Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Badest person in Middle-Earth

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > Characters > Badest person in Middle-Earth   [1] [2] >>

Hi ya peeps, how have you been? So my question is, who do you think is the biggest badass in all of Middle-Earth? The character can be male or female, of any race, from any age. In short, who would you want on your side in a fight? There is some pretty tough competition out there: Hurin, Fingolfin, Feanor, Aragorn, and many others too numerous to mention.

I am going to go with Maedhros. In battle, his enemies would flee before his face and he only had one hand...now that is one tough elf!

What you talking about? (almost) EVERYBODY'S A BADASS! Smile Smilie

Do Balrogs count???

If not, I wouldn't mind having Tom Bombadil on my side. I don't think I'd have a care in the world!

Well, well, Therian and Balrog's, good to see you both post!  Therian, we know that they are all BAD, but who is the baddest??  Come on now, give me a name!

And of course, Balrog's count!  But didn't Glorfindel slay one?  I think that makes him a contender!  But, Balrog's are indeed bad!

 I think the answer is Feanor.

Beorn!

Hi Turambar.  Indeed, you can't find many who are badder than Feanor.  One of my absolute favorite characters.  There wasn't anyone that I can think of, that he would not go to the mat against.  You can definitely make a strong argument for Feanor.

It is funny Brego, when I was posting this thread I was wondering who you would say.  I would never have guessed Beorn.  What made you choose him?  Not that I am questioning his elite badassness!!!

Aylee don't forget that the Balrog took him down too! I'm still pretty sure if I go to the movie theater with a balrog at my side I'll be getting in for free! An elf lord? Psh, please. Been there, done that, am I right?

 

Ecthelion of the Fountain is quite badass, slaying Gothmog an all (even tho he died himself in the same battle). As to appearance, I'd have to say Ancalagon, who wouldn't want a dragon as a pal!  

Well, well...you guys are all about the dragons and balrog's huh?  Well Rudi, what about Turin then?  He slayed one and did not die in the process.  Sure, sure, he was cursed and killed his best friend  and all, but he did slay a dragon!

Balrogs, you are indeed right, with a balrog by your side, not only would you get in to the movie free, but I am pretty sure you could have any seat you wanted!  But, you can't picture a pretty boy elf lord being badass?  What about Finrod?  I know, I know, you are thinking....ummm....badass is not the word that comes to mind when thinking of Finrod.  But hey, let us not forget he did slay a werewolf with his teeth. Come on now, how badass is that???

Okey, warewolf-slaying using teeth is probably the definition of badass. 
Thinking further, isn't a badass somewhat an antihero, talking about deeds and not appearance. Intentional nobel deeds isn't that badass, there just... nobel. The antihero is just trying to do stuff in it's own flawed way and therefore succedes in doing REALLY badass stuff. So in that way I'll conclude with Brego on Beorn as a complete badass. 

I just feel like anything, literally anything, that wields a giant flaming sword is pretty much a total bad ass. Sure over roughly 10,000 years (give or take a few thousand) the handful of balrogs were slain after epic showdowns, but what about the thousands they defeated, hm? Made only of fire and shadow. No bone structure, no outer skin layers or eyebrows or pimples. Just straight up fire and shadow. Huge. With flaming swords. And wings. And horns. Tell me that's not bad ass?

Just cause they're the bad guys doesn't mean they aren't totally awesome!!

Beorn vs Gothmog would be a pretty epic battle though.

Oh, I thought we were talking Badass as in tough, not actually Bad......  So its Beorn for me as the toughest. And its gotta be The Witch King as the Badest (most Evil).....

Lol, we are. And I'm saying a balrog is one TOUGH MOTHER. Again, don't forget all the countless great elven lords they took out with a swing of their sword. Everyone wants to mention Glorfindel.....does the name Feanor ring a bell, hm??

I don't know if Beorn could beat Gothmog though. Beorn is believed to be just a man who can shapeshift. What animal could he become to stand a chance against a monstrous creature of fire and shadow?? Sure a bear sounds great, but...come on....bear vs flaming sword and size.

