From Tolkien Gateway
Latest comment: 19 March by LorenzoCB in topic Infobox

I've linked Utter West to West, or should there be a seperate article for Utter West? --Earendilyon 05:32, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Utter West I believe is just another name for Aman. If it is used by J.R.R. Tolkien then we can link it directly to Utter West[former link], if not then we probably should have two Wests, one for West of Middle-earth and one for West of Arda or something, what do you think? --Hyarion 11:45, 9 March 2006 (EST)
Agreed on the Utter West referring to Aman, but so does The West, generally speaking. --Earendilyon 16:35, 9 March 2006 (EST)

I disagree with the first part of the following paragraph in the entry and I think it should be deleted. What do the rest of you think? --Ebakunin 15:53, 4 May 2006 (EDT)

By doing so, Sauron actually became more powerful than his master Morgoth at the end of the First Age, whose fëa ("soul" or "spirit"), while stronger, was dispersed into the matter of Arda. When Sauron put on the One Ring and tried to dominate the Elves, they resisted, and Sauron came upon them in the War of the Elves and Sauron and, if not for the intervention of Númenor, might have defeated them.

I agree with you Ebakunin, more powerful than Morgoth is a stretch as Sauron is simply a Maia while Morgoth is Vala. I'll look into it just to double check Tolkien never stated such a thing, but I think it would be safe to remove it. --Hyarion 18:18, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
Actually, I do recall having read something to that extend. Will have to look further into it, though. It's probably somewhere in the depths of HoMe. --Earendilyon 03:54, 5 May 2006 (EDT)

In the entry there's a comment on his title, the Nameless Enemy:

He is also called the Nameless Enemy, which is hardly accurate (but perhaps an effort to lessen his psychological impact), whereas Morgoth is the Dark Enemy.

Is Sauron only referred to as the Nameless Enemy during the Third Age, in the time before he had declared himself openly? The White Council knew there was a villian in Dol Guldur, but until 2850 they didn't know it was Sauron. If this was the time when the Nameless Enemy was used, it would make perfect sense. Any know more about use of the title? Thanks. --Ebakunin 16:28, 6 May 2006 (EDT)

Should we create a new article for Thû? I would like to have placed a note near the title concerning it, but there are so many names for Sauron as Tolkien's legendarium evolved... --Narfil Palùrfalas 20:44, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Sounds good to me. --Hyarion 20:47, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

Balrog :-s

I remember reading somewhere a while ago that Sauron was a Balrog (or something associated with them) I kinda doubt this to be true but i would like to know if anybody else knows anything about this. Thanks. Jasca Ducato 15:12, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

Hm, maybe you read that they were both Maia (as was Gandalf) but Sauron was definitely not a Balrog nor even remotely close to being considered one. --Hyarion 15:23, 3 September 2006 (EDT)
  • Actually, i think it was that the Balrog was a Maiar. Jasca Ducato 15:57, 3 September 2006 (EDT)
Balrogs were lesser Maiar (by the way, Maia is the singular). Sauron was also a Maia, though of a more powerful order. --Narfil Palùrfalas 18:17, 3 September 2006 (EDT)

timo vihola picture for sauron

someone please upload that timo vihola picture for sauron into the images of sauron category?.

Great suggestion, you can now find the image in Category:Images of Sauron and
Category:Images by Timo Vihola[former link] --Hyarion 03:34, 26 November 2006 (EST)

Name edit

Hi! I just wanted to say that I added a bit of extra information regarding Saurons original name. Ârzan (Ârzan 03:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT))

Yeah, noticed it. I actually wanted to include that for some time, but forgot. Well, that's the purpose of a Wiki! Keep up the good work. -- Ederchil 04:55, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Quenya/Sindarin ambiguity

Cf. Talk:Tauron#Which language? --Morgan 13:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed information?

