Arcane Topic Warning: Part the Third

[Boromir88]

Kuru, great topic idea.

Well I would agree that there would be no disputing the fact that Dwarves could be drawn to 'evil,' and even to the two Dark Lords. I think it's much more easier for Dwarves to be drawn towards evil deeds, then allying themselves with Sauron or Melkor, simply because they were more resiliant then say Men were:

Other originally independent creatures, and Men among them (but neither Elves nor Dwarves) could be reduced to a like condition. But ’puppets’, with no independent life or will, would simply cease to move or do anything at all when the will of their maker was brought to nothing.~Morgoth's Ring: Text X

Tolkien refers to Sauron's orcs as being like 'puppets' under his control. For Dwarves and Elves this 'puppet-like' state is impossible to be reduced to. They will always have an independent will, and could not be reduced to an orc-like state of slavedom.

Also...

'The Dwarves indeed proved tough and hard to tame; they ill endure the domination of others, and the thoughts of their hearts are hard to fathom, nor can they be turned to shadows.'~Of the Rings of Power

They were hard to be brought over to serve Sauron or Morgoth, because they didn't like to be 'tamed' and 'controlled.' And they couldn't be turned to 'shadows' into Wraith-like state as the 9 men were.

Though it was possible to sway dwarves over to their (Sauron and Morgoth) side, it was just a difficult:

'From Imladris they [Army of the Last Alliance] crossed the Misty Mountains by many passes and marched down the River Anduin, and so came at last upon the host of Sauron on Dagorlad, the Battle Plain, which lies before the gate of the Black Land. All living things were divided in that day, and some of every kind, even of beasts and birds, were found in either host, save the Elves only.'~ibid

We see in the Council of Elrond that the dwarves of Erebor were offered a deal:

'As a small token only of your Friendship Sauron asks this,' he said: 'that you should find this thief,' such was his word, 'and get from him, willing or no, a little ring, the least of rings, that once he stole. It is but a trile that Sauron fancies, and in earnest of your good will. Find it, and three rings that the Dwarf-sires possessed of old shall be returned to you, and the realm of Moria shall be yours for ever. Find only news of the thief, whether he still lives and where, and you shall have great reward and lasting friendship from the Lord. Refuse, and things will not seem so well. Do you refuse?'

Dain refuses the offer, and somewhere that I can't find right now, it talks about the loyalty of Durin's folke and solely helping the Last Alliance in the Second Age.

But this was just one instance where the dwarves were put in the grinder so to say. They had a sweet deal offered to them, and being Durin's folk rejected the deal. Which, I think for one shows just how loyal and resiliant the dwarves can be. They don't like being ordered around and controlled one thing for sure.

They are a toug, thrawn race for the most part, secretive, laborious, retentive of the memory of injuries (and of benefits), lovers of stone, of gems, of things that take shape under the hands of the craftsman rather than things that live by their own life. But they are not evil by nature, and few ever served the Enemy of free will, whatever the tales of Men may have alleged. For Men of old lusted after their wealth and the work of their handsm and there has been enmity between the races.~Appendix F: Languages of the People of the Third Age

What's important is they were 'retentive of the memory of injuries (and of benefits), so they remembered grudges or friendships. Which, I think could factor into whether dwarves fight with 'evil' or not.

We definitely see a case of dwarves and their feud with the Sindar Elves, which go back to the slaying of Thingol, and carries on into LOTR. But, I think dwarves were loyal to their allies. They knew who there friends were, who helped them, and they would not do harm against them.

