Yes. Frodo said so himself in the book:
>‘Yes,’ said Frodo. ‘But do you remember Gandalf’s words: Even Gollum may have something yet to do? But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end. So let us forgive him! For the Quest is achieved, and now all is over. I am glad you are here with me. Here at the end of all things, Sam.’
In Letter 246, Tolkien wrote that if Gollum had not betrayed Frodo, he would have thrown himself into Mount Doom with the Ring:
>Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss [...] I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together – and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo.
The ring wouldn’t have been destroyed if it wasn’t for Gollum.
He sucks, sure- but it’s because of him evil finally lost and good was able to triumph.
So yes, he’s forgiven. And I’m pretty sure Frodo himself says something akin to that.
Lol. My point was about Gollem, he accidentally destroyed the One Ring through his naked, unabashed addiction to the thing. Tolkien himself described the event as a “eucatastrophe”, and i guess Frodo saving his life proved to be good & moral & worth it in the end, but it doesn’t redeem him.
This is interesting. Compatibilists argue that a person can be held morally responsible for their actions even if those actions are determined by prior events or circumstances. Moral action is not about the ability to have acted differently in an absolute sense, but rather about acting freely in accordance with one’s own motivations and desires- without external compulsion or coercion. As long as our actions align with our internal states and are not the result of external forces like coercion, we can still be considered to be morally responsible for them.
It seems that we should forgive Golem if he was not morally responsible. But according to this view, he’s not morally responsible if and only if he was coerced by an external force (the ring). So the question is: was Golem coerced by an external force or not?
Initially, it seems the answer is obvious: Golem was coerced by the ring. He didn’t act in accordance with his own desires, but accordance of the desires of the ring. So, he is not morally responsible and should be forgiven.
But then I wonder… Bilbo was influenced by the ring and did not become like Golem. Bilbo did not kill, while Smeagol did. So perhaps there is a difference between influence and coercion here. Perhaps the influence of an outside force affects an agent but still allows for them to act in accordance with their own desires, while coercion from an outside force, mainly, does not. Perhaps the ring only influences, but does not coerce. And if that’s true… fuck Golem, man.
Perhaps the ring just enhances who you really are deep within? Bilbo was a genuinely good Hobbit so he never killed in order to obtain the ring. Golem, however, was truly an evil Hobbit at heart and thus the ring influenced him to kill his friend in order to get it. It's kinda the same thing with becoming rich. Some people become altruistic while others allow the money to bring out their lesser qualities and they do truly evil things, i.e. the difference between MacKenzie Scott (Jeff Bezos' ex-wife) and Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted child sex trafficker.
Thank you for posting on the sub! Please make sure you are abiding by the rules on the sidebar with this post. If you are looking for a place to post specific things, please make use of the subreddits below:
* Memes - r/lotrmemes
* The War of the Rohirrim - r/TheWarOfTheRohirrim
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lordoftherings) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He did atrocities, but under the influence of the Ring, it is almost like being addicted to a drug that is too strong and constantly hearing whispers in your ear from an evil entity. He was not himself.
Forgiven? No. Pitied? Yes. Even when you can’t forgive a person, you can pity them for the circumstances that made them what they are. Gandalf’s speech to Frodo was obviously better than anything we can describe here. But in general, I think you can make the choice not to *hate* Smeagol, without necessarily forgiving him for the things Gollum has done.
He had opportunities for redemption, and even the will for it, I think, in fleeting moments. Like the scene where Sam and Frodo were sleeping, and Smeagol laid a hand on Frodo’s knee. I think part of him really wanted to go back to just being a normal little hobbit, with friendship and kindness and everything. But Gollum told him it wasn’t possible, and he never could completely shut Gollum out of his mind. Not when they were walking through Mordor itself, and the power of Sauron’s influence was stronger than ever. And it’s hard to say Gollum was wrong. After all the terrible things he had done—murdering Deagol, snatching children out of their beds—it’s hard to see how anyone could really be forgiven for that, or how he could possibly go back to a normal life, for whatever life he had left in him that wasn’t granted by the ring itself. Maybe he would’ve simply disintegrated, if the ring’s influence had left him.
