Neutrality

[Morsereg Dîndaedel]

Simple question. Do you think there is such a thing as neutral in Middle-Earth? This stems from a convo I had with Murazor on MSN, when I called Aragorn neutral in the Rivendell fight because he's good but he's fighting alongside evil, which soon turned into a debate over whether or not Tolkien's Middle-Earth had neutrality, opposed to the extremes of only good and evil.

What are your thoughts?

[Alcorad]

I beleive there is such thing as being NEUTRAL. Evil acts from good people is evil but being neutral is a mix of the two i'd say. Willing to become allies with both sides of the fold in order to create one supreme alliance. Anyone who questions the plausability of thsi matter should read the Silmarilion.

[vanya]

I agree, there is such thing, but I would try to show it in another way.
You all remember about Old Tom and that he could take the one Ring into his hands and not being affected by its evil power. You also remember, that in the council of Elrond the question came up to give the ring to Bombadil. So they never expected any evil of him, but Gandalf feared Tom would be a very unsafe host if he just may forget that he had the ring in his house.
And Tom was known as very powerfull, but everybody knew he wouldn't come atself to Rivendell to aid the good people against the evil.

Well, if anybody in Middle Earth was kind of neutral, than I would say, Tom Bombadil was it. But there are few persons in Tolkiens world, you could concider to be neutral. The most are good or evil or switching and turning ambivalent within these two extremities.

I created Vaire to be kind of neutral and its really a difficult thing to make her charrie believable without getting totally rediculous. Its much easier to have ambivalent charries like Vinyariel, who can switch sides and turns mind without beeing bewitched - even you could count her falling in love was kind of bewitchement.

[Faron]

What you're asking is what religious people have been argueing about for centuries. Another spin on the question is, "Is anyone truly good or truly evil?"

I've got more to say on the matter, and I'll post it as soon as I figure out a way to word it so it makes sense (even I can't understand most of what I"m thinking right now).

[Faron]

Sorry for the double post, but I finally figured out my thoughts (didn't take as long as I thought it would)

First off Morsereg (my opinion of course and you're free to make your own), Aragorn wasn't being neutral in the battle of Rivendell, he believed (at least I think so from skimming the threads) that Theatana had been kidnapped and was working with you to rescue her, when in fact she ran off on her own. Therefore, Aragorn acted Good while siding with the 'evil' people. It wasn't neutrality, it was lack of knowledge of the situation.

Second, (another opinion of mine) neutrality does exist in Middle-earth, but not in the above stated way. As I've said once or twice, I've frequently played Dungeons and Dragons. The way the three alignments (good, evil, neutral) appear in that game are the way I see it here:

Good- Acting for the benefit of others (i.e. a benevolent ruler who is kind to his people and works for their best interest, not necessarily his)
Neutral- Someone out for their own personal gain or continued way of life but doesn't care about helping or harming others (i.e. a mercenary who takes jobs for money but won't stick his neck out for anyone not willing to pay. Someone who doesn't make a very big impact on those around him.)
Evil- Acting for one's personal gain at any cost (i.e. a malevolent King who enslaves his kingdom and forces them to fight to gain him more land)

You'll notice that their is only a fine line that seperates neutral from evil. That's why a truly good person is so hard to find these days.

That's all I have to say on the subject. If you can't understand what I just said, don't worry, it's a philisophical subject, and therefore one not really meant to be understood

[vanya]

Yay a D&D player! Me 2!!! Oops, sorry thats beside the topic... yes I agree so far, there is a very fine line between evil and neutral. It makes sence what you mentioned, at least for me.

[Envin]

ash said:

Aragorn wasn't being neutral in the battle of Rivendell, he believed (at least I think so from skimming the threads) that Theatana had been kidnapped and was working with you to rescue her, when in fact she ran off on her own. Therefore, Aragorn acted Good while siding with the 'evil' people. It wasn't neutrality, it was lack of knowledge of the situation.

^ You got it right on, dude, though there was a bit of your D&D good and even a bit of evil mixed into Aragorn's emotions, because he was under the impression that Murazor was the one who was trying to undermine Arwen's good name, so he was also in it to defend Gondor (the good part, so that he could protect his people,) and to get a little bit of personal revenge (the evil part).

I think that probably the best way I'm thinking of this is to say that a person can be good/evil all they want, but it's how they present themselves and whether they take part in action that defines their neutrality, at least for the purpose of practicality. If someone has an opinion on the subject, but keeps it to themselves for the sake of saving their people from going to war, then they're being neautral in that they're not taking part in the conflict. But, my the same token, by doing so to save people, they're displaying their good side. And the same could be said that if they do nothing for either personal gain for some reason known to them, or to save their people, they're either being evil by staying neutral to gain from it, or at least displaying tacit consent to something they know is wrong.

So, I'm actually saying that someone can try to be neutral, as in not have an opinion on a matter, but it doesn't matter to anyone else what that person feels, but how they act on it, and no matter what you do to remain neutral in your actions, someone's always going to take it one way or another, and you're not going to come off as neutral.

[Ilmare]

Revenge is evil? Mhmm, actually on D&D its not counted as evil except it hits an innocent person... *scratches her head if you could concider Murazor as an innocent person after his try to keep up with Wolfy*