Doubt on Dúnachar's significance and thoughts on BBoM (Spoilers!)

[PirroEpirote]

[Gargantuan Spoilers below! Thread carefully].

I recently ended the Black Book of Mordor story line and found it a high point in the game, deftly tying up most loose threads in the game's plot and respectfully adding a twist to the story of Middle Earth as told in the books. In particular I found the writing (as in - the actual text in the instances and quests) excellent, the plot ingenious and well paced and the rest of the execution (music, instances, etc.) great. Kudos to everyone involved!

One part of LOTRO's story that always bothered me was Mordirith - not only his return from the dead, but also the fact that he survived the One Ring's destruction and the whole "tied to Golodir" concept. I appreciate that the Black Book intended to better develop those concepts, but still, some concerns remain for me. In particular, the whole Dúnachar-Mordirith business...

Sorry if this was explained elsewhere, either on the game (for instance, I haven't done the "Throne of Dread Terror") or the forums, but I still don't get the significance of Dúnachar binding Mordirith, nor I get the sense that our many adventures contributed to bring closure to his sad story.

In Gandalf's words in the "Voin's Tale" instance:

'Much that was obscured from us now seems clear, my friend. When the sword Dúnachar pierced Mordirith's form in the throne room of Carn Dûm, the purpose of the Witch-king was fulfilled, a thousand years later, but not in the manner for which he planned. Bonds were made that day, and months later, on the Pelennor Fields before Minas Tirith, they would be broken. He could not remember it, but one thousand years later, Eärnur's final act of resistance freed him from the domination of Mordor.'

Not sure I follow our friend here, but let's try:

1. "Bonds were made that day": Golodir pierced Mordirith at Carn Dûm (Instance: Mordirith's Fall). Mordirith was somehow "bound" to Golodir by whatever spell the Witch King put on the blade (though he still went his merry way causing no end of grief to Golodir, and had an unnaturally extended life anyway). Not much of apparent consequence here.
2. "On the Pelennor Fields before Minas Tirith, they would be broke": this probably refers to Golodir's death at Pelennor (stretching, it could also mean the Witch King's death). Again, after this event Mordirith remained as always, neither dying after the spell was broken, nor changing in the slightest. He technically fought for his own ambition now, but he behaved in pretty much the same way as when he was steward of Angmar (true, he couldn't challenge the Witch King then, but neither could he defy Sauron now).
3. "One thousand years later, Eärnur's final act of resistance freed him from the domination of Mordor": since no event related to the sword (being pierced by it, Golodir's death) seemed to affect him more than by slight inconvenience, and not even the recolection of it pierced the fog of despair on his mind, I'm not sure how this could be true. After Golodir's death, Gothmog works for Sauron, as much as he may rationalize it with reclaiming his kingdom (which, he surely knows, he won't be allowed to keep). His memory of the man he was seems as hazy as ever. So, all in all, I don't get Gandalf's words.

This ties in with the one thing that didn't sit well with me with the plot. The ending, while great, seems a bit un-Tolkien like in that little opportunity for redemption was provided for Eärnur, despite his grand act of defiance (and in spite of Gandalf's final words on the matter). Everything was gearing up for his sword being a proxy of his defiance and hope beyond hope, and ultimately a tool for his redemption, or at least acceptance of doom and judgement (which I would expect merciful), but in the end it sort of fizzles out. Realistic, to be sure, given to what poor Eärnur was subjected to, but in my mind not exactly true to Middle Earth.

I thought that it would have been more fitting (and would actually fitted Gandalf's words) if Eärnur at death's door finally recognized his friend's handiwork, and realized that the "weapon that can't be overcome" (which I take to be hope, as well as love), did truly overcome all. Then he would have delivered the key with a much different purpose in mind, the player none the wiser, until the final pages of the Black Book made everything click.

So, is there anything I missed in the tale and were our many travails with Dúnachar, Golodir and the Black Book of real consequence for the Last King of Gondor?

[Phantion]

I agree with everything you said.

It seemed pretty unclear to me too. Gothmog was still an unrepentant wretch when he died. Isildur's eventual pity felt unearned. It just didn't make sense to me. It felt like: "Well, Gothmog still died as Gothmog, but at least the sword gave Earnur a way to kill Gothmog somehow in the distant future, and ohh he suffered badly, and . . ." We never heard Earnur's voice himself on the matter of whether he was redeemed or not; we just heard Gothmog spewing more evil as he died and then other characters feeling sorry for Earnur.

Here's what would've made internal consistent game narrative sense to me:

1- If Orthadel / Dunachar was the chief reason behind why Gothmog didn't go "poof" at Sauron's downfall.

2- If Golodir's death removed whatever fell blood-magic the WK had used on the sword, allowing it to truly "slay" and "redeem" Earnur from the dark powers of the WK.

3- If Player went into Barad Curon wielding Dunachar against Gothmog AFTER learning its significance.

4- If Player struck a fatal blow at Gothmog with Dunachar in their final battle.

5- If Earnur, restored by the sword but at the cost of his life, stabbed Ugrukhor dead with Dunachar, avenging the Thandrim shortly before his death.

6- If Earnur died not with wicked, unrepentant words on his lips but rather with redeeming words: sorrow for his failures and his pride, for his fallen friends, for failing Gondor, and gladness that Isildur's line endured through Aragorn.

7- If Isildur's Ghost and Aragorn, as King Elessar, actually met and spoke with each other at Rath Dinen, with Isildur blessing his descendant's new reign, and if they witnessed the departure of the spirits of a redeemed Earnur and his Knights, granting closure.

8- If Isildur, inspired by this, actually forgave Tarandil upon learning the truth - with Earnur's redemption teaching him something - and with him actually expressing sorrow for cursing an entire people over the actions of a stubborn, wicked King (of the Dead).

9- And if Isildur, freed at last because he forgave the others, and upon fulfilling his oath to reach Rivendell, then at long last faded away with dignity.


And that would've been an excellent comeuppance for Sauron and his evil post-defeat.

Even so, I'm still grateful for the amazing writing we got Plenty of us have our "if only they had written blah blah blah" in our imaginations, as it is with most stories I am very curious to learn what MoL would say to clarify "the tale as written"- I really want to learn more

Cheers!

[PirroEpirote]

Thanks for your thoughtful post! I'm glad to know I'm not the only one a bit lost by this.

As you do, I also hope for some thoughts from "loremasters" such as MoL on this matter.

I enjoyed reading your alternative flow of the plot, it's thematically consistent and certainly ties everything nicely (and tying everything nicely was one of the Black Book's plot strengths). Perhaps in some points it does tie things a little bit TOO nicely however - for example, I like Isildur's story as is, and wouldn't have him forgive neither Tarandil (who in my view doesn't deserve it in the slightest) nor the Hill-men (who were already forgiven by Aragorn, and couldn't credibly be forgiven by the ethos and worldview of the age), but as you say, everyone has an ideal "if only..." story in his mind (my own perhaps the one I refer to on the original post).

The "tale that is", however, is what it is, and it's pretty good!

Cheers to you too!

[TesalionLortus]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise in this thread. That Black Book ending was perfect and everything was tied together very nicely but without turning into an annoying cliché. What you guys say should have happened sounds too cliche for my liking. I don't see this outcome as non-Tolkien at all. There are villains of Tolkien's world who don't exactly get this "magical, colorful perfect goody-shoes moment of redemption" in their last breath, because you know, they're villains. You can easily look at Saruman, who wasn't exactly bad in the beginning (and even some of his evil intentions weren't exactly just motivated by greed and power, at the very start). If Tolkien wanted a perfect nice moment for everything then he would have made Saruman see the error of his ways at Bag End inspired by the courage of hobbits and finally realizing what Gandalf saw in them, in his last breath, maybe hinting at some kind of potential redemption. Or - gosh - Denethor, if that's the case then Tolkien would have made Denethor die tragically, yes, but not THAT tragically... in a way that he doesn't even get to see a glimmer of hope in his dying moment. If you look back to Silmarilion there are even more of those tragic characters and villains who don't get to see any glimmer of redemption. So disagree - something like this is not "un-Tolkien"

Back to the matter at hand... Gothmog, by all means, was no longer Earnur. I mean, he was, yet he wasn't. By this point, despite clinging to some of his old identity, he pretty much denounced his old self and was effectively Mordirth/Gothmog, aligned to the evil side. He was a villain and he got a villain's ending - deep, tragic, yes, but a villain one. It would be cheap to suddenly give him this "oh, I see now, and I'm happy, evil is finally defeated!" cliché redemption switch. When franchises and series do that, just to satisfy some of their audience yearnings for a more positive, softer, fully redemptive finish, that's... not a very good writing, usually. It depends on how it's done, but with Mordirith clearly there were layers upon layers with this character, that were already parts of him that belonged to evil and reveled in it, can't just suddenly "switch it off" as if by magic, in a being such as a Cargul no less

Everything was gearing up for his sword being a proxy of his defiance and hope beyond hope, and ultimately a tool for his redemption, or at least acceptance of doom and judgement (which I would expect merciful), but in the end it sort of fizzles out.