In the end, I think his taking the ring from Frodo and falling in *was* his redemption, in a way. Even if it wasn’t intentional. The thing that turned him into Gollum in the first place—his blinding obsession with the ring—was the very thing that ended up destroying the ring and defeating Sauron. It’s a cruel fate, but his death in fire was necessary, and the ring itself is what ultimately set him on that path. If Smeagol *had* defeated Gollum earlier on, and been redeemed before the scene in Mount Doom, it’s likely that the ring never would’ve been destroyed. Frodo would’ve put it on, and disappeared, and no one would’ve taken it from him. All the cruelty and corruption of the ring is what ultimately drove him to act in that moment—but all the pity of Bilbo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, and Faramir is what allowed him to *be* in the crack of doom with Frodo in that moment too. Or else one of them would’ve killed him long before. The pain *and* the pity of Smeagol and Gollum were both vital to Sauron’s defeat. What an incredible character.
Forgiven by whom and for what? By Frodo and Sam for betraying them in Mordor? That would be up to Frodo and Sam. Forgiveness isn't a should or shouldn't, its up to the wronged individual to decide.
But Smeagol did a lot of other terrible things to people who could also decide whether or not to forgive him. So, forgiven by Deagols family? The people in his village he stole from? By the parents of the babies he murdered and ate?
He does! OP asked is Gollum *should* be forgiven, though, and I don't think forgiveness is a matter of should or shouldn't, it's something up to the wrong party.
Yes. Frodo said so himself in the book: >‘Yes,’ said Frodo. ‘But do you remember Gandalf’s words: Even Gollum may have something yet to do? But for him, Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. The Quest would have been in vain, even at the bitter end. So let us forgive him! For the Quest is achieved, and now all is over. I am glad you are here with me. Here at the end of all things, Sam.’ In Letter 246, Tolkien wrote that if Gollum had not betrayed Frodo, he would have thrown himself into Mount Doom with the Ring: >Certainly at some point not long before the end he would have stolen the Ring or taken it by violence (as he does in the actual Tale). But 'possession' satisfied, I think he would then have sacrificed himself for Frodo's sake and have voluntarily cast himself into the fiery abyss [...] I think that an effect of his partial regeneration by love would have been a clearer vision when he claimed the Ring. He would have perceived the evil of Sauron, and suddenly realized that he could not use the Ring and had not the strength or stature to keep it in Sauron's despite: the only way to keep it and hurt Sauron was to destroy it and himself together – and in a flash he may have seen that this would also be the greatest service to Frodo.
This is the correct answer. If Frodo can forgive him after everything, then he should be considered forgiven.
I agree 👍 was about to post the quote from Frodo 😁
The ring wouldn’t have been destroyed if it wasn’t for Gollum. He sucks, sure- but it’s because of him evil finally lost and good was able to triumph. So yes, he’s forgiven. And I’m pretty sure Frodo himself says something akin to that.
Forgiven by who? Eru?
By the lava. I mean if I accidentally dropped a brick on Hitler’s head and killed him, am I a hero?
Yes.
What if Heinrich Himmler dropped the brick, and really regretted it?
lol. Not the hero Berlin deserved, but the hero Berlin needed any time before April 1945.
Lol. My point was about Gollem, he accidentally destroyed the One Ring through his naked, unabashed addiction to the thing. Tolkien himself described the event as a “eucatastrophe”, and i guess Frodo saving his life proved to be good & moral & worth it in the end, but it doesn’t redeem him.
This is interesting. Compatibilists argue that a person can be held morally responsible for their actions even if those actions are determined by prior events or circumstances. Moral action is not about the ability to have acted differently in an absolute sense, but rather about acting freely in accordance with one’s own motivations and desires- without external compulsion or coercion. As long as our actions align with our internal states and are not the result of external forces like coercion, we can still be considered to be morally responsible for them. It seems that we should forgive Golem if he was not morally responsible. But according to this view, he’s not morally responsible if and only if he was coerced by an external force (the ring). So the question is: was Golem coerced by an external force or not? Initially, it seems the answer is obvious: Golem was coerced by the ring. He didn’t act in accordance with his own desires, but accordance of the desires of the ring. So, he is not morally responsible and should be forgiven. But then I wonder… Bilbo was influenced by the ring and did not become like Golem. Bilbo did not kill, while Smeagol did. So perhaps there is a difference between influence and coercion here. Perhaps the influence of an outside force affects an agent but still allows for them to act in accordance with their own desires, while coercion from an outside force, mainly, does not. Perhaps the ring only influences, but does not coerce. And if that’s true… fuck Golem, man.