Morgan, why have you cleared the Appearances and Abilities section? --Reallyfat Trollion 09:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The recent addition included a mix of Tolkien's writings and PJ's films. Furthermore, no sources were included.--Morgan 09:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. Maybe you should tell the fellow who wrote it though.Unsigned comment by Reallyfat (talk • contribs).
It was an anonymous edit.--Morgan 10:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I try restoring the info, with sources and all, and removing the non-canonical stuff?
Sure, go ahead.--Morgan 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ederchil, that edit had some useful information. Is it OK if I add sources to it and restore it? The guy did have a lot of good information.


I was bold and changed the article's profile picture. I am aware that a notification must be given when changing the main picture in important articles. I thought Tolkien's unfinished sketch did not do justice to this topic, and I think it was "tolerated" because it was Tolkien's. So I moved it down. Sage 05:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I prefer Tolkien's sketch. ;) I don't mind you changing the featured image - the only thing I'd say is pick one we have permission to use.-- KingAragorn  talk  contribs  edits  email  13:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The human lords did not just suddenly turn, they slowly degraded over time. This was due to the slow degrading power of the rings that they were given. Also, the human rings were the weakest of all the rings made, which is kind of funny that they had the weakest rings yet were seduced by the power first

Sauron main image change

I thought the image made by Elena Kukanova was better than the one by Alais. We are never told how Sauron's face was like in any of his assumed guises. Having him almost masked leaves mystery of how did he look behind the veil. The golden colour of the mask shows greed, thirst for power and arrogance - befitting of how he views himself a "God-King". --LordoftheEarth 12:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I respect your interpretations, I disagree. It forces the reader to focus on a masked form, whereas a mask was never a definite characteristic of Sauron in canon. I preferred the other image of ms. Kukanova and did another rearrangement of the images. Also I saw that you replaced the "seduction" pic with an armored pic, for unclear reasons; the seduction is a historical event that fits the text where it is placed, whereas the armored pic is not artistically or contextually significant. Sage 19:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed with Sage. Gaetano 10:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand what you're saying but there are two things I want to point out: in J.R.R. Tolkien's unfinished sketch he seemed fairly masked. I know it's unfinished ... but it is art by the author himself, his vision; secondly, Sauron's features in any of his fair forms are not described. Doesn't an image showing his 'face' (be it him as Mairon or Annatar...) force the reader to focus on that visage? There is no mention of reddish, golden, brownish hair in any of Tolkien's works. The only details of his forms are that he has daunting eyes, he has nine fingers (Third Age), he was terrible to look at and greater in stature than a man, but not gigantic (Second Age). If you see the face of Lucifer or another demon ... do you fear him/it as much? Don't you fear more that which you haven't seen, only heard of or know of? Something enigmatic is far more frightening. Giving Sauron a face humanizes him and he is far from being a Man or Elf. He only takes fair forms because they suit him at the moment. But that is not his body. But, nevermind, do as as you think is best. --LordoftheEarth 10:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still feel that the current image looks like an impish teenager (sorta priest-like) rather than what Sauron would look like. Tolkien's unfinished sketch (even though it's unfinished), the unmasked image by Ms. Kukanova or Ted Nasmith's "The Shadow of Sauron" would look better, more accurate in my opinion (especially the first and third options). What do you think?--LordoftheEarth 12:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both Tolkien and Nasmith's pictures depict the great shadow that rose with Sauron's fall (no way that could have a mask, tbh). Maybe I'm wrong, but was that shadow actually Sauron? Anycase, that is a very ethereal depiction to be considered for the main image. I think a good humanoid picture is the best choice, be it the current one or that one of Kukanova's. You are really concerned with this article aren't you? xd --LorenzoCB 19:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current image has neither the daunting gaze Sauron is said to have, neither a sense of agelesness. And the style looks off compared to other main images here. Some good points for the ethereal form are that it leaves Sauron's exact appearance vague, much like how Tolkien left his description in any physical form and it also doesn't force the reader to focus on any concrete visage (it's also menacing which would ne in accordance with him being "terrible to look upon"). On the other hand, Kukanova's image I think gets the "boundless pride" of the character and that headdress he has looks kingly which also might go well with his god-king ambition. So does anyone else have any opinion whether to choose from Nasmith's ethereal "Shadow of Sauron" or Kukanova's humanoid "Mairon", or maybe neither? Since the content of the article is in good shape, a potential final touch concerning the main image I think isn't a bad addition at all (I mean if it looks a bit better, why not xd).--LordoftheEarth 08:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion the current image (Annatar by Alaïs) is better than the image of Mairon by Kukanova and better than the image of The Shadow of Sauron by Ted Nasmith. The current image succeeds in portraying a being that is both "fair" to Look upon (Tolkien said that he had a fair form as Annatar), but also has an "evil" expression in his face. In addition Land people probably only know the images of Sauron in his not "fair" looking, but terrible looking form from the Peter Jackson Films, so it is probably interesting to see a fair looking form with a hint of evil for a change. --Akhorahil 08:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting take, although I am not fan of the image itself the point with a fairer look combined with evil is a good one (even though the fair part is in Kukanova's image as well where it ia combined rather with hubris). It would have been nice if there was an option to have 2 main images (between which the reader could switch like in some wikis) one fair and one terrible (it would have worked well on the Morgoth article as well), but I don't think we have that option here, do we? So far the common ground is something humanoid (whether Alais's or Kukanova's) and not ethereal. I think 1-2 more opinions would sum the topic up. --LordoftheEarth 09:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also prefer the humanoid take for the main image, although Sauron is certainly a difficult character to pin down a single image to represent. Personally I prefer the current image. I feel that it conveys the darker side of Sauron more clearly (and, a bit trivial, but the color scheme seems to fit the infobox better). I am not strongly opposed to the image by Kukanova, but it appears to lean more heavily on the single aspect of the fair form, and touches less on the darker, more terrible side of the character. I would vote to keep the main image as is, although I do appreciate Kukanova's image. --Grace18 16:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My vote is to keep the current image where it is. I may not know art, but I know what I like. --Mord 03:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well then. Given the majority of votes we are keeping the current image as the main one. (Too bad there can't be multiple main images between which the reader could switch in the infobox: 1 Mairon, 2 Annatar, 3 Terrible form; it would have looked great). Guess that's settled then. Thank you all for your opinions (and the interesting interpretations of images)!--LordoftheEarth 08:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sauron in the Evil category