And do not get me wrong, Beorn would probably be my number 2. But if we were placing bets, I'd probably go Gothmog

That of course is true. But I suspect that PJ's Beorn will be rather impressive! I've decided to go with PJ. Why be negative about changes. They are going to happen so why get upset. I quite like the tones so far, and I reckon AUEJ is a "set up" film. He has to cater to those who, unlike we reading fans of The Prof, know nothing of Middle Earth, or at least very little. I'm truly looking forward to going in again and just go with the spectacal.

This is not a film thread, and so I would say that there is no PJ's Beorn in Middle-earth any more than there is John Smith's Beorn from some fan fiction story on the web.

Incidentally anyone negatively criticizing Jackson's films need not be necessarily 'upset' [and for his specific changes, note -- not merely for changes in general]. There is nothing wrong with having an honest opinion and expressing it, and if it's negative then so be it -- it's being just as honest as those who are repeatedly praising and defending the films. 

Anyway, back to the thread about the 'baddest person' in Tolkien's books, I would only add that we should not only remember Feanor [in consideration of Balrog's comment that his name should ring a bell] but the circumstances of his death too...

... as Feanor had drawn far ahead of the van of his host, and his foes then turned, and there issued Balrogs [plural] to aid them. Feanor was then surrounded with few friends, but still he fought long and undismayed 'though he was wrapped in fire and wounded with many wounds.'

But at last Gothmog smote him to the ground, and there he would have perished had not his sons come to his aid: '... and the Balrogs left him.'

Feanor knew his wounds were mortal and he later died from them, but all I'm saying is that he had hardly been in a fair fight, and to my mind he seems to have at least possibly engaged a number of Balrogs [the Balrog number debate aside here], as well as other foes, including Gothmog...

... whom Ecthelion later slew Wink Smilie

That was quick Galin!  Circling above again waiting for someone to dare.......

lol

But my good friend Galin, that is a two way road. The balrogs were also fighting the sons of Feanor, who were probably just as powerful, if not moreso, than Gandalf the Grey. It consisted largely of his sons, who were some of the most powerful elves known. I'm also not seeing much about them "slaying" the balrogs, only that they drove them off. Whereas the balrogs definitely got in a few death blows.

On top of this, it also seems like initially it was just Feanor and Gothmog who crossed swords, and it was an epic battle, but this is where Gothmog got in his blows. THEN the rest of his small host came to his aid, giving him a chance to fall back, and were able to, again, drive the balrogs off. And also like you said, numbers are debatable in this scenario, so in all fairness it could go several ways.

Sure Etchelion defeated Gothmog, but again that was while storming arguably the most guarded city in the history of Middle Earth. A defense that might have succeeded if it weren't for the balrogs. And what about Durin's Bane, who not only survived the War of Wrath, but slayed COUNTLESS dwarves, namely Durin, because they tried to take back what was theirs? And considering there were probably only about 7 balrogs total (I know, I know, also very debatable. But it makes the most sense imo), and looking at all the victories they had before their defeat (which was always epic) thousands of years later, and that a few, or at least one, survived....well...I still think they are totally bad ass.

And I stand firm that if it was Gothmog vs Feanor in a death pit, Gothmog would win.

After reading Galin's post, I think that he wrote up a very strong case for Feanor.  So I will change my vote from Maedhros to Feanor.  Not discounting Maedhros's epic badnassness (is that even a word?).  After all, Maedhros was his father's son.

The only way we would really know for sure is the death pit match that Balrog's spoke of.  My money is on Feanor though. 

Brego wrote: That was quick Galin! Circling above again waiting for someone to dare.......

Just reading posts Brego, and responding. And 'waiting' for someone to dare what? No, in any case I'm not waiting for statements like yours as posted on 18 June, and actually I don't understand why you injected this film commentary here in this thread.

