>Has the coolest bad guys

[Anonymous No.14162757]

[Anonymous No.14162789]

>>14162757
>Orcs
>Trolls
>Wraiths
>Fell Beasts
>Haradrim
>Easterlings
>Coastal Mercenaries
>Balrog
>Saruman
>Sauron
>Melkor
>Giant Spiders

[Anonymous No.14162800]

>>14162757
Cool, how? They don’t even have a rational justification for what they do; they’re just evil, ugly, scary, cartoon villains set on world domination.

[Anonymous No.14162805]

>>14162800
based, kind of like black people

[Anonymous No.14162878]

>>14162800
>a rational justification for what they do
Why would that be good?

[Anonymous No.14162892]

>>14162757
why was he afraid of people "from the East" ?

[Anonymous No.14162899]

>>14162892
crusader trope that slipped into the story

[Anonymous No.14163045]

>>14162892
The Easterlings were forced into war. And the Haradrim hated Gondor because Gondor was lead by arrogant smarmy assholes.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163070]

>>14162789
>Giant Spiders
Ungoliant And Shelob

[Anonymous No.14163074]

>>14162757
>le bad black evil king in the fiery wasteland

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163100]

>>14162800
Like Satan they want control of the world, the darkness of Melkor’s vision, or something like that. But yeah, how are there whole species of cartoon baddies to feel good about killing? No grey areas of a nice goblin family trying to live in the shire or w/e. It’s unrealistic child’s fare of course. Just like all mythology/religion at their core.

>>14162892
JRR was a Hobbit. Every direction scares hobbits into their comfy holes

[Anonymous No.14163131]

>>14163100
Why should these goblins and monsters be portrayed like that? They're meant to stand in for concepts, not portray psychological realism. Same goes for your opinion of mythology/religion - they don't represent the world as it appears to us (with realism), but the world of ideas.
>JRR was a Hobbit. Every direction scares hobbits into their comfy holes
Wasn't there a whole bit in the "The Hobbit" about how hiding from the world is not good?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163193]

>>14163131
>They're meant to stand in for concepts
I said as much.
>Wasn't there a whole bit in the "The Hobbit" about how hiding from the world is not good?
And what was the conclusion, if any. To venture out and conquer or to make peace with the forces of good so they can conquer the baddies...
It’s okay. I like LotR fine.

[Anonymous No.14163206]

>>14163193
>>14163100
>>14163070

retarded tripfaggot

[Anonymous No.14163211]

>>14162800

If there is a reasonable rational justification they aren't bad guys. Moral "grey areas" are for faggots anyway

[Anonymous No.14163216]

>>14163193
Well, why should it be bad or juvenile that they stand in for concepts? In fact it seems the best and most intelligent way to write, since universal ideas have more value than particular individuals.
>To venture out and conquer or to make peace with the forces of good so they can conquer the baddies...
Why should this be bad, or shallow? One might say, that this is not how virtue and vice appear to us in reality, but a work does not necessarily have to explain how to distinguish between the two - it might instead focus on how vice is overcome, as Tolkien seems to do.
>It’s okay. I like LotR fine.
Personally, I was never a fan - but that's neither here nor there.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163329]

>>14163216
>Well, why should it be bad or juvenile that they stand in for concepts?
When the concepts are wrong the child has to work out how the world works anew. At worst they never do and they are controlled by their state with simple propaganda
>In fact it seems the best and most intelligent way to write, since universal ideas have more value than particular individuals.
What!? Lies have more value to the state than the individual is what you just said, right?
>Why should this be bad, or shallow?
There are no goblins and orks. Of course it’s bad.

[Anonymous No.14163338]

>>14162800
>>14163100
>>14163211
Tolkien, himself, did later regret making orcs pure evil.