Sauron was renowned as the Dark Lord of the Second and Third Ages of Middle-earth, as he strove to conquer Arda. Before that, he originally was the most gifted of the Vala Aule's people and then the first lieutenant of the rebellious Morgoth. There are some who argue that he belongs to the Servants of Melkor category because during the First Age he had served under Morgoth. True, he did. He was by far the mightiest of Aule's Maia students and the greatest of Morgoth's servants, certainly. But he abandoned both of those allegiances. When the War of Wrath ended, Sauron came to Eonwe and seemed to repent (how genuine this plea was we may never know). He forsook Morgoth and asked forgiveness for his deeds, but refused to humble himself before the Valar and returned to gnaw his old plots. Saying that just because in the beginning he had been the First Dark Lord's servant means he is always a servant makes no sense. Why? Because there are two others who were affiliated with Morgoth as well and ultimately left him: Osse and Ungoliant.

Morgoth ensnared Osse for a brief time, promising him much that rightfully belonged to Ulmo. He was seduced by his willpower and he raged in storms on the Sea until his spouse Uinen turned him back to Ulmo. There is still some violence and darkness in Osse's nature, but despite this he is no longer affiliated with Morgoth. Now Ungoliant had served Morgoth as well up until the Age of Trees. She disowned him and dwelled in Avathar. Morgoth sought her aid once more to destroy the Two Trees and the alliance between them was renewed ..... for a time. The Dark Lord had promised to reward her by feeding her many of the gems he had stolen from the Noldor, but when he denied her the Silmarils she betrayed him and attempted to devour him. She was driven back by Balrogs and she settled in Ered Gorgoroth.