Balrogs wrote: But my good friend Galin, that is a two way road. The balrogs were also fighting the sons of Feanor, who were probably just as powerful, if not moreso, than Gandalf the Grey. It consisted largely of his sons, who were some of the most powerful elves known. I'm also not seeing much about them "slaying" the balrogs, only that they drove them off. Whereas the balrogs definitely got in a few death blows.

Balrogs were certainly powerful in general of course, as their very name suggests, but all I'm adding is a closer look at Feanor's death, as I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation here, at least fully.

On top of this, it also seems like initially it was just Feanor and Gothmog who crossed swords, and it was an epic battle, but this is where Gothmog got in his blows. THEN the rest of his small host came to his aid, giving him a chance to fall back, and were able to, again, drive the balrogs off.

Hmm, maybe Smile Smilie 

The text notes that Feanor, with but few friends, had become surrounded by Orcs and Balrogs that now issued from Angband [the Balrogs were not initially in the battle], the bad guys seeing that Feanor had made a tactical mistake.

So Feanor was wrapped in fire and wounded with many wounds -- not necessarily by Gothmog yet in my opinion, or Gothmog alone at least. Then 'but at the last' he was smitten to the ground by Gothmog -- Feanor's sons come up with aid just at this moment 'and the Balrogs left him [Feanor]' and departed.'

So while you are generally correct that this path goes two ways, I don't think we can certainly know that we had a one to one combat here, when Gothmog got in his blows. I read it as unfair odds rather, with Gothmog getting a notable and 'final' blow in -- and even perhaps smiting an already wounded, unfairly beset Elf. 

In the early 1950s Tolkien did not revise the old Quenta Silmarillion version [1930s version] of this encounter specifically, but he did note a slight difference in the early 1950s Grey Annals version. Again the host of Morgoth sees Feanor's mistake and Balrogs join the fray from Angband...

'There upon the confines of Dor Daedeloth, the land of Morgoth, Feanor was surrounded, with few friends about him. Soon he stood alone, but long he fought on, and laughed undismayed, though he was wrapped in fire and wounded with many wounds. But at the last Gothmog, Lord of the Balrogs, smote him to the ground, and there he would have perished, but Maidros and three other of his sons in that moment came up with force to his aid, and the Balrogs fled back to Angband.'

JRRT, Grey Annals section 45

To my mind it sounds like the Balrogs did not engage once they lost the advantage, and they fled [the word 'departed' is used in the Silmarillion version]. And here we learn that Feanor long fought on alone -- which is not stated in the Silmarillion version, which I think helps underscore the unfairness of the fight in general.

And also like you said, numbers are debatable in this scenario, so in all fairness it could go several ways.

Just to add: I also meant numbers from an external point of view. When Tolkien rewrote these passages in the early 1950s he still imagined that great numbers of Balrogs existed in Middle-earth [possibly thousands] in the First Age, even after he had penned the fight with Gandalf.

Later, based on a marginal note and a revision to the Annals of Aman, JRRT seems to have desired to drastically reduce the number of Balrogs that ever existed -- to as little as three [!] or at most seven, although in any case he did not revise all the texts that still suggested very many Balrogs [Christopher Tolkien revised nearly all these remaining references incidentally, for the 1977 Silmarillion].

Anyway, while I can't say, and am not saying, that your interpretation of the battle here is wrong necessarily, I read it otherwise, and feel that the text better suggests unfair odds rather than a 'fair fight' so to speak, between Gothmog and Feanor.

Balrogs are strong yes... and cheaters I think Wink Smilie

So while you are generally correct that this path goes two ways, I don't think we can certainly know that we had a one to one combat here, when Gothmog got in his blows. I read it as unfair odds rather, with Gothmog getting a notable and 'final' blow in -- and even perhaps smiting an already wounded, unfairly beset Elf.

Well there's definitely no argument there! This is just one of those up for interpretation Tolkien passages. And I love reading your texts, but you also draw subtle passages from multiple texts and merge them together to support your claims. Nothing at all wrong with this, but it does give an....advantage when trying to rationalize your thought. Again, nothing wrong with it, buuuut my interpretation stems mostly from the Sil. Which I do consider the final word. Potential revisions are too much of a grey area for me. Fascinating and I love them to death, but we'll never know for sure...