A good example of this is Bilbo, who helped the dwarves out immensely in regaining Erebor, and those dwarves who travelled with Bilbo would never forget that. And the friendship carries on into LOTR, when we see the friendship starting between Gloin and Frodo in Many Meetings. I don't think Gloin had ever even met Frodo, but being Bilbo's heir, and knowing what Bilbo had done for them, by dwarven nature he would be kind to Frodo. And going back to Sauron offering the dwarves a deal:

'Heavy have the hearts of our chieftains been since that night. We needed not the fell voice of the messenger to warn us that his words held both menace and deceit; for we knew already that the power that has re-entered Mordor has not changed, and ever it betrayed us of old.'~The Council of Elrond

So, by dwarven nature, I think it's much more likely they would commit an evil act on their own (out of greed mostly) than to be swayed to Sauron or Morgoth's side (though that was possible). The dwarves knew who there friends were, knew who has helped them and who has betrayed them in the past, and they don't forget that.

They seem to be a rather withdrawn race during the War of the Ring. Though we had the Dwarves of Erebor fighting, we don't hear much of dwarves besides Gimli, just that small bit in the Council and some more in the Appendices. They seem to just kind of want to go along and do their own thing, if someone steps out and helps them they don't forget that and will remain in strong friendship. If someone betrays them, they won't forget that either, and will be careful next time to trust them (if they ever do).

So, it all comes down to, the dwarves were hard to push around, they had a strong will and weren't easily swayed either way. It was much more likely they would do something evil out of greed as we see in The Silmarillion:

Then Thingol, being alone among them, made to take it up and clasp it about his neck; but the Dwarves in that moment withheld it from him, and demainded that they yied it up to them, saying: 'By what right does the Elvenking lay claim to the Nauglamir, that was made by our fathers for Finrod Felagun who is dead? It has come to him but by the hand of Hurin the man of Dor-lomin, who took it as a thief out of the darkness of Nargothrond.' But Thingol perceived their heards, and saw well that desiring the Silmaril they sought but a pretext and fair cloak for their true intent...~Of the Ruin of Doriath

Whoever was right or wrong in this case doesn't matter, the dwarves (as well as Thingol) got greedy and in their wrath slew Thingol.

And concluding, I think this goes along with what you were saying Kuru, in that the dwarve's deceptiveness, and they may very well could have deceived people in order to get what they want. For in this instance they were able to mask their intent on desiring the Silmaril, and lay a fair sounding claim that the Nauglamir was there's...but Thingol saw past this...just a little example of Dwarves trying to cloak their intent.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

However, the ambiguous aspect of this Dwarven descent into evil is that these evil Dwarves apparently still had normal, peaceful, and even cooperative contact with their non-evil kin in the West.

Quick thoughts while I'm halfway thru the first post-- So did Saruman and Denethor even while they used the Palantiri. They had succumbed, but they were able to maintain the appearance of normalcy.

Recall that Gimli and Gloin said, at the Council of Elrond, that emisaries had come from Mordor promising Rings. (Right, both you and Boromir88 bring this up.)

Could some of the same things (appearance of normalcy) be said regarding the original Nazgul (who were once men?) I haven't researched that in any way, just popping a question.

Also-- isn't the phrase "Free Peoples", not "Good Peoples"?

[littlemanpoet]

Galadriel's prophecy regarding Gimli seems to sum it up pretty well: hoarding. Gimli was free of it; gold runs through his hands but has no hold on him. Gold and mithril enslaved many Dwarven hearts; hence, evil. Thorin was in danger of it, but was saved in the end.

[Kuruharan]

What's important is they were 'retentive of the memory of injuries (and of benefits), so they remembered grudges or friendships. Which, I think could factor into whether dwarves fight with 'evil' or not.
-Boromir88

But I wonder about this. Why were there no grudges remembered from the time of the Last Alliance during the War of the Dwarves and Orcs? This was the question that basically launched my questioning in this area.

They had succumbed, but they were able to maintain the appearance of normalcy.
-mark12_30

I think the principle involved between the Dwarf Houses was probably similar, at least as far as activities appearing "normal" to peoples far sundered from each other. Most of them were a long way apart. It would have been hard for them to know what the others were doing, even if they were all that interested in keeping tabs on each other.