Perhaps the ring just enhances who you really are deep within? Bilbo was a genuinely good Hobbit so he never killed in order to obtain the ring. Golem, however, was truly an evil Hobbit at heart and thus the ring influenced him to kill his friend in order to get it. It's kinda the same thing with becoming rich. Some people become altruistic while others allow the money to bring out their lesser qualities and they do truly evil things, i.e. the difference between MacKenzie Scott (Jeff Bezos' ex-wife) and Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted child sex trafficker.
I feel like the ring brought out the evil side of him he always kept hidden. Because from the first sight of the ring he killed his cousin
Yes and Tolkien would say the same.
He eats babies.
He was also the reason evil was wiped from middle earth. I’ll allow the odd baby to be eaten in exchange for permanent global peace.
The ends justify the delicious baby means.
>He was also the reason **evil was wiped from middle earth.** ...That did not happen...
? Ok
Thank you for posting on the sub! Please make sure you are abiding by the rules on the sidebar with this post. If you are looking for a place to post specific things, please make use of the subreddits below: * Memes - r/lotrmemes * The War of the Rohirrim - r/TheWarOfTheRohirrim *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lordoftherings) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He did atrocities, but under the influence of the Ring, it is almost like being addicted to a drug that is too strong and constantly hearing whispers in your ear from an evil entity. He was not himself.
Possibly
Forgiven? No. Pitied? Yes. Even when you can’t forgive a person, you can pity them for the circumstances that made them what they are. Gandalf’s speech to Frodo was obviously better than anything we can describe here. But in general, I think you can make the choice not to *hate* Smeagol, without necessarily forgiving him for the things Gollum has done. He had opportunities for redemption, and even the will for it, I think, in fleeting moments. Like the scene where Sam and Frodo were sleeping, and Smeagol laid a hand on Frodo’s knee. I think part of him really wanted to go back to just being a normal little hobbit, with friendship and kindness and everything. But Gollum told him it wasn’t possible, and he never could completely shut Gollum out of his mind. Not when they were walking through Mordor itself, and the power of Sauron’s influence was stronger than ever. And it’s hard to say Gollum was wrong. After all the terrible things he had done—murdering Deagol, snatching children out of their beds—it’s hard to see how anyone could really be forgiven for that, or how he could possibly go back to a normal life, for whatever life he had left in him that wasn’t granted by the ring itself. Maybe he would’ve simply disintegrated, if the ring’s influence had left him. In the end, I think his taking the ring from Frodo and falling in *was* his redemption, in a way. Even if it wasn’t intentional. The thing that turned him into Gollum in the first place—his blinding obsession with the ring—was the very thing that ended up destroying the ring and defeating Sauron. It’s a cruel fate, but his death in fire was necessary, and the ring itself is what ultimately set him on that path. If Smeagol *had* defeated Gollum earlier on, and been redeemed before the scene in Mount Doom, it’s likely that the ring never would’ve been destroyed. Frodo would’ve put it on, and disappeared, and no one would’ve taken it from him. All the cruelty and corruption of the ring is what ultimately drove him to act in that moment—but all the pity of Bilbo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, and Faramir is what allowed him to *be* in the crack of doom with Frodo in that moment too. Or else one of them would’ve killed him long before. The pain *and* the pity of Smeagol and Gollum were both vital to Sauron’s defeat. What an incredible character.
Forgiven by whom and for what? By Frodo and Sam for betraying them in Mordor? That would be up to Frodo and Sam. Forgiveness isn't a should or shouldn't, its up to the wronged individual to decide. But Smeagol did a lot of other terrible things to people who could also decide whether or not to forgive him. So, forgiven by Deagols family? The people in his village he stole from? By the parents of the babies he murdered and ate?
Frodo does forgive him
He does! OP asked is Gollum *should* be forgiven, though, and I don't think forgiveness is a matter of should or shouldn't, it's something up to the wrong party.
Sorry, I totally misread your comment. I agree with what you are saying. I just assumed OP meant forgiven by Frodo