Does this really have black and white morality? Or is it only brainlets who say this?

theres 2 streams of evil
Theres literal good vs evil, because morgoth is an evil god and basically the devil who has tainted the entire world.
And anything aligning with him or Sauron after the first age is evil in that it is corrupted and looks visibly ugly. Evil that doesn't exist IRL

Then there character flaws. Which are grey. Its mostly in the Silmarillion but elves show it the best. Where not a single one goes to the side of evil even once. But over and over there are self destructive and evil decisions made by them anyway

Morality IRL is black and white. White people are good, black people are evil. Think about it LOGICALLY.

Attached: literally.jpg (499x615, 28.13K)

.t hypocrite

saying its black and white is just a surface level take which is fine, there is more nuance that the books covers more, like frodo and sam aren't pure paragons of good, frodo ultimately succumbs to the ring at the end and sam constantly bullies smeagol that hinders his road to redemption

The whole book is just a synonym for shell shock/ptsd irl compared to carrying the the ring.

Did you feel smart typing this all out?

Orcs and shit were pretty clear cut evil but others like Denethor were more complex

The scene where Frodo and Gandalf talk about Gollum is literally the opposite

Explain

all that matters is that it has no blacks

>No argument

t. filthy NWO NPC
Objective morality and subjective morality exists on a case by case basis, plebs like you are meant to be put to work because they can't understand the difference and become useful idiots for marxists.

Attached: 1641170454950.jpg (850x400, 67.05K)

Why does something have to be morally grey to be good?

Coz grrm said so

"Objective" morality cannot exist. It's a contradiction. Morals aren't quantifiable in the way that something like math or temperature is. They're abstract concepts. It's literally been known for thousands of years. Try taking a basic philosophy course, before trying again. We'll be here, having actual morality, and waiting for you, until then.

Age 5: morality is black and white
Age 15: morality is shades of gray
Age 25: is morality really shades of gray?
Age 35: morality is black and white

>Sometimes your only choice is between two shitty options and you have to choose between sticking to your principles even if it makes life objectively worse
how do you know an option is shitty?
why do you think sticking to principles is good?
how do you know what a worse life is?

you pretend that you don't believe in good but everything you say depends on it

Good luck perfectly defining any word then. If you do, you'd get flooded with honorary doctorates from all the universities, because you'd have done something so revolutionary, that every philosopher would know who you are for the rest of humanity's recorded history.
Just because adults stop worrying about these things, doesn't change the complexity.
>t. wasted money on a philosophy degree

You're an idiot who thinks my criticism of strict moral binaries means I subscribe to another retarded moral binary.

Either way, you're an absolutionist that misconstrues what "gray" morality means. Gray morality is just believing that the two extremes exist but most human action falls somewhere along the middle on the sliding scale. Black and white morality believes there is no middle-ground

This. Even Tolkien said orcs were not beyond redemption, it might be exceedingly hard for them in a practical sense, but they were not beyond it.

No, Miyazaki is just being a faggot.

Bump

This

>because in the books the likes of Saruman and Denethor are much greyer characters with understandable motivations

color analogy

>It's not about black/white per se, but rather that evil loses because it is evil, and good wins because it is good.

literally made for children

Here's your answer
youtu.be/bi8q1Eopk2U?t=269

It does only have black and white morality, but there are a few characters in Tolkien's mythology that are more or less gray. Feanor was a gray character, in my opinion. He hated Melkor more than anyone. Melkor was THE evil of that universe. So Feanor hated evil. Despite that, he killed his own brethren, abandoned others, cursed the Valar, and was an all around dick to pretty much everybody. I'm sure that Tolkien himself would file Feanor under "bad," but I wouldn't.

I'd file him under "autism."

overrated manchild garbage

I like Saruman. He's really only in it for himself. He doesn't care about Sauron (and in fact betrays him pretty early on) and he doesn't care about the "good guys" either. Too bad Tolkien was such a christcuck and failed to appreciate pragmatic characters who weren't interested in petty moralizing.

Insightful.

niggas be talkin about nuances and grey morality and how in the real world there's no good and evil until a certain nigga from germany pulls up. never forget that you live in the post-war world and that's just Good, is nuance treasonous in this context! Yes!

Also, Feanor and Turin are based grey characters from Tolkien

You wish.

Attached: 1651174648359.jpg (1268x969, 345.48K)

more insightful than tolkien´s ouvre

I'm going to talk about Arwen, because I really want to talk about Arwen and her role in the movies, it relates somewhat to morality in the sense that the screenwriters of the movies are HACKS!!