No, it wasn't. You're just imagining it because you feel like a send-off on a very positive, redeemed note would be "more Tolkien" but that's not exactly accurate. The sword was an early (and symbolic) defiance of a human version of Earnur - it defied some of the WK's plans - but that alone was never going to save him from his fate and transformation. Was Frodo able to resist his transformation by sheer power of goodness and strong will alone, after getting stabbed with Morgul blade? Sure not, and once your very nature gets altered in such a way, it clearly has consequences. I liked it how they started off with this typical "how could he? he doesn't even deserve to be brought back to Gondor, I would not falter and not submit!" but then gets deeper and the tune changes, because it actually gets acknowledged it's not as straightforward, that it can be almost impossible to resist it and with all these pages about the tortures in Thuringwath the devs actually painted such a cruel and grotesque image... and that came first, only later he was actually turned with the Morgul blade like Frodo (or some equivalent of that)

I thought that it would have been more fitting (and would actually fitted Gandalf's words) if Eärnur at death's door finally recognized his friend's handiwork, and realized that the "weapon that can't be overcome" (which I take to be hope, as well as love), did truly overcome all. Then he would have delivered the key with a much different purpose in mind, the player none the wiser, until the final pages of the Black Book made everything click.

Sounds like cliche then. I mean, sure, such endings can be done too, and they work well where they belong, but in this case it clearly wouldn't work as well and would feel super forced. I was positively surprised when the writers actually enforced the notion he wanted to rule Mordor now because he felt like he deserved it, both as just reward for everything he endured and his ambitious cunning as a servant of evil for all these years. (His perception of himself as Earnur limited to this status as a ruler of Gondor and Witch-king's enemy of old, but much of his memories like very old friendships hazy or non-existent, which makes sense given his nature of existence as a weight).

1. "Bonds were made that day": Golodir pierced Mordirith at Carn Dûm (Instance: Mordirith's Fall). Mordirith was somehow "bound" to Golodir by whatever spell the Witch King put on the blade (though he still went his merry way causing no end of grief to Golodir, and had an unnaturally extended life anyway). Not much of apparent consequence here.

WK wanted to make Earnur his personal b*tch uncapable of striking back, for eternity, by binding his immortality to himself (...in kinda twisted way reminiscent of how he himself was Sauron's b*tch and uncapable of striking back nor freeing himself from these bonds) The consequence of the sword gamble and that final act of defiance meant Earnur avoided that specific fate and wiped WK's smile off his face, so WK just needed to satisfy himself with a regular Earnur weight (non-immortal, so when dies then dies permanently), not specifically bound to himself. Not a big practical difference but clearly a big symbolical one and not the kind of outcome WK expected - should Earnur just die by the hand of another (the game's Cargul weights aren't exactly as powerful as the Nazgul), say, one of other servants of Sauron maybe, then he would just die and be free from Mordor's control. The irony and tragedy of the story here was Earnur did not only submit to the Witch-king, out of sheer desperation and pain, but that once he did - he became a perfect servant who grew in ambition and rose in the ranks. He became powerful, he served faithfully and was skillful in sorcery, then he was mockingly put in charge of Angmar and not once was he completely defeated, in all these years of service.

PLUS: I would need to recheck but from what I remember I think it is safe to assume Mordirth, after he returned as Gothmoh and perhaps even to the very end, had no idea it was even related to that original sword. That act of defiance was so long ago that maybe he has forgotten or maybe he just wouldn't even think of the possibility it was the same sword. What WK told him pre-Osgiliath was that he specifically (or Sauron) were able to bring him back from the Void because this unexpected connection between him and Golodir was created that allowed it... and only WK knew how that spell he put on the sword truly worked, and it's certain he wouldn't share, so he was just trying to save his own face here, like, dude, I'm generous and I bring you back, Sauron is merciful, don't even try to think it's something beyond our control. Imagine how embarrassing that would have been to openly admit Mordirith was actually almost equal to one of the Nazgul now, with his ability to return back, Sauron or not, WK or not, all because he was actually able to trick them as Earnur back then.

1. "On the Pelennor Fields before Minas Tirith, they would be broke": this probably refers to Golodir's death at Pelennor (stretching, it could also mean the Witch King's death). Again, after this event Mordirith remained as always, neither dying after the spell was broken, nor changing in the slightest. He technically fought for his own ambition now, but he behaved in pretty much the same way as when he was steward of Angmar (true, he couldn't challenge the Witch King then, but neither could he defy Sauron now).

It was clearly due to Golodir's death. The writing here was actually pretty top-notch - while the battle was waging, and Gothmog took charge in the name of Sauron, as his servant, he did that by trying to outrank the other Nazgul, lol, and he and his Cargul knights (friends of old...) were openly celebrating the death of the Witch-king, like hell yeah, it finally happened and we're still here and "going home", eat dirt.

1. "One thousand years later, Eärnur's final act of resistance freed him from the domination of Mordor": since no event related to the sword (being pierced by it, Golodir's death) seemed to affect him more than by slight inconvenience, and not even the recolection of it pierced the fog of despair on his mind, I'm not sure how this could be true. After Golodir's death, Gothmog works for Sauron, as much as he may rationalize it with reclaiming his kingdom (which, he surely knows, he won't be allowed to keep). His memory of the man he was seems as hazy as ever. So, all in all, I don't get Gandalf's words.

Actually, Gothmog of Minas Morgul who started making some moves - with the gate to Mordor shut - was way more ambitious here, he wanted to rule Mordor in Sauron's place. The inconvenience created was the end of his immortality though, which did inconvenience him here, because he could finally be stopped. It really was more of a poetic sublime summary on Gandalf's part, not some ultimate statement he achieved ultimate redemption thanks to some gambit from thousand years ago. You do that though some genuine effort, not magical contact with an object. The sword was never supposed to do THAT. It served to mess up WK's intentions back then + with Golodir's death made him killable again, which would be something the original Earnur would have preferred rather than see himself on a throne of Mordor. But that's what Gothmog himself would have wanted though, he was already way too gone, even if still Earnur at his core with some past grudges or heroics showing, though in a twisted form, like that final revenge blow against Ugrukhor. It was a very deep, multilayered, tragic send-off of a well-written villain - not some villain-turned-back-to-hero for 5 second given redemption on a silver platter and sent to heaven - and that's what I loved about this.

[Elebraen]

I agree with everything you said.

It seemed pretty unclear to me too. Gothmog was still an unrepentant wretch when he died. Isildur's eventual pity felt unearned. It just didn't make sense to me. It felt like: "Well, Gothmog still died as Gothmog, but at least the sword gave Earnur a way to kill Gothmog somehow in the distant future, and ohh he suffered badly, and . . ." We never heard Earnur's voice himself on the matter of whether he was redeemed or not; we just heard Gothmog spewing more evil as he died and then other characters feeling sorry for Earnur.

I think the trouble is the idea of redemption given to an evil creature who is unrepentant. And Earnur was not always evil, so how is that rectified on Judgement Day? But I think in the case of the way the created rings give a machined semblance of immortality through the spellweaving, I would think that the ensorcelled sword does the same thing. But it's at the cost of the life force. You don't have a body left, but you're still immortal in the case of the Nine. Not immortal and alive, like the elves are, but immortal and dead, like the wraiths are. So what was Eanur died a long time ago and redemption is just an attempt to soothe oneself when the immortal wraith that he became finally dies, the idea that what was good about the mortal of Eanur is finally free to live on in peace in whatever far country is reserved for the people who weren't born that way. There is a measure of sympathy for Earnur because he wasn't born that way and he didn't plan to become that for himself as his own life's ambition, but that's good authorship on the part of the writers. A character that is more three-dimensional rather than black and white.

At least that's how I wrapped my own mind around it.

[PirroEpirote]

I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise in this thread. That Black Book ending was perfect and everything was tied together very nicely but without turning into an annoying cliché. What you guys say should have happened sounds too cliche for my liking. I don't see this outcome as non-Tolkien at all. (...)

Thanks for your detailed response.

Whatever you may think, we don't even disagree much here.

My doubts were more "gamey", if you will: a big deal is made of the sword and the player's adventures, but it ultimately they make no difference - Mordirith is for all practical purposes immortal before being pierced by Dúnachar and Golodir might as well have lived, since an immortal wraith with no army backing him (the eventual outcome) is not much of a threat. Heck, even Vóin might as well have stayed home all those years ago, since no one but Gandalf and the player seems to appreciate the Black Book even as historical record.