Both Osse and Ungoliant had for a time served Morgoth. Osse, much like Sauron, was attracted to the apparent power of Morgoth. Osse and Sauron forsook him (the former resumed his place as Ulmo's vassal, while the latter rose as a Dark Lord on his own), while Ungoliant outright betrayed him. All three of them served Morgoth at a given time. Yet neither Osse nor Ungoliant are put into the category for Servants of Melkor. Why should Sauron be? Not only did he abandon him in the end, but as a Dark Lord he did not pick up from where Morgoth left, rather he pursued his own agenda.

I'll give some canonical quotes:

"Sauron had never reached this stage of nihilistic madness. He did not object to the existence of the world, so long as he could do what he liked with it. He still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall, and of his relapse) that he loved order and co-ordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. It was the apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first attracted Sauron to him.) Sauron had, in fact, been very like Saruman, and so still understood him quickly and could guess what he would be likely to think and do, even without the aid of the palantíri or of spies

"Sauron was not a ‘sincere’ atheist, but he preached atheism, because it weakened resistance to himself (and he had ceased to fear God’s action in Arda). As was seen in the case of Ar-Pharazon. ...he spoke of Melkor in Melkor’s own terms: as a god, or even as God. This may have been the residue of a state which was in a sense a shadow of good: the ability once in Sauron at least to admire or admit the superiority of a being other than himself. Melkor, and still more Sauron himself afterwards, both profited by this darkened shadow of good and services of ‘worshippers’. But it may be doubted whether even such a shadow of good was still sincerely operative in Sauron by that time. His cunning motive is probably best expressed thus. To wean one of the God-fearing from their allegiance it is best to propound another unseen object of allegiance and another hope of benefits; propound to him a Lord who will sanction what he desires and not forbid it. Sauron, apparently a defeated rival for world-power, now a mere hostage, can hardly propound himself; but as the former servant and disciple of Melkor, the worship of Melkor will raise him from hostage to high priest. But though Sauron’s whole true motive was the destruction of the Númenóreans, this was a particular matter of revenge upon Ar-Pharazon, for humiliation."

Sauron was not a beginner of discord; and he probably knew more of the ‘Music’ than did Melkor, whose mind had always been filled with his own plans and devices, and gave little attention to other things. The time of Melkor’s greatest power, therefore, was in the physical beginnings of the World; a vast demiurgic lust for power and the achievement of his own will and designs, on a great scale. And later after things had become more stable, Melkor was more interested in and capable of dealing with a volcanic eruption, for example, than with (say) a tree."

"Morgoth had no ‘plan’: unless destruction and reduction to nil of a world in which he had only a share can be called a ‘plan’. But this is, of course, a simplification of the situation. Sauron had not served Morgoth, even in his last stages..."

"First, Sauron followed Morgoth because he adored the latter's strength ... Second, after the Valar defeated Morgoth, Sauron betrayed his alliance..."

"In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.* In The Lord of the Rings the conflict is not basically about 'freedom', though that is naturally involved. It is about God, and His sole right to divine honour. The Eldar and the Númenóreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants; if he had been victorious he would have demanded divine honour from all rational creatures and absolute temporal power over the whole world.