There was no need to replace Glorfindel with Arwen in the Fellowship of the Ring. The purpose of the replacement was to give Arwen “something to do” during the events of the War of the Ring.
In Hollywood fashion, of course, this means she has to do some action, so she rescues Frodo from the Nazgul, swaggerjacking Glorfindel, Elrond, Gandalf and Frodo in the process. She doesn’t do anything else during the rest of the next two movies, they had planned, to give her a sword and that was thankfully cut. I used to have the opinion that giving her “something to do” was handled well enough.
Arwen IS a very important character, she represents the very last link to the Ancient Days, to the First Age, to the light of the Trees.
Her importance should be made clear in any adaptation, but making her do “action guy” stuff is so ham-fisted.

Attached: Dumbwen.jpg (500x367, 101.51K)

Eöl was evöl

What I just realized is that Arwen has plenty to do during the War of the Ring, this of course, is completely cut from the movies, but Arwen makes Aragorn’s banner.
The King’s Banner. The banner that gets unfurled at the darkest hour during the battle of the Pelennor Fields and gives everyone hope.
That is how magic works in Tolkien’s Legendarium, it’s a product of skill, labor and cunning. Arwen weaves her own hopes for the future in this Banner and when it gets unfurled for the very first time, it gives the reinforcements, the city and the beleaguered Rohirrim heart and hope.
A full day of battle is still ahead and the day is finally won, thanks to the reinforcements yes, thanks to the valor of the Rohirrim, yes, but the unfurling of the King’s Banner was the turn of the tide, what a coincidence.

Arwen does not need to steal anybody’s spotlight; she just needs to be portrayed accurately.

TL;DR: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson are hacks. The answer is always in the Lore

Attached: Arwen.jpg (1280x720, 124.49K)

He is literally Saruman of many colors you colossal brown faggot

Arwen got done so dirty in the movies, she has such an amazing, powerful, beautiful moment, that shows her power and that is so important and it got totally dismissed, I have no idea why

Attached: 1645456649427.png (531x767, 421.88K)

Yeah, and his son actually did rat on the Gondolindhrim to Morgoth. Not sure if that’s him really “siding with evil” though cause he did it due to his thirst for Idril much like Grima and Eowyn

Was Theoden wise to have a man named "Grima Wormtongue" as his top advisor?

>Saruman of many colors

what´s next, gandalf of one color? oh wait, i thought this wasn´t a crayon book

just admit it, this is a book for little kids, if you´re still into it, that means your a manchild, a redditor manchild if you will

I disagree with the dichotomy, complacency and apathy from good people is all evil needs to win, you dont need to actively swear allegiance to satan to be a bad person.
None of tolkiens characters are that unclear as to where they belong. The good ones are just that, good and noble, while schemers and sneaks are rightfully seen as collaborators. Not in a You must die way but still

Gandalf was changed to white so that tolkien wouldnt have to color him in, just like Goku

the only black and white morality I see in this is that all the whites are good guys and all the blacks are bad, which is essentially the same as real life.

Just admit you like sucking cocks, user. It's okay. It's 2022. Nobody cares.

>noooooo I cant enjoy a story if its black and white morality, where are my heckin cool gray jedi that have both sith and jedi powers!!!!
there is no gray morality in real life either.

Saruman is by all measures a gray character, he works to undermine both the bad guy and the good guys for his own gain.

the story has no need of obscure morality either, the entire point is industrialism bad, and that evil ultimately destroys itself by its own nature.

what´s a goku? these manchild with their weird terminologies, i swear man, can you just jerk off with your stupid books? instead of larping that you´re a man of culture, i bet you also like star wars

>there is no gray morality in real life either.

yes they are, but gray morality isn´t the appropiate term, reality is the more apt one

Bór the Faithful died in the Nírnaeth Arnoediad fighting on behalf of the Noldor.

just you fucking wait until the LOTR tv series where they make Galadriel a fucking warrior princess. She didnt see a lick of combat in the books or Hacksons trilogy and I still knew from the way she was portrayed onscreen that she was the most powerful being on middle earth after Sauron. But no, give her a sword and armor and some really heckin awesome action scenes.

"Grey morality" doesn't exist, it's called fucking reality.
Sometimes your only choice is between two shitty options and you have to choose between sticking to your principles even if it makes life objectively worse for you and those around you or compromising your principles to avoid making things worse.

>Sometimes your only choice is between two shitty options and you have to choose between sticking to your principles even if it makes life objectively worse for you and those around you or compromising your principles to avoid making things worse.

tolkien faggots are too dumb to be aware of this concept, they prefer to live in wishfulfillment fantasies instead

Attached: 1641480817880.jpg (520x526, 128.12K)

the soul of a white.

name one character in LOTR that doesnt fall under what you just quoted.

the only people who reject Tolkein are globo-homo drones and non-whites.

>the only people who reject Tolkein are intelligent people

ftfy

Attached: 1584774435060.jpg (850x400, 47.96K)

Black and white morality is bad because... IT JUST IS OK