Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-25981649-20171129144913/@comment-26149161-20171129202044

Kickratgames wrote: You didn't answer the question... The question is a false dichotomy. Far better would be the following: would you rather have all national parks locked up, with no one allowed to ever enter and officials taunting you at the gates, or burned to the ground?

Kickratgames wrote: And also destroying the land would not anger the people, the leaders could say that they can put the land behind them it is no longer useful but saying that the enemy has taken your land and kept it beautiful just to anger you, People back then were used to losing something. But think about it this way:

Your land has been taken away it was a beautiful land and they don't simply burn it they keep it and laugh in your face as they feast on all your work rather than destroy it. if they took your favorite cow and killed it how angry would you be rather than taking your cow and keeping it in a cage for ever never letting it free, torture or death? which is more evil? Destroying the land wouldn't anger them, it would depress them. It's a dreary environment where there is literally no hope. No green grass, no trees, just blasted land and endless fields of toil.

If you painted a beautiful painting, would you be more angry if someone took it from you and laughed about it, or put it in a paper shredder? The utter destruction Sauron wreaks crushes the spirits of all his foes.

Kickratgames wrote: Who said he wasn't corrupting it? Sauron may be bound to destroy all of the Valar's creations but he isn't dum, he wouldn't let something like the Shire go to waste sure he'd burn the buildings but he would use the land for his own gain and he wouldn't gain anything by defiling the entirety of the Shire and not leaving some of it for uses like farming and other things. He wouldn't leave something completely untouched but he would not completely destroy it either. Take lothlorien for instance: He'd burn some of it then leave the rest for farming and other purposes. While Sauron and his orcs may feel the need to destroy all we cannot forget that Sauron is also very very smart. Take nurn for instance he could've turned it to a mordor like thing but he didn't he left it to farm. While he could have just destroyed it he would gain nought for having no farmable land would starve his armies. Now sure he could have made it a very desolate place making it hard to farm. But what would he gain? Making his slaves work harder so they die of overwork? no because he wants them alive despite all appearances, so they can farm. Showing he's evil? well he already has done plenty of deeds to prove that, hasn't he? Does he want people to hate him for destroying such a beautiful thing? He could do the same by simply keeping it for farming if he makes it more fertile than Gondor think how useful that would be? Overall he gains nothing by making Nurn desolate but he does gain some by making it fertile. Look at Saruman. He defiled the Shire, killed and chopped and burned trees senselessly, ruined houses and hedges, and polluted streams. He and Sauron had incredibly similar mentalities--destroy heedlessly and brutally. Furthermore, ruining the land doesn't make it infertile. Ash can in fact be farmed quite well, and the dirt would remain. But he would take all the trees to the mills and burn the stumps, dam and pollute the streams with industry, primitive factories would blast out thick smog, and Orcs would kill any living thing they found. The plainslands that remained would be turned into massive, endless fields or used to house men or smithies.

Let's look at all the times that Sauron and other evil things took a land/area, and ravaged it. There's Ithilien, Dagorlad, the Brown Lands, Helevorn, Hithlum, Osgiliath, Morgul Vale, Gondolin, Nargothrond, the first Minas Tirith, Ivrin, Nurn, Mirkwood, Ard-Galen, Dorthonion, and Enedwaith. There is not ONE recorded instance where he kept it pure-looking to taunt the good guys.

Kickratgames wrote: Yes they​ don't care about Nurn but Sauron cares about it's uses. Seriously what would sauron gain by making the land hard to farm? His slaves would be overworked trying to farm this very hard and virtually unfarmable land and die. "Kickratgames they can just get new one!" To what extent? How long could sauron take slaves from his supporters, they would give them willingly but how long until they have none to give? What do they do? They give themselves as slaves, then their kingdom is completely destroyed they have no warriors to fight they have all been made slaves. "Just make those slaves into warriors!" If you give one of them a weapon they will immediatly use it against you. Imagine 200,000 soldiers of angry, desperate slaves with weapons in hand. How does that go? Sure you will answer "DUSTBOWL!!!!!" but that is what Nurn desolate is. I propose a ratio of 35% Desolate/regualar, 50% Fertile/settled, 15% woodland, We aren't saying he would make the land hard to farm, and that I think is where you misunderstand. As I stated above, he wouldn't make it infertile by burning the grass and trees and polluting the air. It would still be farmable, and not to mention ash is full of good plant nutrients. But the land itself would be defiled beyond its original (rather limited, though doubtless present) beauty. It would just be a massive plain of barracks, fields, and workshops.

The above fact essentially makes your entire point about Rhun irrelevant--the land is still pretty fertile, so they won't be using men as fast as you expect. Though, I'm sure there was at all times a massive supply of slaves being pumped in.

Ithilion, Discussions Moderator (Auta i lómë)