sarcastic eye rolling.;)

omnipotent_elf

11-11-2003, 01:41 AM

I keep saying over and over that Saruman was NOT dangerous.

when he is fully capable of taking over Middle Earth and ruling with an iron fist.

i would have thought that WAS dangerous......

Can you explain why he was careless?

i thought i did... He was careless because he released Saruman and i repeat, to even give him a hope of returning to his former power, was dangerous. Treebeard was careless, because he didnt account for the fact Saruman could still be a threat.

and
posted by BlackCaptain.
And him taking over the Shire was nesescary for the story, making his escape turn out for the better.

Posted by Scatha.
Treebeard's choice to let Saruman go, was premature and only plain luck made the outcome of it a good one. Therefor, even though it turned out right, the decision was still a wrong one.

BlackCaptain

11-11-2003, 04:07 AM

"when he is fully capable of taking over Middle Earth and ruling with an iron fist."

was*. My mistake. He used to be capable of doing that, but now that he was dwindled to taking over the shire he wasn't significantly dangerous enough.

Scatha

11-11-2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by BlackCaptain
"when he is fully capable of taking over Middle Earth and ruling with an iron fist."

was*. My mistake. He used to be capable of doing that, but now that he was dwindled to taking over the shire he wasn't significantly dangerous enough.

Originally posted by Inderjit_S

Rendered powerless? What would lead to a decrease in his power exactly? You do not lose 'power' (The kind Saruman had, rather then say a warrior) by staying in your tower.

Why are you and your teammate still contradicting eachother, BC?
This way we have little left to prove, we could have the two of you debate. :p

Aulë

11-11-2003, 06:17 PM

I believe that there are now 9 hours left in the debate.
Both teams may wish to consider typing up a closing post. :)

BlackCaptain

11-12-2003, 02:40 AM

Inderjit was saying (I believe) that Saruman already in his decresed state wouldn't be loosing anymore power in his tower.

Anyways our arguments don't contradict at all. Inderjit's sayingn that power can't be decreased in his tower and I'm saying that his power was already decreased. Perhaps I should have said that his power was decreased when Gandalf overthrew him and he went back into his tower in embarasment after being Checkkmated. I just figured you've read all of the Two Towers is all. Perhaps not.

Inderjit: Power can't be decreased in his tower
BlackCaptain: His power was already decreased when he was banished from the ranks of the Istari.

None of this still has to do with the fact that Saruman (once capable of ruling middle earth) was now reduced to ruling the Shire. I would say that for Saruman, that isn't dangerous at all.

**THIS IS NOT THE CLOSING POST FOR MY TEAM**
At least I dont think...

Inderjit S

11-12-2003, 01:08 PM

point 1-Saurman may have gained a following. Treebeard may have released him eventually. He may have gained a following similar to that one supposed by the Ithryn Luin, or even joined them. Sauron was there last supernatural evil figures in the world-Saruman would have counted as 'supernatural' never mind the practicalities, he would have had a great reputation after a few hundred years. I mean after a couple of hundred years the men of Gondor began occultism! A lot of the events of the War were forgotten, and Saruman may have been remembered as a wizard who was defeated, he would have had a great amount of respect and reverence, in a a society that was turning towards devil-worship.

It was better to have him dead and gone then alive. Treebeards decision meant he died, which was better in the long run of things. A great evil (or possible evil) was averted. Saruman was gone. The Hobbits were 'educated' so to speak, and the beauty of the Shire was soon restored.

I cannot argue against any aspects of Treebeards 'selfishness' that is for each person to interpret as he will, but you cannpt argue against the greater good that came out of Saruman's release.