(Tolkien himself says Sauron represents the "wholly evil will". Also, in the paragraph telling that Sauron was not a "sincere atheits" he reffers to him as the end as the "former servant" of Morgoth. To evade the wrath of the victorious Host of Valinor he forsook his ties to him to save his own skin. Tolkien also says he had been very "much like Saruman". Saruman was a double-faced vassal, he mostly committed to serving Sauron, but he also conducted a search for the One Ring to gain it for himself. If the author says that Sauron is evil, then he should be in the evil category (on the page of the category itself it says that "this includes Dark Lords"; Sauron is a Dark Lord). I want someone else's opinion. Someone other than Sage, if possible (if it where him I doubt he would even read this and stop to think that someone else may be right). If you think that for some odd reason these paragraphs I've listed above mean absolutely nothing and he belongs to the Servants of Melkor category, then Osse and Ungoliant should also be put there. By Sage's logic about Sauron Osse should also be put there. Both were his servants for a time. Both were seduced. As Sage said "He was ensnared by Melkor, he was one of the Maiar of Melkor" --LordoftheEarth 13:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sauron must go in both 'Servant of Melkor' and 'Evil' categories. He was a servant, but he became a Dark Lord. And no, LordoftheEarth, the fact that Sauron left Morgoth's service is not a good reason to remove the category: it's like removing Eärendil from 'Half-elf' because he later chosed to become an Elf. Stop this nonsense edit war, there are better things to do. --LorenzoCB 13:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By your logic Osse should go into the Servants of Melkor category as well. "the fact that Sauron left Morgoth's service is not a good reason to remove the category". "Stop this nonsense edit war, there are better things to do" --- If Sage would have left it as it is, I would. But since he he doesn't I felt appropiate to add it on the article's talk page. Sauron can't be in both Servants of Melkor and Evil. Tolkien said "Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will" and I'm going to stick to what the author said. If no one else has something to add, I suggest we leave the article as it is. There is no other information that can be added here and there are lots of other articles that could use mine and Sage's contribution. --LordoftheEarth 14:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with LorenzoCB that Sauron should be in both categories, which makes perfect sense. The categories exist for the convenience of the wiki, and this feels most convenient to me. Do others agree? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 16:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Full agreement with LorenzoCB and Mith. -- Holdwine Meriadoc (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 01:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other names for Sauron

There are some slight variations on "the Shadow" such as the Shadow in the Forest or the Shadow in the East. I believe that Overlord (found in the chapter The Black Gate is Closed of The Two Towers) could also be added. In addition, I am not certain whether the One Enemy(found in the chapter Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit of The Two Towers; near the end of the chapter if I remember correctly) refers to Morgoth or Sauron. I don't think that a hobbit like Frodo Baggins (who makes the statement) would necessarily remember Morgoth, the First Enemy. Sauron is the Enemy of the Free Peoples in the Second and Third Ages, however, and has been an adversary of good ever since he descended into evil (in the beginning as Morgoth's lieutenant and then as his heir). What do you think?--LordoftheEarth 14:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Variations can be included, of course, with their respective references. Feel free to include any other name missing. About "One Enemy", Frodo is adressing Faramir when he says: "Think what you will, I am a friend of all enemies of the One Enemy", so he obviously refers to the current enemy they are fighting with. --LorenzoCB 19:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who's directly responsible for the original corruption of Men

In The Peoples of Middle-earth (from what I've seen on wikis and reddit articles at least; I don't own the full HoMe series yet) it seems that Morgoth was the one who came among Men as a fair-seeming prophet/god and tainted their hearts with his teachings and deceits, turning some away from Eru's grace and to his own worship. However, in The Nature of Middle-earth (which I own) it says on page 35 that "The arising and fall of Men took place during the Captivity of Melkor, and was achieved not by Melkor in person but by Sauron". Is the latter source more canonical than the first? Should Sauron be credited as notable for the Corruption of Men, or is it still Morgoth even if entirely indirectly according to this? --LordoftheEarth 19:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That info from TNOME should definitely be included in OVOTL. Even if it is a later concept, it is an isolated mention and Tolkien was clearly shuffling ideas he never developed (it is interesting that he mentions a text about this: Sauron: Arising and Fall of Men, which seems he never wrote). In the other hand, there are many other detailed accounts of Morgoth as the one who corrupted Men, notably the Tale of Adanel, but most important: The Silmarillion, which is the basis for what we include in the History sections (or """canon""" if you wish calling it by that). --LorenzoCB 20:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sauron’s Death?

I just found a video of some lost recordings of Tolkien, and at one point (28:28-29:00), Tolkien was said to have mentioned that he would not have wanted to meet Sauron after the ring was destroyed, which implies that Sauron survived the ring’s destruction, though it is clarified that there is not that much left of Sauron since he invested so much power within the ring. I think that all of this should be mentioned in the Sauron article. Here is the source: While this part about Sauron comes near the end of the video, I recommend watching the whole video to get all of the context. -- Dour1234, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sauron wasn't in Almaren?