[Anonymous No.14163360]

>>14163329
>When the concepts are wrong the child has to work out how the world works anew
You're saying, then, that the problem is not in the fact that they are presented conceptually rather than realistically, but that they are false? I would agree with that, but you seem to be changing your position.
>What!? Lies have more value to the state than the individual is what you just said, right?
No. I can rephrase: in fiction, universal ideas have more intellectual and literary value than representations of particular fictional individuals. Lies and the state don't come into matter.
>There are no goblins and orks. Of course it’s bad.
This is really an argument against fiction in general, since no fictional character or event ever truly existed. But, just as human characters in other works can represent meaningful ideas even though they do not literally exist, goblins and fairies can do the exact same.

[Anonymous No.14163397]

>It was Sam’s first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man’s name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163412]

>>14163338
He was a good lad.

>>14163360
Fiction is representational and instructive, at its best anyway. At its worst, pap and mis-directional.
I don’t have a problem with them being fictional, but how they’re portrayed

[Anonymous No.14163462]

>>14163412
>Fiction is representational and instructive, at its best anyway. At its worst, pap and mis-directional.
I agree for the most part - but surely all fiction is representational.
>I don’t have a problem with them being fictional, but how they’re portrayed
What is the problem? They are meant to represent evil, and therefore, they are portrayed as evil. How would you improve the situation?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163509]

>>14163462
Well representationally pap, and lies
>>14163462
I would write a fantasy that does not idealize the seat of kings. I see some of Tolkien making it seem fraught with corruption, and his king is an Arthurian Robin Hood hybrid, but I’d get Thomas Paine levels in there is all.

[Anonymous No.14163536]

>>14163338

Orcs aren't pure evil. They're slaves to pure evil.

[Anonymous No.14163606]

>>14163509
>Well representationally pap, and lies
Do you mean that all fiction represents lies, and that all fiction has little value? Or are you referring to some work in particular?
I must have posed the question poorly - I meant to ask, In which manner would you present the orcs and goblins, etc.?
>I would write a fantasy that does not idealize the seat of kings.
This is another discussion entirely, but in my opinion, an author should, in almost every case, write a monarchical story: firstly because they have great aesthetic appeal, secondly because their antiquity prevents them being a viable political alternative and therefore discourages political interpretation, thirdly because a king is a constant presence among almost every culture, and fourthly because the relation of king to subject is essentially that of a powerful individual forcing his will upon another and therefore the most universal.
The only case wherein one should be critical of monarchy is in a story where one deals with the particulars of statecraft and political life, but this is a subject greatly inferior - in most cases the author should present all earthly authority and power as one general entity, and forget the pettier details.

[Anonymous No.14163614]

>>14163100
> Just like all mythology/religion at their core.
Wasn't even a bad post until this.
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.14163618]

>DUDE EVIL SUCKS UNLESS ITS RATIONAL XD

[Anonymous No.14163622]

>>14162878
>what is depth

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163630]

>>14163606
>In which manner would you present the orcs and goblins, etc.?
With some grey tones. Good ones, bad ones. They all seem to be in a trance, slaves, said above, but none of them ever broke their bonds and settled in Gondor or something? Seems not.

[Anonymous No.14163640]

>>14163622
Why should it be more profound to give rational justifications for the villains? If you think I'm wrong, please show me why, because I would like to be corrected

[Anonymous No.14163643]

>>14163100
>No grey areas of a nice goblin family trying to live in the shire

I'd read it.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163647]

>>14163614
Hurts?

>>14163618
It would make it interesting to have a realistic reason for the conflict. Fighting over magic rings or silmarills is video game tier

[Anonymous No.14163652]

>>14163630
Why would you do this?
Keep in mind that this change would alter the meaning of the orcs and goblins, since they would no longer represent only evil, and that along with them, the story in general would also change in significance.

[Anonymous No.14163657]

>>14163647
>It would make it interesting to have a realistic reason for the conflict
How so? If you want us to be in the right, please explain why you believe these things.

[Anonymous No.14163669]

>>14163640
Because there is no pure evil and no one does something just because they're evil.