Just to add: I also meant numbers from an external point of view. When Tolkien rewrote these passages in the early 1950s he still imagined that great numbers of Balrogs existed in Middle-earth [possibly thousands] in the First Age, even after he had penned the fight with Gandalf.

And considering there were probably only about 7 balrogs total (I know, I know, also very debatable. But it makes the most sense imo)

cheeky      sad

 

Now this should be good....Galin, solely out of curiosity, why would you suggest balrogs are cheaters? Certainly not numbers over strength (or vice versa)? So then perhaps the Persians were cheaters when they fought the Spartans! Or were the American's cheaters when they used guerilla tactics against the British? Or maybe, just maybe, they were master tacticians! There is a fine line between strategy and cheating. At least if I were a general, ambushing your most powerful enemy seems a pretty smart move...

Just because they are the bad guys, doesn't mean they don't have excellent battle strategy...Not their fault Feanor decided to wander off on his own after being defeated towards an evil god's stronghold in the harshest lands of Arda out of frustration! And again what of Durin's Bane? Surely he wasn't cheating when he was stormed by thousands of dwarves?

They don't cheat. They are just the ultimate bad ass.

 

PS Aylee, I hope you put down some good money on that fight, cause I'm broke as hell right now!!

Well I heard the original purpose of the Balrog's shadow 'cloak' was to hide cards for poker night in Angband!

Smile Smilie

... Not their fault Feanor decided to wander off on his own after being defeated towards an evil god's stronghold in the harshest lands of Arda out of frustration!

It was a tactical mistake [Feanor's error] but maybe you're thinking of Fingolfin here? Feanor had recently had a nice victory, wrathful though he still was with Morgoth.

Again, nothing wrong with it, buuuut my interpretation stems mostly from the Sil. Which I do consider the final word. Potential revisions are too much of a grey area for me. Fascinating and I love them to death, but we'll never know for sure...

Hmm, well the edited, constructed Silmarillion of 1977 as final word probably deserves its own thread. I rather consider it a version for readers [a 'book experience' as opposed to a scholarly presentation of the existing material] but that's only a very brief comment about a somewhat complicated subject.

In my mind the problem with Feanor was Jealousy, pride and greed.  He probably was, as Tolkien tells us the greatest Elf in the Histories of Middle Earth, but as Tolkien constantly reminds us the negative aspects of greed and a lack of humility will always bring one undone. As witnessed in the Kinslaying and the spiteful burning of the Telerin Ships, Feanor was simply unstable and psychotic, he could not control his emotions, his power or his own kin, all aspects a good King requires.

Other than the first battle, in which he was slain, we really don't know how Feanor would have faired as a commander, warrior or King.  I'm actually glad that he left ME early as I'm sure he would have had a massive, negative effect on the Sindar, an effect which would probably had lead to a second Kinslaying and or total genocide therefore allowing Melkor total dominion.

These are the reasons I don't find Feanor great, only sad and flawed.

Do Balrogs count???

Hahaha. That just had to be written by Balrogs! Smile Smilie

Who would I want to have on my side? Probably Manwe, it just can't go wrong with him Wink Smilie But while we're talking specifically about Middle Earth I's say Gandalf. Cause as long as he's on the bright side of things he's immortal Wink Smilie

Among Men... I think Turin would be a good ally, if he wouldn't be so ill-fated. He was exceptionally skilled and brave.

Among less noble creatures I'd say maybe Witchking of Angmar or Carcharoth. If Carcharoth didn't swallow the Silmarill, he would not be killed in my opinion. And Witchking of Angmar was skilled in both war and sorcery so as long as he would be fighting against Men and Men only - he would be unbeatable.

Bill the Pony

Oh we have to mention Eowyn and Arwen as they were both willing to give up everything, including their own live for the good of all.  The true sign of a might hero.