I don't need (though I thematically prefer, I'm sappy that way) redemption and don't mind at all he remained unrepentant. In fact, in the ending I outline this is left ambiguous, for the player to decide (Mordirith has a rare moment of lucidity where he recognizes and appreciates what the key was and his friend's handiwork: were his private thoughts enough to redeem him? That's for Ilúvatar and the player's imagination to decide). But at least you, as in the player, made a difference, you gave this old wraith an opportunity.

As for being faithful to Tolkien, certainly crueler fates have been visited to innocents in the Legendarium, particularly in the First Age, but I get the feeling even in the harsher, greek tragedy-like stories, opportunities for free will to overcome were provided, and ultimate Judgment, though unknown to all, is hinted merciful. Only exception in my mind is the fate of Hurin, but this story was more of a rough draft, and indeed Hurin could technically overcome his bitterness (and his ultimate doom, unlike Turin's, is unknown).

As for the more direct source, LotR, I don't feel I'm that off, to be honest. Frodo was given a little help from Providence and ultimate rest since he, regardless of his ultimate fall, overcame to the end of his abilities. Smeagol, even though he was a murderer before being totally overpowered by the ring, after long years was given several opportunities to walk back from his path, and did not (not in small part because of the unwitting hurdle of Samwise Gamgee).

Eärnur is a similar character in that he faced an overpowering threat no man could be expected to overcome. Either of these choices could have been his, but I as a player don't get the sense he was given a choice, which is realistic but thematically a bit "off", to my taste.

(Your other examples are not analogous in my mind - Saruman was not under duress and could have walked back anytime from his path; Denethor was overcome by despair by his own choice, a victim of lies and manipulation, true, but hope was ever his to grasp).

Finally I'm not entirely sure I buy Gandalf's words as some poetic capstone to the adventure (he should know that doing Mordor's bidding thinking it's your own is not freedom), so I felt there was something hinted there. But probably you're right.

Anyway, I started this thread since I thought there was a bit of story I missed that rounded up the Dúnachar business, not intending to criticize the ending of the story, which I enjoyed. From the comments it appears I got the gist of it - thanks all!

I think the trouble is the idea of redemption given to an evil creature who is unrepentant. And Earnur was not always evil, so how is that rectified on Judgement Day? But I think in the case of the way the created rings give a machined semblance of immortality through the spellweaving, I would think that the ensorcelled sword does the same thing. But it's at the cost of the life force. You don't have a body left, but you're still immortal in the case of the Nine. Not immortal and alive, like the elves are, but immortal and dead, like the wraiths are. So what was Eanur died a long time ago and redemption is just an attempt to soothe oneself when the immortal wraith that he became finally dies, the idea that what was good about the mortal of Eanur is finally free to live on in peace in whatever far country is reserved for the people who weren't born that way. There is a measure of sympathy for Earnur because he wasn't born that way and he didn't plan to become that for himself as his own life's ambition, but that's good authorship on the part of the writers. A character that is more three-dimensional rather than black and white.

At least that's how I wrapped my own mind around it.

Thanks! It's an interesting perspective. Maybe these wraiths are truly long since dead and, being under utter dominion of the ring, will presumably answer for those sins (neither few nor small) committed long ago when they were "alive" (had a free will). Perhaps Mordirith is in a similar situation. Difficult to know, since Tolkien's own writing on this is deliberately ambiguous (the wraiths display a significant degree of autonomy and self interest, but they're always treated as "dead" and "slaves", and you get the sense this is, in a sense, quite literal).

[MadeofLions]

A story should stand on its own, and not require the author to jump in to defend it! That said, I also can't resist the urge to do it, so get ready. This was all written quite awhile ago now, so forgive me if some of the details have gotten hazy.

One part of LOTRO's story that always bothered me was Mordirith - not only his return from the dead, but also the fact that he survived the One Ring's destruction and the whole "tied to Golodir" concept... and [Mordirith] had an unnaturally extended life anyway...

For me these are separate things: the unnaturally long life "enjoyed" by Mordirith comes from Sauron, and while the Dark Lord persists, the duration of Mordirith's life is stretching out over the years without getting any richer, much like Bilbo starts to experience. It's generally understood that Sauron can also bring his wraiths back from the dead, as he does with the Nazgul after they're lost at Bruinen: this is how Mordy is able to come back the first time, but he didn't account for the various goings-on at the end of Shadows of Angmar and he's defeated again. When Sauron brings him back this time, was anything different? I think it's unclear, but this time he doesn't come back as Mordirith proper, and he's given a different purpose and a different name. I like to think Sauron is getting fed up with Mordy's failures.

Gothmog clearly believes things are going to be different this time, and in 'Volume IV, Book 3: Gothmog Appears' he tells us so: he thinks that he's invincible, as long as Golodir drowns his sorrows in the north. "But isn't he already invincible?" I hear you ask. "Can't Sauron bring him back whenever he wants?" Sure, apparently so -- unless Sauron is defeated. I wouldn't expect him to suddenly disappear (or fall into a crack in the ground) upon the defeat of Sauron, but once Frodo's quest is successful, Gothmog is now effectively playing without a safety net... except for the ritual of the Witch-king, furthered by Golodir's usage of Dunachar earlier in the story. The difference between 'I cannot be slain!' and 'I can come back from death!' isn't exactly clear, and in practice I'm not sure what the logistics would be for Gothmog to return if Golodir was still alive, with both the Witch-king and Sauron no longer around... but it didn't end up that way.

...this probably refers to Golodir's death at Pelennor (stretching, it could also mean the Witch King's death). Again, after this event Mordirith remained as always, neither dying after the spell was broken, nor changing in the slightest.

You have accurately noted that we're playing a teensy bit fast and loose here: whether Gothmog is bound to the Witch-king or to Golodir, the ritual is ending here either way, since they both perish at Pelennor. I think it's more dramatically satisfying if it's the second death that does it. I can't remember if we go into it in-game or not, but I always pictured Gothmog aging rapidly in the days following Pelennor and after the defeat of Sauron; part of the reason he seals himself away in Minas Morgul could be fear that his unending life is winding down. 'Just wait him out!' does not make for the most exciting conclusion, however - so we took some pains to make sure there are plenty of evil schemes potentially underway that demand immediate attention.

since no event related to the sword (being pierced by it, Golodir's death) seemed to affect him more than by slight inconvenience, and not even the recollection of it pierced the fog of despair on his mind, I'm not sure how this could be true.

I think we might just disagree on this point: do you have to remember an act of defiance for it to be worth doing? I'd say you don't, and that the tragedy of Earnur is that he won't, and doesn't, remember his last act of defiance. How many ripples cascaded from the sending away of the sword, and how many lives were changed -- not just for good, mind you, but for ill too? Not just the lives of those of the Rangers of the North, or the lives of those who became the Grey Company, but I'd like to think that of the LOTRO player too. We've been tangled up in the story of Orthadel since 2007, though we didn't always know it.

The ending, while great, seems a bit un-Tolkien like in that little opportunity for redemption was provided for Eärnur despite his grand act of defiance...

I was pretty cognizant while leading up to the Black Book that LOTRO players have seen a lot of redemption stories by now, very famously involving some of these same characters in 'Shadows of Angmar,' and it was important to me that we don't just "Do Volume I Again, But With Earnur." It was a crucial element in the tragedy that Mordirith/Gothmog remain unrepentant, and I think if he didn't it would be both less interesting and less believable. But Voin lets us remember, and so we highlight the personal triumph even as we acknowledge that Earnur himself was lost to evil. "I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me," said a famous hobbit once; it's not the same, but it's not not the same.

were our many travails with Dúnachar, Golodir and the Black Book of real consequence for the Last King of Gondor?

He was finally laid to rest with his fathers on the Silent Street, at the personal request of the King of Gondor, despite his long servitude beneath the Shadow. That wouldn't have happened without your actions. That seems like a pretty real consequence.

Having said all that, I do want to emphasize that a story should stand on its own! If it doesn't entirely fit together to your satisfaction, that's okay too, and don't let my rambling get in the way.

MoL

[Phantion]

Wow, thank you for your great insights, MoL! It all makes so much more sense now to me


One thing I'd say is that . . . perhaps . . . Elrond was right in the end when: "Elrond says, "Do not weigh yourself with the burden of grief, <name>. Narmeleth will live again in the Undying Lands and Eärnur will find the peace that he lost so long ago...."

Honestly, wraithdom has always struck me more as a kind of demonic possession that overrides the free will of its victim. LOTRO's Amdir is also in this category.

I think back to what nearly happened to Frodo with his wounding on Weathertop. It seems to me that Frodo had no choice nor say in the matter; his wound would turn him into a wraith unless he reached the Elves. He didn't particularly want to become a wraith. He didn't commit any particular moral fault that would merit his becoming a wraith (*and the Ring, to be fair, was very hard for him to resist in that moment).