Annals of Aman: "Therefore Manwe ordained a great feast, and summoned all the Valar and the queens of the Valar unto Almaren, together with all their folk. And they came at his bidding; <...> Now Melkor knew of all that was done; for even then he had secret friends and spies among the Maiar whom he had converted to his cause, and of these the chief, as after became known, was Sauron, a great craftsman of the household of Aule." Can we suppose that Sauron lived in Almaren, where he spied for Melkor, and openly joined Melkor during chaos and disaster that were caused by the desruction of the Lamps, and only after that time he came to Utumno at the Dark Lord's service?
Ar-Zigûr 10:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, let me check that info and if we can include it in the own article, and then I'll see if having it in the infobox. --LorenzoCB 19:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sauron's fate

  • The Silmarillion, the Valaquenta chapter, clearly says: "But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth [...], and walked behind him in the same ruinous path down into the Void."* But apparently Mord disagrees with me and it only results in edit clashes and some animosity. *How does that paragraph, from a published work (not something I took from the pocket) contradict TLotR: TRotK which Mord cited, where it only just mentions that after his defeat Sauron is a spirit of impotent malice and none can foresee his arising again (which doesn't clash with him staying in the Void).* I see no need to justify something that is mentioned in a published work, something which I don't think is some hyperbolic metaphor needing philosophers' interpretation, but maybe it is so what's your POVs? I know it's a small thing for the entire legendarium, but for the sake of fair reasoning, your final thoughts, please. *Is that paragraph from Valaquenta canonical or not?* --LordoftheEarth (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree that passage deserves to be included, carefully tho. --LorenzoCB (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you expand on this? I took the paragraph to mean that Sauron too went into the Void because it says the "path down into the Void" not the path of villainy or something like that (nowhere does it say that one must *physically* be expelled into the Void; Gandalf's spirit, for one, may have passed through it after his initial death, but yeah, that may not be the most solid argument for Sauron's ousting there) I mean why would J.R.R. or Christopher mention descent into the Void in that condensing of Sauron's career? But anyway, what is your interpretation, Lorenzo, and again how do you think it should be included? --LordoftheEarth (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the passage in question and why I did not include it in the first place:
1. It must be weighed against several statements that I've cited, not just from ROTK, but also the Letters and HOME, that Sauron's spirit was not dismissed "from the world to which it was bound until the end" (as JRRT put it in Letter 200). Lordoftheearth seems to be focusing exclusively on the words of Gandalf quoted in the paragraph and not the citations to the other sources.
2. It seems to me to be not literal but literary; note the simile "like a shadow" and the obviously metaphorical sense of "path." Unless we are to understand also that Sauron was literally a ghost of Morgoth's malice and literally tread in Morgoth's very footsteps.
3. It is now included in full twice in the article: once as the header and once at the end of the history section. In its second instance, I contextualized it as what I understand it to be: a metaphorical summary of Sauron's whole career of evil and ultimate downfall, not a literal statement of his spirit's final disposition.
Providing more rationale for why we have reason to believe that the post-death condition of Sauron's spirit is different to Melkor's:
The 1977 Silmarillion states that Melkor was "thrust through the Door of Night beyond the Walls of the World, into the Timeless Void." Morgoth's Ring, Text VII (p. 403) clarifies the meaning of this. The entire page is relevant here, but in brief:
"[Morgoth was] taken out of the Blessed Realm and executed [...] We read that he was then thrust out into the Void. That should mean that he was put outside Time and Space, outside Eä altogether; but if that were so this would imply a direct intervention of Eru (with or without supplication of the Valar). It may however refer inaccurately to the extrusion or flight of his spirit from Arda." [emphasis original]
The significance of this is that it establishes that it was necessary for powerful divine forces to take specific and direct action to expel Morgoth's spirit from Arda (or possibly Creation itself) after the death of his body. In Morgoth's case we are explicitly told that they did so.
Compare this to the death of Sauron: in the narrative Gandalf said nothing to suggest that the Valar or Eru have taken such an action, and JRRT explicitly stated in external commentary (as cited in the article and quoted above) that Sauron's spirit was not "dismiss[ed]" from the world to which it was bound.
The passage from the Valaquenta has validity, as does everything else JRRT wrote, but it must not be understood in a vacuum or as a totalizing statement that supersedes all else.
Lordoftheearth, in your edit summary you expressed your ungenerous belief that I was ignorant of the Valaquenta when I described Sauron's fate. I hope that the foregoing demonstrates that your belief was mistaken. --Mord 17:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't cite the Letter last time, nor before. But your point's taken now, I'll remove Sauron being in the Void on the Void article.--LordoftheEarth (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does Sauron qualify as a shapeshifter?