Now Brego, remember this isn't necessarily the thread for great heroes....but rather who was a total bad ass! Arwen, though cool enough and an inspiring character, wasn't really that....*ahem* bad ass, IMO. Eowyn definitely meets the requirements though.

But, on that note, I really don't know how I forgot who, in all seriousness (though balrogs are totally awesome), was probably my favorite character of the entire series...Faramir.

Also probably MY most upsetting complaint about the LOTR movies was how Faramir was just not done justice. A) They left out some of his greatest moments, and B) his character came off as more.....I dunno, whiny and weak than the real Faramir. Though I'm sure the fact Denethor was some mad power hungry dictator who hated his son factored in.

But the REAL Faramir, is, indeed...a total BA.

Okay Balrogs, Faramir is a bad ass in his own right, but he is no Feanor.  Not by a long shot.  Faramir would not stand a chance against Feanor in the death ring match you were talking about!  You know this...

Lol, oh yeah, I don't think there's any denying that. Any first age elf could beat....pretty much anything under the right circumstances. So I moved on from the deathmatch thing since I already know Gothmog would win.

 

But since LOTR is full of total BA's, I was a little disappointed he hadn't been mentioned yet since he is the ultimate bad ass. And disappointed in myself for not mentioning him earlier!

Gothmug?  Sheesh...even pretty boy Glorfindel could kick his ummm....would it be tail???  Do Balrog's have tails?  I will have to look at some pictures.  I can't really remember.  Hmmm.  Anyway, back to the point.  I was kinda liking your death match idea!  But Faramir...he's okay.  If you are talking about 3rd age mortals though, I prefer King Theoden!  Mortals from any age?  That vote definitely goes to Turin.

Ok, last defense of the balrogs I swear, but Glorfindel slayed a lesser balrog. And the only other balrog I'd trust is Durin's Bane, since he survived one of the greatest battles in history, and defeated eons of dwarf attacks, including great dwarves like Durin and Balin. And let me remind you Gothmog was moments away from killing Tuor when Etchelion INTERFERED and defeated him. To name a few minor achievements...

Helped defeat Ungoliant.

Defeated Feanor

Defeated Fingon and his bodyguards

Captured Hurin (pretty sure)

Led numerous armies to victory over thousands and thousands of years.

Going back to earlier, the several vs one argument is a two way road. Sure when he defeated Feanor he retreated when he was outnumberd....but he'd be a fool not to! The Sons of Feanor were, what, six or seven of the most powerful elves in the history of all time. We know there were only seven balrogs, not all of which were in this ambush. Gothmog was probably worn down by his battle with Feanor. So it then became 8 on, we'll say 4 or 5 (since I don't think it's ever specified), to give the benefit of the doubt. And come on, don't even get me started on the number of "good guys" who retreated once they lost the advantage!!

Last note on the balrogs, but pretty much every balrog that was defeated was fighting numerous foes at once. Whereas we have several mentions of balrogs getting in the final blow against whoever, without specifying clearly he had or needed help, or plenty of battles where they were evenly numbered by lesser soldiers while fighting great heroes and still lead their side to victory. In the case of Durin's Bane, Gandalf had a lot of help from the environment: Fallen bridge, fell through water, snowy peak etc. Plus I'm sure Durin's Bane was a bit rusty from living under a mountain for a few millenia. In a one on one deathmath with no interference and no environment around them, Gothmog would defeat Gandalf the Grey. I'd have to think about Gandalf the White, but that would also mean Gandalf the White could beat Feanor, which means he would be the ultimate BA. Which admittedly is an arguable case...

And let's not forget Feanor, though a bad ass, was flawed in numerous ways, which IMO detracts from his greatness, no matter how powerful he was or what victories he may have achieved.