So if, hypothetically, Frodo became a wraith and didn't reach the Elves, would that mean Frodo was basically beyond redemption and loved evil and committed all sorts of evils on behalf of Sauron? Or would it mean that Frodo was, as Gandalf hints, debased to Sauron's slave and tormented by him and that it was basically no longer Frodo in himself?

Tolkien invites these mysteries. To my mind, the more I think about it, the Witch King and Agath-Kali slew Eärnur at Bar Nirnaeth; his body became Mordirith - and later Gothmog. I don't think we could say it's the same person - and I think it is very akin to how Frodo couldn't resist the Ring in Mt. Doom, fell, and so forth. We also shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the tale, as written, does have Eärnur as repentant when still in command of his will as the WK's captive in Barad Curon. He regrets riding forth.

I will admit the idea of someone becoming evil against that person's will/choices in Tolkien hasn't quite sat too well with me . . . and I do wonder if it's because his treatment of how Sauron creates wraiths is so enigmatic that it really does involve a ton of reader interpretation to take the text in different ways To my mind, trying to reconcile all this with "The Silmarillion" with Eru, the Valar, Mandos as the Doomsman, and so forth: I'd think Mandos would say there's a big difference between those who - actively choose wraithdom- thus doomed and guilty for their actions as wraiths (the Nine) versus . . . those who are forced to become wraiths against their own free will (*what almost happened to Frodo and what became of Eärnur and Amdir in-game).

Cheers!

[PirroEpirote]

Thank you for the super helpful answer. That does make a lot of things clearer for me, and from the horse's mouth, no less!

A story should stand on its own, and not require the author to jump in to defend it! That said, I also can't resist the urge to do it, so get ready. This was all written quite awhile ago now, so forgive me if some of the details have gotten hazy.

That may be the common wisdom, and usually I agree with it, but great for you to "defend" it! Both because I find it interesting to know the thought process behind part of the plot, and also because it shows your love for the work, which makes it all the better.

For me these are separate things: the unnaturally long life "enjoyed" by Mordirith comes from Sauron, and while the Dark Lord persists, the duration of Mordirith's life is stretching out over the years without getting any richer, much like Bilbo starts to experience. It's generally understood that Sauron can also bring his wraiths back from the dead, as he does with the Nazgul after they're lost at Bruinen: this is how Mordy is able to come back the first time, but he didn't account for the various goings-on at the end of Shadows of Angmar and he's defeated again. When Sauron brings him back this time, was anything different? I think it's unclear, but this time he doesn't come back as Mordirith proper, and he's given a different purpose and a different name. I like to think Sauron is getting fed up with Mordy's failures.

Gothmog clearly believes things are going to be different this time, and in 'Volume IV, Book 3: Gothmog Appears' he tells us so: he thinks that he's invincible, as long as Golodir drowns his sorrows in the north. "But isn't he already invincible?" I hear you ask. "Can't Sauron bring him back whenever he wants?" Sure, apparently so -- unless Sauron is defeated. I wouldn't expect him to suddenly disappear (or fall into a crack in the ground) upon the defeat of Sauron, but once Frodo's quest is successful, Gothmog is now effectively playing without a safety net... except for the ritual of the Witch-king, furthered by Golodir's usage of Dunachar earlier in the story. The difference between 'I cannot be slain!' and 'I can come back from death!' isn't exactly clear, and in practice I'm not sure what the logistics would be for Gothmog to return if Golodir was still alive, with both the Witch-king and Sauron no longer around... but it didn't end up that way.

This part of the "mechanics" of immortality and "resurrection" is the one I can't quite get my head around, in particular the last hypothetical scenario. I actually DID expect for Gothmog to literally vanish in a puff of smoke as soon as Sauron died. To me, he was just a proxy creature of the ring, and the Witch King wasn't actually able to grant anything beyond the Ruling Ring's "magic", he could only just piggyback on it. His unnatural life was at an end in my mind. But your view on this is interesting, and clarifies a lot of things.

You have accurately noted that we're playing a teensy bit fast and loose here: whether Gothmog is bound to the Witch-king or to Golodir, the ritual is ending here either way, since they both perish at Pelennor. I think it's more dramatically satisfying if it's the second death that does it. I can't remember if we go into it in-game or not, but I always pictured Gothmog aging rapidly in the days following Pelennor and after the defeat of Sauron; part of the reason he seals himself away in Minas Morgul could be fear that his unending life is winding down. 'Just wait him out!' does not make for the most exciting conclusion, however - so we took some pains to make sure there are plenty of evil schemes potentially underway that demand immediate attention.

Haha, that's for sure - playing the waiting game would have been the kind of prudent move Aragorn would favor, but certainly not the game's plot! Not sure if Gothmog's rapid aging is hinted in-game, but it does make sense.

I think we might just disagree on this point: do you have to remember an act of defiance for it to be worth doing? I'd say you don't, and that the tragedy of Earnur is that he won't, and doesn't, remember his last act of defiance. How many ripples cascaded from the sending away of the sword, and how many lives were changed -- not just for good, mind you, but for ill too? Not just the lives of those of the Rangers of the North, or the lives of those who became the Grey Company, but I'd like to think that of the LOTRO player too. We've been tangled up in the story of Orthadel since 2007, though we didn't always know it.

The act itself is worth it, that's for sure! But you're correct that, for me, him not remembering (even if to disavow) his act of defiance is the core of the tragedy here, and the thing that bothers me a bit (not his lack of an outwardly manifested redemption).

I was pretty cognizant while leading up to the Black Book that LOTRO players have seen a lot of redemption stories by now, very famously involving some of these same characters in 'Shadows of Angmar,' and it was important to me that we don't just "Do Volume I Again, But With Earnur." It was a crucial element in the tragedy that Mordirith/Gothmog remain unrepentant, and I think if he didn't it would be both less interesting and less believable. But Voin lets us remember, and so we highlight the personal triumph even as we acknowledge that Earnur himself was lost to evil. "I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me," said a famous hobbit once; it's not the same, but it's not not the same.

I suspected that it was very much deliberate to avoid a similar take than the one used for Narmeleth. In fact, I very much expected him not to redeem himself for this very reason, and to have it otherwise would have been quite a surprise (though not an unwelcome one, since whatever happens by necessity of the fictional world, doesn't need to justify itself as original, symmetric or asymmetric).

He was finally laid to rest with his fathers on the Silent Street, at the personal request of the King of Gondor, despite his long servitude beneath the Shadow. That wouldn't have happened without your actions. That seems like a pretty real consequence.

That much is true, and perhaps goes beyond a symbolic gesture - who is to know the ultimate fate of Man? Not even Mandos knows the entire story. Perhaps a King's burial will grant him a King's judgement. But I wouldn't bet on that. But I'd rather have his tragedy as told in the Black Book be sung in Minas Tirith (though I see that could get embarrassing for our friend Elessar and his line!).

Having said all that, I do want to emphasize that a story should stand on its own! If it doesn't entirely fit together to your satisfaction, that's okay too, and don't let my rambling get in the way.

Ah, but here you get me wrong, I very much enjoyed the story! It's pretty much the high point of the game for me. Otherwise I wouldn't be pondering on tweaks to make it "perfect" - for that it needed to be close to perfect for me in the first place.

Oh, and since you're reading this, I'll take the opportunity to thank you for your excellent work over all these years. It has been said before, but LotRO wouldn't just be the same (in fact, I suspect that for me it wouldn't be at all worthwhile) without your contribution and that of the other anonymous writers that make it the most respectful and vivid portrayal of Middle-earth we have, beyond that of Tolkien and his son, of course.
If you wonder if anyone takes the time to read every text box, and actually appreciates when both the overall plot and moment to moment writing is given attention and care (e.g. it's technically solid, thematically consistent and culturally fitting writing and not just filler, throwaway text justifying the gameplay), well wonder no more!

[PirroEpirote]

We've been tangled up in the story of Orthadel since 2007, though we didn't always know it.
MoL

Forgot to tell - I was pretty sure the overall plot relied on the revered "make it up as you long ago" principle (which I greatly respect, by the way), but with BBoM I was intrigued by the fact that some apparently extraneous elements planted long years ago were neatly picked up by the plot. I wonder, to what extent was the overall outline of the plot set since the "Shadows of Angmar" era?
I know a "master keeps his secrets", but that certainly intrigues me.

(...)

I will admit the idea of someone becoming evil against that person's will/choices in Tolkien hasn't quite sat too well with me . . . and I do wonder if it's because his treatment of how Sauron creates wraiths is so enigmatic that it really does involve a ton of reader interpretation to take the text in different ways To my mind, trying to reconcile all this with "The Silmarillion" with Eru, the Valar, Mandos as the Doomsman, and so forth: I'd think Mandos would say there's a big difference between those who - actively choose wraithdom- thus doomed and guilty for their actions as wraiths (the Nine) versus . . . those who are forced to become wraiths against their own free will (*what almost happened to Frodo and what became of Eärnur and Amdir in-game).