I know he takes different forms, but is it like a glamour, or is he physically changing shape? I think I read somewhere that he changed shape with the power of the ring, but he shapeshifted in the Silmarillion before the forging of the ring, so... is he just a shapeshifter or what? - Lúme Corelion, 23:37, 3 December 2022 (ET)

Check fana. As a Maia, Sauron could change his physical form at will, by nature. However, from we know he is probably the one who changed forms most times. He could also make a new body, but having his body destroyed several times make it hard, to the point he could not have a fair form again. Wearing his Ring (a source of his power) would help him a lot to make a new form, but the mere existence of the object allowed it, hence he already had a physical form at the time of the War of the Ring. That's why the destruction of the One was vital. I guess he can be called a shapeshifter, outstading among other Valar and Maiar. Please, avoid the talkpages for mere lore discussion. Use the channels in Discord devoted for that. --LorenzoCB (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello.It has been revealed in episode Alloyed of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power series that Sauron and Halbrand are the same person.That is why I suggest the page Halbrand be merged with Sauron. Should the page Halbrand be merged with Sauron or not?And if not, then why? Here, the page Annatar is merged with page Sauron.Why the same thing is not done with the page Halbrand?Is it a matter of adaptation? I mean this happens because we see it only in adaptation and not in writings of J.R.R. Tolkien? Here,the page Mordirith was once a standalone page, and now it is merged with the page Eärnur.And this is something that does not happen in writings of J.R.R. Tolkien, and this is something we see it only in The Lord of the Rings Online.Is it understood what I am saying? --User:Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου talk, 12.04, 03 December 2022 (UTC)

We will discuss this when the Second Season comes out. --LorenzoCB (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what will happen for now? --User:Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου talk, 12.11, 03 December 2022 (UTC)
If you want, you can help improving all the ROP articles, or the hundred of artiles in TG waiting for it. --LorenzoCB (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand.Why the page Halbrand is not merged with Sauron page? This can happens now.Then, why this is not happening? --User:Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου talk, 12.26, 03 December 2022 (UTC)
Because Halbrand is not revealed as Sauron till the last episode. There is too much info to be included in a section within the Sauron article. Also, it is the "big reveal" of the first season, which finished too recently. It is fair to wait to the second season to do that. Having this article makes no harm and you are being rude by insisting so much when I already made it clear from the beginning we have to wait. --LorenzoCB (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't merge the page Halbrand with Sauron page.I just suggested it. Nothing more. --User:Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου talk, 12.58, 03 December 2022 (UTC)


I think the Evil infobox fits the Sauron page much better than the Maiar infobox. The black of the box goes perfectly with the image and it is specified in said box that Sauron is of the Maiar. The Maiar infobox is not inaccurate in any way; however, it does not fit the feel of the rest of the page. Sauron is evil; he should be depicted so. There are very many places in the Legendarium where Tolkien makes darkness a sign of evil. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the Maiar infobox, and this is a very small complaint, but I do think the page might look much better if the infobox is set back to Evil. QuickbeamTheGreen (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Pink doesn't suit Sauron. LorenzoCB (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]