And come on now, this thread isn't about figuring out who's more of a bad ass! Just those who ARE bad ass. And it seems unfair to compare ANYONE before the Third Age to someone after the Third Age... Though I wouldn't immediately assume Turin could defeat Faramir. Faramir was probably a superior archer with speed, Turin was more of a heavy duty warrior with a two handed black sword. Would be sweet to watch, but would definitely be close.

We know there were only seven balrogs, not all of which were in this ambush. Gothmog was probably worn down by his battle with Feanor. So it then became 8 on, we'll say 4 or 5 (since I don't think it's ever specified), to give the benefit of the doubt. And come on, don't even get me started on the number of "good guys" who retreated once they lost the advantage!!

Yet we know that when Tolkien wrote this passage there were very many Balrogs in Middle-earth, enough to comprise a 'host' or even as much as one thousand. We don't know how many issued from Angband at this battle, but in any case it wasn't just Balrogs either, as they aided the other servants of Angband. 

For example, when Maedhros was taken later...

'Then Maidros the Tall, the eldest son, persuaded the Gnomes to feign to treat with Morgoth, and to meet his emissaries at the place appointed; but the Gnomes had as little thought of faith as had Morgoth. Wherefore each embassy came with greater force than was agreed, but Morgoth sent the greater and they were Balrogs.'

 JRRT, Quenta Silmarillion

Here we seemingly have a force of Balrogs ['they' were Balrogs]. Christopher Tolkien changed this to '... and there were Balrogs' for the 1977 Silmarillion.

It is only in 1958 or later that Tolkien wrote a single note in the margin of The Annals of Aman that perhaps there were as little as three Balrogs, or at most seven, that ever existed, and he revised one passage in The Annals of Aman that referred to very many Balrogs -- not the Feanor passage in any case [in The Grey Annals or Quenta Silmarillion], and not others that still referred to very many Balrogs [one referred to a 'host' of Balrogs, for example].

So while it seems to be Tolkien's later idea that only seven Balrogs ever existed, we really don't know how many issued from Angband here: not in the early 1950s version -- where we could have had hundreds for example, which wouldn't necessarily have been all of them -- nor in the purely hypothetical scenario of Tolkien revising this description with the change of number in mind. And again, in any case they were not alone...

... but Feanor ultimately was alone, and still he fought on against the odds.

Ok, the balrogs discussion is a bit drawn out now. Fine, a balrog could potentially lose against Feanor. Everyone satisfied? Let's talk about some other great characters now....

Arwen could beat a Balrog.....

 

lol only kidding.

 

Tulkus would probably be a baddass if he wanted to be.

Tulkus would probably be a baddass if he wanted to be.

Tulkas was a bad ass.   He was sent specifically to help in the war against Melkor.  As such he was the strongest being, and the person who would probably win any one on one fight against anyone from anytime.

That's very true Gwindor, however you would have to either wrong him greatly or wrong his Kin as Tulkus is slow to anger but also slow to forget.  He would become a Badass if he had to tho! lol

Tulkas was born a bad ass and has no need to become one...

Balrogs (and their slayers) would be useful to have on one's side in battle, and I do agree that Feanor is as bad as they come, but I can't let this thread go by without more fanfare for his "half-brother in blood, full brother in heart!" Come on, people! Fingolfin threw down a challenge at Morgoth in his insatiable anguish! He wounded the fallen Vala seven times and cowed the spectating Orcs so much that they dare make no boast of the duel in all days to come. And I'm pretty sure that even now, out there in the Void, our heinous Morgoth is clutching his foot and cursing the day that he met Ringil in the black pits of Angband. 

 

Oh, and my favorite part about Fingolfin? 

He trash-talked Morgoth. 

Another bad ass would have to be Gwindor.  After seeing his brother murdered he charged the hosts of Morgoth, Morgoth trembled.  He scared Morgoth.  Unfortunately he was captured by Morgoths reserves, and held captive in Angband.  He then escaped, losing his hand in the process, 14 years down the line. 

Melkor.

Starting with his music, then actions in Arda...