Cheers!

Nothing to add to this great post except I agree with everything you wrote. Free will is key in catholic theology, and near and dear to Tolkien and his legendarium, so he probably pondered this very matter when writing the tale, but he chose to leave this up to the reader and as far as I know didn't get into this explicitly neither in his letters nor his other unpublished materials.

[TesalionLortus]

While only the higher powers would be able to judge that accordingly and we have no way of even putting it together in our brains - I guess you can imagine Earnur's moral "standing" as if someone messed up with his brain. Wraiths don't exactly have brains but we could use that as analogy. It's not exactly that he died and he is still Earnur, it's not exactly a switch personality either, so it's not a situation where he was completely overwritten by that other evil personality or in some kind of conflict with it. It's not demonic possession either, there is no other entity involved in this - he IS created from Earnur, nothing else gets added here (well, not anything conscious anyway). It's more like if the brain was physically altered - after previously exposed to extreme trauma, so there is that element in the mix as well - but he is still Earnur, he was just thinking and making choices (and having new desires or coming to new conclusions that favor evil) with this "altered wraith brain" of his.

So not consciously pursuing evil and greed when in his original state - but then a "physical" change occurred with the "brain" function and choices shifted (say, one can imagine wraiths have non-existent sense of empathy no? of course it would have been far worse than just that, like essentially becoming a different race or something like that: even senses and how you feel the world itself would be different). I guess the real question is "can you really blame someone whose brain got changed and modified to be a certain way?" + "yet is it fair to say they're a different person entirely if... despite changes they kept most of that brain intact including old personality, identity and some memories?" There really is no simple answer here but that also means trying to insert a redemption message into a character like that may come across as cheap and awkward - unless you specifically say they were just possessed by another entity

Also, Mordirith case would be unlike Amarthiel, so even if the devs wanted to take that route... it would be double awkward because they would have to give Mordirith (all of a sudden...) a bit of a dissociative identity disorder, just like Amarthiel had - it was due to corrupting ring influence over her, yes, and she was partially to blame for giving in (whereas she had more of a choice to resist than Mordirith, no one messed with her "insides" and "brain functions"), but it clearly manifested like a switch personality and it was made pretty apparent in the plot, which is why her sudden return to good worked so well (psychologically linked with some father issues...) and it didn't exactly feel cheapened or fake. That wouldn't be the case with Mordirith, so they would either have to make it look super cheap by the end of it (with this weird "wraith state reverted for 5 minutes before expiring so we can hear from old Earnur" for some reason) or give him some weird personality disorder/in-constant-battle-with-the-possession development all of a sudden yet it clearly wasn't there before in SoA or Gondor - so would be inconsistent

[auximenes]

A story should stand on its own, and not require the author to jump in to defend it! That said, I also can't resist the urge to do it, so get ready. This was all written quite awhile ago now, so forgive me if some of the details have gotten hazy.

Thanks for all you have done MoL. If I had to award a top prize for Turbine/SSG staff I'd give it to you. There are many LotR games but none of them have the massive amount of canon-adjacent content that you have produced. (runner-up goes to the world-building team)

[Elebraen]

I will admit the idea of someone becoming evil against that person's will/choices in Tolkien hasn't quite sat too well with me . . . and I do wonder if it's because his treatment of how Sauron creates wraiths is so enigmatic that it really does involve a ton of reader interpretation to take the text in different ways To my mind, trying to reconcile all this with "The Silmarillion" with Eru, the Valar, Mandos as the Doomsman, and so forth: I'd think Mandos would say there's a big difference between those who - actively choose wraithdom- thus doomed and guilty for their actions as wraiths (the Nine) versus . . . those who are forced to become wraiths against their own free will (*what almost happened to Frodo and what became of Eärnur and Amdir in-game).

Cheers!

But I would disagree with you there. I don't think the Nine chose to become wraiths. They chose immortality and the power to preserve their own realms, but the Rings are an inorganic way of doing so, not organic, not a natural part of the life and growth cycle. And so they're flawed from the beginning to achieve that goal of having what the Elves have, like the difference between butter and margarine. So instead of becoming Humanelves, they became wraiths due to the inability to reconstruct an otherwise vulnerable body using inorganic materials, the first experimenters, and didn't that experiment go awry. The dwarves might have become wraiths, too, if they hadn't been eaten by dragons first and weren't already made out of the earth. I highly doubt the Nine chose the Rings for personal gain or personal power, they were already Kings with power, but not with immortality. And the more time spent with the Ring, spent with Sauron's shadow influence tempting you to do evil things for what would seem like good reasons at the time, the more you'll lose yourself to the shadow world. The problem is that even as a wraith, it's hard to give it up when you got what you really wanted to have, the immortality. Bodies are fleeting things to mortals anyways, only good for a hundred years tops, so it's not that hard to shrug off its value.

Smeagol... I don't think he knew what he had in his hands, but he coveted the ring that he was willing to murder his friend for it. Probably more vulnerable to the shadow-song that it sings to lean that way, but he apparently didn't wear it much. Just stroked it a lot.

Bilbo got his kicks out of turning himself invisible with the Ring to avoid neighbor conflicts, not aware that it was designed to give a wraith's immortality to the wearer, but he was already starting to get thin, heading towards becoming a wraith, "like butter that's been spread over too much bread". That was the whole point of Bilbo giving up the Ring and going to Rivendell that started the whole story, to try to recover from the Ring spell and have a natural, organic ending for his own life. But also hard for Bilbo to give up that thing that he wanted from the Ring, the invisibility that lets a tiny hobbit escape from conflicts and feel safe in a big people world, but not a thought towards having immortality for himself at all, nor that invisibility might equal becoming a ghost.

The Morgul Blade that Frodo was stabbed with was a poison, not an immortality spell. The Ring gave him the immortality of the wraith that might have let him survive the poison long enough to reach Rivendell. Otherwise, I think like Amdir, Sauron owns the dead, the shadow world. If you die where the Shadow can reach, then you're Sauron's to resurrect and use for his own purposes, just like Barrow-downs. I think if Frodo had died from the Morgul Blade, he would have become a resurrected wraith but brainless, not a Ring-created wraith while he was still living, and still consciously aware of the living world around himself to exert his own influence on it. And that preserved brain/consciousness is what makes the Ring created wraiths so much more dangerous than a walking bag of bones that follows orders to kill anything that lives.

[PirroEpirote]

While only the higher powers would be able to judge that accordingly and we have no way of even putting it together in our brains - I guess you can imagine Earnur's moral "standing" as if someone messed up with his brain. Wraiths don't exactly have brains but we could use that as analogy. It's not exactly that he died and he is still Earnur, it's not exactly a switch personality either, so it's not a situation where he was completely overwritten by that other evil personality or in some kind of conflict with it. It's not demonic possession either, there is no other entity involved in this - he IS created from Earnur, nothing else gets added here (well, not anything conscious anyway). It's more like if the brain was physically altered - after previously exposed to extreme trauma, so there is that element in the mix as well - but he is still Earnur, he was just thinking and making choices (and having new desires or coming to new conclusions that favor evil) with this "altered wraith brain" of his.

So not consciously pursuing evil and greed when in his original state - but then a "physical" change occurred with the "brain" function and choices shifted (say, one can imagine wraiths have non-existent sense of empathy no? of course it would have been far worse than just that, like essentially becoming a different race or something like that: even senses and how you feel the world itself would be different). I guess the real question is "can you really blame someone whose brain got changed and modified to be a certain way?" + "yet is it fair to say they're a different person entirely if... despite changes they kept most of that brain intact including old personality, identity and some memories?" There really is no simple answer here but that also means trying to insert a redemption message into a character like that may come across as cheap and awkward - unless you specifically say they were just possessed by another entity

Also, Mordirith case would be unlike Amarthiel, so even if the devs wanted to take that route... it would be double awkward because they would have to give Mordirith (all of a sudden...) a bit of a dissociative identity disorder, just like Amarthiel had - it was due to corrupting ring influence over her, yes, and she was partially to blame for giving in (whereas she had more of a choice to resist than Mordirith, no one messed with her "insides" and "brain functions"), but it clearly manifested like a switch personality and it was made pretty apparent in the plot, which is why her sudden return to good worked so well (psychologically linked with some father issues...) and it didn't exactly feel cheapened or fake. That wouldn't be the case with Mordirith, so they would either have to make it look super cheap by the end of it (with this weird "wraith state reverted for 5 minutes before expiring so we can hear from old Earnur" for some reason) or give him some weird personality disorder/in-constant-battle-with-the-possession development all of a sudden yet it clearly wasn't there before in SoA or Gondor - so would be inconsistent

Interesting; I saw his personality switch as the result of quite worldly brainwashing, bolstered by his transformation to a wraith (which would lengthen his years and dampen his senses, thus making the memory of who he was that much more more hazy).