It doesn't have to be a rational reason, but anything that can explain their actions besides defaulting to "Oh, because they're evil." It doesn't explain anything.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163670]

>>14163652
I know. I’m not trying to ruin a good well told yarn but point the way new stuff ought to go. The real world is full of lies and it’s a systemic problem that makes people evil, and by degrees. Better fiction should reflect this reality

[Anonymous No.14163679]

>>14163070
>>14163100
>>14163193
>>14163412
>>14163509
>>14163647
Butterfly you whore, I'll leave you alone! *gasp* You'll regret this, you're too big, I can feel your cock pulsing through my tight ass. <moan as you move in closer to him> Your cock is so tight! <kiss> Fuck, you're so strong, I need you inside me now. <giggle> I think it's time you give it a little titty fuck. <moan> Fuck! You're so big. I could never take you down! This is great! I've been so fucking horny lately. <moan> You can take it harder! I want your cock to stretch my ass. Fuck me, fuck me hard! <Moan> Fuck your little whore! Fuck me hard! <improvise to orgasm> That's it. Take me, use me, take me. <pause> Oh! No, you can't keep me waiting.

[Anonymous No.14163705]

>>14163669
This is really an argument against fiction in general. It is true that no inherently evil person ever existed (let's assume so), but it is also true that no fictional character or occurrence ever existed either. But just as fictional characters can represent meaningful ideas even though they do not literally exist, fictional evil villains can do the exact same.
>>14163670
I agree that this happens in the real world, but it doesn't mean that fiction has to revolve around this exact issue. An author can write a work about, say, confronting evil rather than recognizing it - and for this, unambiguous villains fit well.

[Anonymous No.14163708]

>>14163669
>"Oh, because they're evil." It doesn't explain anything.
Evil is Evil. It's explain everything.

[Anonymous No.14163778]

>>14163708
It's also a cop out and has no depth

[Anonymous No.14163801]

>>14163778
Please explain why it has no depth

[Anonymous No.14163863]

>>14163647

and once again this fucking homo shows tripfaggots are the purest cancer to ever exist

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163876]

>>14163863
You bring nothing to the discussion. Get out.

This 14163679 is crap too. Cut it out.

[Anonymous No.14163883]

>>14163876
May I suggest leaving away the tripcode? That would reduce these kinds of comments and thus increase the quality of discussion.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14163951]

>>14163883
No it would not. It would eliminate these specific replies only. The quality decreased since name users left, and even more since I was last here. This always happens to forced Anonymous boards. Always. It is an excuse to act up.

[Anonymous No.14163998]

>>14163951
It would eliminate these specific replies, yes, and that would be a positive change.
>The quality decreased since name users left, and even more since I was last here
Now this might be true, but we must make decisions based on the current state of things. Right now you have the power to remove many disruptive messages that would come in the future - if you want the best for the thread, you should stop using the tripcode.

[Anonymous No.14164312]

>>14163951
Oh, I get it now. You wear the tripcode to remind us of the better times. The golden before times of youth. It has nothing at all to do with you being an insipid attention whore. Haha I totally get it now, cool.

[Anonymous No.14164324]

>>14163679

[Anonymous No.14164516]

>>14164324
Please Buttersy my cute little mommy you my delightful favourite tripfag, fire of my loins, goddess of my dreams, please for the love of God post a picture of your butthole every night I fantasize about cumming deep inside your lovely little pink hole and making you call me daddy and asking if it hurts and hearing you reply yes daddy then asking you if you're willing to take the pain for daddy then thrusting even harded as you moan everything for you daddy and then cumming deep inside you and grabbing your hair and yelling really loud as your buttocks are pressed against my crotch and sticking two fingers in your mouth as you feel my warm load fill your anal cavity and then calling you a good girl and patting you on the head and watching you lay on your back as you wait for the sperm to drip out of your arsehole and then making some avocado toast for both of us and calling you a good submissive girl as you grab your pained hole and call me a sick fuck please butters do it just once.