Personally I don't think Melkor was a bad ass.  Just an incredibly self entitled jerk.  He was one of (if not the) most powerful being on the Earth,yet he feared many of the Elves.   While fearing your 'subjects' is a common theme with dictators, generally dictators have no more power than their subjects, making them susceptible to assassinations ect. 

Smile Smilie

I think Melkor is badest, because he is creator of evil- BAD. He created this, when universe was created through THE MUSIC of the Ainur. 

So, i think, that all higher mentioned badest persons are so bad as they are, because Melkor created themSmile Smilie.

I personally don't think the Valar can really be accredited with creating anything.  Each of them is just a part of Illuvatar, and so really that part of jealousy ect was something which Illuvatar must have had in the beginning, even if it wasn't apparent or something he himself was aware of.

Hm, thats may be right.

I can agree.

I'd have to disagree on both accounts, Gwindor. The Vala play a HUGE role in the creation of the world. They brought us light, they brought us trees and grass, they gave us a sun and a moon. True enough it was all part of Illuvatar's plan, but his intention was to throw them into darkness and see what they do with it. So perhaps they didn't "create" the world, but they certainly helped form it.

Also remember, Illuvatar didn't specifically imagine stones and dragons and love and castles or swords, he just laid the foundation so that stuff like that could potentially be real. He has imagined all sorts of stuff that has never been known to any force other than himself. Does that mean it's not real? Is it only real when the Vala "create" something that makes it real? What is the difference between possible and real? He knew Melkor was special and had a destiny that did not at all fit with the others, but he did not necessarily anticipate him becoming a Dark Lord and changing his name to Morgoth. That's why Manwe would directly ask Illuvatar questions but never get a direct answer (or so it seems).

As for Morgoth, he is totally a bad ass. Remember we have to leave out good/evil feelings in this discussion (at least I think so :P )! His armor was awesome. His fortresses were totally awesome. He had werewolves and dragons and beasts of fire and darkness at his command. I mean, come on....that's pretty bad ass right there. It took an entire army of demigods just to take him down, and knowing he's still out there somewhere, trapped in another dimension, constantly scheming and working to escape so he can bring about the end of days.

Granted he is also very bad and at the same time a huge ass, but...still a bad ass!

Ya guys are all idiots. Melkor. He is the very second creature to live, survived the void several times, and fought almost to a stalemate the other valar before any elves even existed. My other choice is feanor. He created the silmarils which have thought and decision making, not burning Beren, then burning that wolf. No other being save eru illuvitar could do such a thing. Aule tryed with the dwarves but needed erus help, no one else even tried. The only reason he is not better is because he made the silmarils in valinor and not middle earth. No one else comes close except the other valar and mabey ungoliat, who is my favorite character, literally a mountain sized spider that can turn invisible.
Curufinwe , you should remember that most of the time Melkor had others do his dirty work. A true baddass is powerful in one to one combat. Melkite failed in this in all but one battle, and this was with an Elf who put up a great battle and he only just overpowered him. He was a coward most of the time. Supremely evil, but in my book no Baddass!

Curufinwe, you may want to reconsider starting off your very first post by calling everyone idiots just because they disagree. Really sets the tone for every post thereafter.   I do agree Ungoliant qualifies as a bad ass though.

Now in Morgoth's defense, he did kill Finwe. And of course he also defeated Fingolfin, even though he was wounded from the fight. And of course considering the fight he put up against the Vala even with this wound is a testament to his single combat prowess.

Coward is a harsh word for the one who stormed and pillaged Valinor almost single handedly...

Coward is harsh dearest Balrogs. But in my mind cowardous plays a part in true evil. Agreed on the idiot quote BTW. I ignored it.....

Ah geez Cloveress, yes how can we forget Fingolfin?  One of my favorite parts of the whole book is when he called Morgoth out.  "Craven", I believe he called him and "lord of thralls."  Gotta love Fingolfin.  He is as bad as it gets.  And Morgoth?  I am in full agreement that he was a badass....corrupting that many minions (including Ungoliant) to do your will?? 

  [1] [2] >>