From this slightly different perspective, would he be capable of recapturing his former spark? I'd say it would be difficult though not impossible. For real brainwashing cases, this sometimes involves some epiphany triggered by the focus on some (often trivial) lie in early indoctrination, that tumbles the whole house of cards (this as seen from the outside, as the process is preceded by a long inward subconscious reflection, while the outward fanaticism is maintained). I believe the death of the Witch King would invite this reflection, and then something simple, like remembering who that dwarf who gave him the key really was, could break the metaphorical spell. So from this perspective, I don't see some level of awakening as awkward, but rather natural. But of course, you wouldn't get some cliche redemption scene, with a grand declaration of regret and disavowal of the past (certainly not so fast), just a lot of confusion, anger and sadness. "What the hell! How could I don't recognize Vóin? Where's he now? What an idiot, idiot I am!" Something like that.

On the other part, would he be worthy of forgiveness? Is a person in his circumstances resposible for his actions? As you say, there are no simple answers. But personally, I wouldn't blame a person "reeducated" via torture for their enthusiastic positive views towards his captors, neither would I blame Eärnur in his situation - I understand that exceptional duress sadly can override our will. Only Ilúvatar knows... That doesn't mean the thing he became wouldn't need to be opposed to the death.

Now that you tell it, I actually thought Narmeleth redemption was a bit forced, because she was at least initially portrayed as quite willing party to her actions (regardless of her advancing insanity). Though Gothmog tells that he was victim of the same tortures (but as an elf I understand she could release his soul instead of becoming what she did). But I don't remember SoA's plot all that precisely, so that's a can of worms not inclined to open right now.

[Phantion]

But I would disagree with you there. I don't think the Nine chose to become wraiths. They chose immortality and the power to preserve their own realms, but the Rings are an inorganic way of doing so, not organic, not a natural part of the life and growth cycle. And so they're flawed from the beginning to achieve that goal of having what the Elves have, like the difference between butter and margarine. So instead of becoming Humanelves, they became wraiths due to the inability to reconstruct an otherwise vulnerable body using inorganic materials, the first experimenters, and didn't that experiment go awry. The dwarves might have become wraiths, too, if they hadn't been eaten by dragons first and weren't already made out of the earth. I highly doubt the Nine chose the Rings for personal gain or personal power, they were already Kings with power, but not with immortality. And the more time spent with the Ring, spent with Sauron's shadow influence tempting you to do evil things for what would seem like good reasons at the time, the more you'll lose yourself to the shadow world. The problem is that even as a wraith, it's hard to give it up when you got what you really wanted to have, the immortality. Bodies are fleeting things to mortals anyways, only good for a hundred years tops, so it's not that hard to shrug off its value.

Smeagol... I don't think he knew what he had in his hands, but he coveted the ring that he was willing to murder his friend for it. Probably more vulnerable to the shadow-song that it sings to lean that way, but he apparently didn't wear it much. Just stroked it a lot.

Bilbo got his kicks out of turning himself invisible with the Ring to avoid neighbor conflicts, not aware that it was designed to give a wraith's immortality to the wearer, but he was already starting to get thin, heading towards becoming a wraith, "like butter that's been spread over too much bread". That was the whole point of Bilbo giving up the Ring and going to Rivendell that started the whole story, to try to recover from the Ring spell and have a natural, organic ending for his own life. But also hard for Bilbo to give up that thing that he wanted from the Ring, the invisibility that lets a tiny hobbit escape from conflicts and feel safe in a big people world, but not a thought towards having immortality for himself at all, nor that invisibility might equal becoming a ghost.

The Morgul Blade that Frodo was stabbed with was a poison, not an immortality spell. The Ring gave him the immortality of the wraith that might have let him survive the poison long enough to reach Rivendell. Otherwise, I think like Amdir, Sauron owns the dead, the shadow world. If you die where the Shadow can reach, then you're Sauron's to resurrect and use for his own purposes, just like Barrow-downs. I think if Frodo had died from the Morgul Blade, he would have become a resurrected wraith but brainless, not a Ring-created wraith while he was still living, and still consciously aware of the living world around himself to exert his own influence on it. And that preserved brain/consciousness is what makes the Ring created wraiths so much more dangerous than a walking bag of bones that follows orders to kill anything that lives.

I think I see the distinction you're making: between those who consciously chose to seek immortality for its own sake, which I'd still maintain is a kind of power - a power over death - and a power that Sauron seduced the Nine with. I agree with you that they didn't realize wraithdom would be the result of this pursuit. My point is that they still chose to seek it through those means; it's a road they walked down voluntarily, even if they didn't quite understand the full conclusion of it. They chose Sauron. And that's my point.

As for Frodo, I think we need the text itself to parse this out:

"‘They tried to pierce your heart with a Morgul-knife which remains in the wound. If they had succeeded, you would have become like they are, only weaker and under their command. You would have become a wraith under the dominion of the Dark Lord; and he would have tormented you for trying to keep his Ring, if any greater torment were possible than being robbed of it and seeing it on his hand'" (Tolkien, FOTR, 222).

The text is unambiguously clear to me here. The knife wasn't just a poison; it was actively turning Frodo into a wraith.


"‘Yes, fortune or fate have helped you,’ said Gandalf, ‘not to mention courage. For your heart was not touched, and only your shoulder was pierced; and that was because you resisted to the last. But it was a terribly narrow shave, so to speak. You were in gravest peril while you wore the Ring, for then you were half in the wraith-world yourself, and they might have seized you. You could see them, and they could see you'" (222).

This might be where the confusion comes in. So, Gandalf is saying the Ring allowed Frodo to see the Nine as they are - before they stabbed him. But that's the main role the Ring plays in that sequence.

Then this happens:

"Gandalf moved his chair to the bedside and took a good look at Frodo. The colour had come back to his face, and his eyes were clear, and fully awake and aware. He was smiling, and there seemed to be little wrong with him. But to the wizard’s eye there was a faint change, just a hint as it were of transparency, about him, and especially about the left hand that lay outside upon the coverlet . . . ‘Still that must be expected,’ said Gandalf to himself. ‘He is not half through yet, and to what he will come in the end not even Elrond can foretell. Not to evil, I think. He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see that can'" (223).

Gandalf can tell that Frodo still has a "wraithified element" that's permanent - his slight "transparency" that he can notice since he's a Maia, though others less attuned probably couldn't. Gandalf knows this is a permanent wound and that Frodo is in an altered state forever, and once again, one that Frodo didn't ask for or desire. The Nine attacked him.

So, when I apply that back to Amdir and the last King of Gondor, it makes sense for me to think of them in Frodo's category: except that, in Amdir and the King's case, the Witch King succeeded, and he didn't do it with the One Ring or other rings of power. He did it with the same Morgul sorcery that made that knife deadly to Frodo.

On the other part, would he be worthy of forgiveness? Is a person in his circumstances resposible for his actions? As you say, there are no simple answers. But personally, I wouldn't blame a person "reeducated" via torture for their enthusiastic positive views towards his captors, neither would I blame Eärnur in his situation - I understand that exceptional duress sadly can override our will. Only Ilúvatar knows... That doesn't mean the thing he became wouldn't need to be opposed to the death.

Now that you tell it, I actually thought Narmeleth redemption was a bit forced, because she was at least initially portrayed as quite willing party to her actions (regardless of her advancing insanity). Though Gothmog tells that he was victim of the same tortures (but as an elf I understand she could release his soul instead of becoming what she did). But I don't remember SoA's plot all that precisely, so that's a can of worms not inclined to open right now.

I agree with everything you said. A good comparison is honestly with Lucas' Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader. Skywalker - chose - to become Vader (how well that was portrayed is a different story). He basically voluntarily descended into darkness, and then his "transformation" into the dark suit was more of a foregone conclusion of evils he already chose to do. Because Anakin chose all of that and wasn't quite brainwashed, he makes different choices later after the famous "Empire Strikes Back" scene and wrapped up nicely in "Return of the Jedi."

I don't see how "redemption" is a cliche. I grew up on Disney fantasy movies where I'm pretty sure the cliche was: "the cackling, mustache-twirling villain suffers a severe and dreadful doom / death." To me, that's the cliche: the villain gets their comeuppance. When I revisited a couple of the Grimms fairy tales when I was older, I found Disney was holding back a lot; those had more gruesome endings to the antagonists. Even when I think of more contemporary / adult fantasy stuff, like GoT, I've very seldom seen redemptions on that show; there, the cliche was "sudden turns toward evil" and "acting honorably / doing the right thing is a death sentence."

And it's very true that redemption really doesn't appear that much in Tolkien himself. C.S. Lewis seemed to have more of that going on, with Edmund for example in Narnia. With Tolkien, it's pretty cut and dry, most of the time. Redemption is always on the table, but no one ever seems to choose it - including Saruman, Denethor, and the Feanorians' recalcitrance, nevermind Gollum.

RE- Narmeleth- I'll just say that I think the "jury is out" because we never got those scenes with - how - Sauron used / corrupted her mind and spirit with Narchuil. We get some glimpses between the session play and some of the newer content from "Before the Shadow" - but those glimpses are all "before Amarthiel" and the rest we get is "after she became Amarthiel." So, we'd really need to see them do to Narmeleth what they did in Black Book with the nitty gritty details to assess that. I agree, let's not open the can of worms lol

Maybe Amarthiel / Narmeleth could be a great, darker twist in "Further Adventures"? It doesn't always have to be a fun walk in the park with Biblo or the Sons of Elrond, which were very enjoyable They don't always have to be about "goody-good" characters hehehe

---

I do want to revisit Tarandil, because . . . I had a very adverse reaction to his story. To me, it didn't paint Isildur in a very positive light at all. In fact, I felt Isildur got off way too easy - and I came to view him as a terrible hypocrite.

I get it that, in that ancient world Tolkien betrays, honor and loyalty and blood-ties are everything, and there aren't really individuals. Just groups of people, and entire peoples are punished or rewarded for the deeds of their Kings or Chieftains. I thought SSG did a great job questioning that view actively through the storytelling in Black Book. It portrayed Tarandil as an individual with a bad deck of cards. He's born from BN blood. He falls in love and marries a hill-woman and has a child with her before the curse.

I found myself quite sympathetic to him. Who is this Isildur to condemn an entire people for the recalcitrance of its King? Who is he who banish all of them as Sauron worshippers? I'm also thinking of that "ghost couple" in the mines in Morthond Vale's quests. My goodness. Isildur did not come across as heroic or just. He came across as vengeful. Why not levy the curse on Rioc himself? Etc.

Anyways, then this same Isildur runs off and claims the One Ring for himself. He then has the gall not to expect evil outcomes in his pride and arrogance, refusing to heed Elrond and Cirdan's warnings. He also condemned the entire future of Arnor, Gondor into eventual decline, Sauron's rising influence among the Haradrim and Easterlings, and is pretty much responsible for everything Sauron did because he refused to destroy the Ring himself.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Tarandil betrayed his foster father and brothers - and his own refusal to tell them the truth was a grave error on his part. His distrust of them. Yet, we're talking about a foster son who just watched his foster dad condemn an entire people to a forever un-death on the Oath-Stone of Erech. Yes, Oaths have power in Tolkien, and Rioc made a grave mistake in breaking it.

Three wrongs don't make a right. All right. Fair enough. But to me, that places King Rioc, Isildur, and Tarandil all in the same boat as committing terrible crimes. Of the three of them, Rioc was the worst as his act was of cowardice: out of fear. He was afraid of Sauron - and not afraid enough of Isildur and oath-breaking. We might say he betrayed Isildur in the name of a virtue: the protection of his people as their King. OOPS. Then Isildur levies the curse upon them in the name of another virtue: Justice. Rioc committed a grave injustice by breaking the oath.

And then we have Tarandil committed yet another act of treachery, and again, in the name of another virtue: Love as a husband and as a father. Wow.

I hate to admit this: but part of me was rooting for the Orcs when they took down Isildur. It was divine comeuppance for him. I do not regard him as a great heroic figure in Tolkien. I regard him as a tragic one, like Feanor. But wow. By the way, the creation of Mordirith / Gothmog was also a direct consequence of Isildur's refusal to destroy the Ring.

So, when I approach the tale that way, when we get to Isildur's refusal to forgive his penitent foster-son Tarandil (and the tone in Gandalf's quest-text makes him sound rightfully far more sympathetic to Tarandil): I was very mad at Isildur. Hypocrite! Isildur, you are the reason behind everyone's failures - including Frodo's wounds! Never mind what happened to poor Smeagol and Deagol! You did this, Isildur! Weregild, eh? I'll give him weregild! LOL!

To me, Isildur is in no position, no moral high ground whatsoever, to continue to refuse to forgive. If I was Mandos, Isildur would be in big trouble for that decision - and meanwhile, he's suddenly more inclined toward feeling more sorry for Earnur . . . because Earnur was in an impossible situation. Well, to me, so was Tarandil - and it felt like he got a lot of trouble for what was ultimately King Rioc and Isildur's faults at first. The King of the Dead got peace in the end for fulfilling his oath to Aragorn. Isildur got peace in the end for finally reaching Rivendell. Tarandil's crimes were personal but a lot lesser in scope . . . and the narrative gave him the short end of the stick - and he's the one who expresses the most sorrow and regrets for his deeds out of the three of them. ?????

And that's also a heavy expectation to have on Tarandil. Is he just supposed to be "ok" that his foster-dad basically forced his wife and son, unwittingly, to become ghosts? And not be absolutely terrified to tell his father everything after the power he levied at Erech? The most Isildur can say is, "Well, if you said something sooner, maybe things would've turned out better," but the most annoying thing to me is that Isildur never once seems to repent and "own" his own actions. He never seems to accept responsibility for his refusal to destroy the Ring and all the suffering that caused. If I think Earnur and Tarandil got off too hard, I feel that Isildur got off way too easy.

Well, there you have it. That's why I'm more sympathetic toward Tarandil - and the writers did a great job there. If you just look at it as oaths and bonds of loyalty, yeah, Tarandil commits a double-cross between personal loyalty to a foster family and oath-breaking - probably the worst act of treachery anyone could do in that ancient world. But I'm saying: Isildur isn't a saint either. I'd say that three wrongs definitely don't make a right. I could warrant Tarandil's fate if they had written him to be even more unrepentant and vengeful than Gothmog was. But they didn't. They made him express regret and sorrow - and he got nothing for it. Tarandil was not a Saruman in that circumstance in Black Book, when we encounter his spirit in Gladden Fields for the final time.

Oh, and I don't want to open the can of worms that would open if we introduced "chance / fate" and the will of the Valar and Eru into the equation. I'd say that Frodo's whole journey is necessitated by the fact of Isildur's own failure and refusal to destroy the Ring. I think that "Frodo was the only way Sauron could be defeated" in the divine plan in response to Isildur's bad choices - if you will, as the great themes of Eru respond to Melkor's discord in "The Silmarillion." And even if we said that it was impossible for Isildur to resist the Ring's temptation at Mt. Doom, that would then beg the question of why the Elves didn't try to destroy it in the name of their greater duty toward Middle-earth's healing than to one mortal King, and a whole other can of worms opens that . . . I don't think we can answer.

The Devs sure introduced all these other dimensions that can lead different players to different conclusions about the same tale. That's great writing

Cheers!

[TesalionLortus]

Now that you tell it, I actually thought Narmeleth redemption was a bit forced, because she was at least initially portrayed as quite willing party to her actions (regardless of her advancing insanity). Though Gothmog tells that he was victim of the same tortures (but as an elf I understand she could release his soul instead of becoming what she did). But I don't remember SoA's plot all that precisely, so that's a can of worms not inclined to open right now.

She was and I think it's safe to assume she wasn't even tortured, there is nothing that would indicate that. (The "temptation of her ring" kind of torture, sure, but that would be far from what was done to Earnur). Amarthiel even gets to keep her original unscarred body - but look at the Gurzyul... (Though I guess that's a boom of NOT being Sauron's favorite, ironically). So yeah, definitely she was to blame initially (I imagine Sauron bought her with some high speeches about future world's order that could only be achieved through force etc and she got worse and worse from there), but unlike Gothmog (and as an elf) she wasn't really physically transformed.

I guess the element of insanity came into play over time, especially after this greatest betrayal of her own kin and father and the destruction of Eregion, at which point she must have been already at her psychological limits trying so hard to leave it all behind by fully falling under the influence of Narchuil, though I think what the devs have done in the new Skirmish was a really nice touch and even greater indication of how messed up she was - the very fact that she would adopt a name given to her by Celebrimbor as her future evil moniker... rather than any of these black speech names... well, it's messed up, like trying too hard to spit the past into face while constantly reminding herself of that past. I think that might have been the final stroke in the development of that split personality of hers, though it would never really be seen until much later, when she (kind of) reverted back to just Narmeleth after the shock Fornost, loss of Narchuil and WK's defeat. I guess the devs were drawing some parrarels to Gollum/Smeagol with it, though unlike Gollum she had these long episodes - slowly recover into Narmeleth and the past, or slowly be tempted into Amarthiel again - so not switch on/off all the time and talk to yourself

That, plus the fact her redemption wasn't exactly "live happily ever after at Elrond's" made it work, IMO. She was not entirely recovered, by any stretch, and who is to tell Amarthiel would never take over again? But she died as a hero and resisted though this trial, and that certainly redeemed her here (at least from PC POV anyway, since that was pretty heroic, but I wouldn't exactly said she has no "unfinished business" and no past misdeeds she gotta bear the responsibility for... though now that makes me wonder how the entire Valinor reincarnation works with such morally unclear situations .. nevermind psychological issues... but that's probably not something we should ever dwell upon, lol)

[TesalionLortus]

Speaking of which.. I would enjoy "helping Bravantel and Héol" shade storyline with Tarandil, if the devs are up for it. Since it involves that curse (that was already broken for all of them by Aragorn... or was it?) and that it ties directly to Vandassari the powers of which are involved here... could be a pretty deep dive into some inner workings of these things - and even more so if the devs tackle some shade lore in more depth, with some inner workings other than just the basic "I had regrets or were rightfully cursed" Because Bravantel and Héol were practically just victims here, any regrets would be of lesser nature (or hatred? but that's also something that they can be hardly blamed for), so would be interesting matter to tackle and make sense of. Like, maybe - and given that Numenoreans/Arnorians/Gondorians used this oath stone tactics for military and geopolitical goals sometimes rather than just friendships, and Sauron came up with his own even more nefarious version of this... - there may be a "bad side" "loophole" to the entire shade business and it's not exactly always deserved. Maybe delve into that mysterious path to afterlife (for men) Mandos knew about and coincidentally wouldn't that tie in a bit with that craziness with the Grey Fear we had recently and how he was messing with all these dead?

Yeah, Isildur was kinda unsympathetic here being so inconsiderate of him. But then again, you can tell that he was also of Gothmog, at first, and only changed his mind due to the factors involved in his transformation, I guess. But then again, he doesn't exactly need to forgive such betrayal and it's not like he has actually forgiven Gothmog either. It was worded a bit harshly but you could tell he also acknowledged that terrible fate was created by Tarandil himself because he wouldn't back off, since he was still going to look for his family as a shade and suffer that same fate but we can't exactly be certain whether his family hasn't already moved on.

[Elebraen]

I think I see the distinction you're making: between those who consciously chose to seek immortality for its own sake, which I'd still maintain is a kind of power - a power over death - and a power that Sauron seduced the Nine with. I agree with you that they didn't realize wraithdom would be the result of this pursuit. My point is that they still chose to seek it through those means; it's a road they walked down voluntarily, even if they didn't quite understand the full conclusion of it. They chose Sauron. And that's my point.

Walked down the road voluntarily, I agree, but so did all of the elves who made those Rings. Were they ambitious in wanting to have the immortality that mortals are not born to have? Yes. But the insidious nature of the Shadow is that you're persuaded to do evil things for what seemed like good reasons at the time that Sauron completes his control over them. I don't agree that they "chose" Sauron. No King in power would want to bow to another. They would want to become the gods themselves if that was possible, and at the time, aided by the craftsmanship skills of the elves, it seemed possible and even encouraged by the "good" people. It is hard for me to damn the choice when I can see the elements that lead up to choosing immortality over mortality, even if the conclusion of that choice is something thoroughly unacceptable. If I could roll back Time to correct that mistake, it would be at that point of decision that I would damn it there, but not the people as being evil for having created a choice for themselves and chosen it. The preservation from destruction sounded like a good thing at the time, but the preservation OF destruction is what they got.

As for Frodo, I think we need the text itself to parse this out:

Thank you for this, I appreciate that.

"‘They tried to pierce your heart with a Morgul-knife which remains in the wound. If they had succeeded, you would have become like they are, only weaker and under their command. You would have become a wraith under the dominion of the Dark Lord; and he would have tormented you for trying to keep his Ring, if any greater torment were possible than being robbed of it and seeing it on his hand'" (Tolkien, FOTR, 222).

The text is unambiguously clear to me here. The knife wasn't just a poison; it was actively turning Frodo into a wraith.

Yes, but there are two types of wraiths. There is the "foot soldier wraith", so to speak, that follows given orders due to a lack of conscious decision making ability. Foot soldier wraiths can be resurrected from any dead body that the Shadow can reach, and the Shadow has not yet reached Rivendell. If the knife had pierced Frodo's heart, then he would have been been dead... and turned into a foot soldier wraith, is how I read that. It only pierced his shoulder, but I equate a Morgul Blade poison with a flesh eating amoeba that it's not a simple flesh wound that he can heal from given time. It's now a place where growth and decay intersect and conflict with each other internally, and now Frodo is forced to choose one or the other, to get off of the fence and decide. As though hitherto the Ring's song had no particular effect on him, but now he can't escape from the Shadow voice by sticking the ring in a pocket or envelope. He hears it daily and must constantly counter decay with growth for his own continued survival.

As for seeing the Ring on Sauron's hand, yes that would be torture, to know that my entire library of conscious escape plans is on that demon's finger, but when robbed of consciousness, there is an inability to exert "free will", even if the awareness still remains.

"‘Yes, fortune or fate have helped you,’ said Gandalf, ‘not to mention courage. For your heart was not touched, and only your shoulder was pierced; and that was because you resisted to the last. But it was a terribly narrow shave, so to speak. You were in gravest peril while you wore the Ring, for then you were half in the wraith-world yourself, and they might have seized you. You could see them, and they could see you'" (222).

This might be where the confusion comes in. So, Gandalf is saying the Ring allowed Frodo to see the Nine as they are - before they stabbed him. But that's the main role the Ring plays in that sequence.

Half in the wraith-world, I'll agree. Invisibility seems to equal "conscious ghost", a Ring-wraith being an immortal conscious ghost. But it's apparently a process in time to become a Ring-wraith, not something that happens just by putting on the ring. Still, Frodo sees the fork in the road and his two options clearly. And the Ring-wraiths could see Frodo clearly, standing at the point of decision. But IMO, the role that a ring of Immortality plays is the preservation of consciousness even in the face of decay when the poison is its most potent and Frodo is at his most ignorant in how to deal with it and overcome it.

Then this happens:

"Gandalf moved his chair to the bedside and took a good look at Frodo. The colour had come back to his face, and his eyes were clear, and fully awake and aware. He was smiling, and there seemed to be little wrong with him. But to the wizard’s eye there was a faint change, just a hint as it were of transparency, about him, and especially about the left hand that lay outside upon the coverlet . . . ‘Still that must be expected,’ said Gandalf to himself. ‘He is not half through yet, and to what he will come in the end not even Elrond can foretell. Not to evil, I think. He may become like a glass filled with a clear light for eyes to see that can'" (223).

Gandalf can tell that Frodo still has a "wraithified element" that's permanent - his slight "transparency" that he can notice since he's a Maia, though others less attuned probably couldn't. Gandalf knows this is a permanent wound and that Frodo is in an altered state forever, and once again, one that Frodo didn't ask for or desire. The Nine attacked him.

I agree that the conflict between growth and decay will remain with Frodo forever unless he fully chooses one side or the other, to either become an immortal ring-wraith to stay in Middle-Earth or go to Valinor and have that natural organic ending to his Middle-Earth life. He can't have them both, but right now, in that passage, Frodo's still on the fence with a foot in both worlds. That's how I read that. I don't think that spiritually, Frodo has evolved yet, only fifty years old, but drowning from a Willow tree root and getting entombed in a Great Barrow and somebody stabbing you with a sword makes you start thinking in that direction.

So, when I apply that back to Amdir and the last King of Gondor, it makes sense for me to think of them in Frodo's category: except that, in Amdir and the King's case, the Witch King succeeded, and he didn't do it with the One Ring or other rings of power. He did it with the same Morgul sorcery that made that knife deadly to Frodo.

Amdir was a "foot soldier wraith", not a conscious Ring-wraith, "captain wraith", or I'm sure he would have had some parting evil words for Aragorn who showed up in the Instance rescue. I don't question that Sauron makes and controls the wraiths, whether through his own Maiar sorcery or through the extended Shadow of his own evil god, (don't remember the name of him offhand). But I think the difference in the outcomes between Amdir and Frodo is because of the Ring, something Amdir didn't have to tip the balance. The consciousness of Amdir died, plain and simple. It was not preserved by virtue of getting stabbed with a Morgul Blade. And I think that's where we disagree. But it was an author choice to write up the last King of Gondor the way they did. So that's what it is. What sorcery was used to transform the last King of Gondor into a Ring-wraith? Or maybe there was a ring involved in the preservation of consciousness beyond the growth versus decay choice being forced upon him that was going to turn him into a wraith under Sauron's control either way if he remained in Middle-Earth. In that way, the King was like Frodo, no choice in the matter, but for choosing whether to become a slave wraith or have 'free will' as a wraith, the option for leaving Middle-Earth denied to him. Would he be considered evil for wanting to preserve his own consciousness? I wouldn't think so. That's his only possible way of escape if he can actually think of something, and the alternative is just the acceptance of fate and a dream-like state of awareness and impotency that never ends.