However, I think there would have been a problem maintaining this appearance of normality over a long period of time, after all we are talking about a period of time stretching across several millennia. We know that the Dwarves visited each other from time to time. Sooner or later some Western Dwarves (probably Longbeards) were bound to go far enough East to see what the Stonefoots and Blacklocks were up to. I’m kind of curious as to how the Western Dwarves reacted when they saw what had happened.

Also-- isn't the phrase "Free Peoples", not "Good Peoples"?
-mark12_30

True. I realize now that, given the nature of this topic, I should have provided a more specific definition of evil to give the topic a baseline.

Maybe something like “Acceptance of Melkorian influence and values and adopting them as a basic part of the culture.” I think this definition may hold some validity as it would exclude people like the Noldor who, while obviously influenced by Melkor, did not accept him as the source and inspiration for their culture. On the other hand, evil tribes of Men and the King’s Men in Númenor would qualify under this definition. I’m personally inclined to think, given their location and Tolkien’s implication, that some of the Eastern Dwarves probably did the same to some extent.

Of course, that also brings up the issue of how much of their original culture they retained. I think it is also safe to say that they probably did retain some of their original instruction from Aüle although it would have provided for an interesting mix of cultural influences, but no more odd than many we see in the real world.

Gold and mithril enslaved many Dwarven hearts; hence, evil. Thorin was in danger of it, but was saved in the end.
-littlemanpoet

Also true that each individual had the potential for evil, I’m just curious about how this developed on a societal level.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Also true that each individual had the potential for evil, I’m just curious about how this developed on a societal level.

This is beginning to remind me of the Elven government/culture thread. As is typical in Tolkien's Legendarium, Patriarchal hereditary leadership is the modus operandum for societal dynamics. This is probably more so in Dwarven culture. As goes Thorin, so go the others, even Balin. Not one of the Dwarves in Erebor gain-said their leader. In the part of The Hobbit I am speaking of, Tolkien was writing pretty seriously; no more of the pratfalls and silliness with Trolls and Spiders ... so this I think can be construed as typical societal dynamic for Dwarves.

[Boromir88]

so this I think can be construed as typical societal dynamic for Dwarves.~lmp

And I think it fits along with why the Dwarves united against the Orcs in the war. Despite what battles, arguments, disagreements the dwarves had with eachother...Thror was gruesomely killed and this enraged all the dwarves into sending aid and helping eachother.

[Saurreg]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is beginning to remind me of the Elven government/culture thread. As is typical in Tolkien's Legendarium, Patriarchal hereditary leadership is the modus operandum for societal dynamics. This is probably more so in Dwarven culture. As goes Thorin, so go the others, even Balin. Not one of the Dwarves in Erebor gain-said their leader. In the part of The Hobbit I am speaking of, Tolkien was writing pretty seriously; no more of the pratfalls and silliness with Trolls and Spiders ... so this I think can be construed as typical societal dynamic for Dwarves.

As a citizen from a quasi-patriachal state, I can tell you that concerns or rather, fears of the patriarch going rogue is of the uptmost concerns of both the citizens and government. As such there are measures adopted to prevent absolute power from falling totally into the hands of one man. Hence Singapore has two deputy Prime Ministers and three Ministers for Defence.

That stated I wonder if the dwarven houses had such fail safe mechanisms in place. What would happen if a leader of a great house turned rogue and perhaps "evil" as we have more or less defined in this thread? Could the other dwarves of the same house have stopped this leader from committing undersirable acts? Or would a possible culture of respect to elders, strict social hierarchy, apolitical lifestyles and strong centralized rule dissuade such a self-righting course?

Magna Carta anyone?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Saurreg

That stated I wonder if the dwarven houses had such fail safe mechanisms in place. What would happen if a leader of a great house turned rogue and perhaps "evil" as we have more or less defined in this thread? Could the other dwarves of the same house have stopped this leader from committing undersirable acts? Or would a possible culture of respect to elders, strict social hierarchy, apolitical lifestyles and strong centralized rule dissuade such a self-righting course?

Magna Carta anyone?

Seems unlikely... Dwarves were more of a patriachal people than either Men or Elves. The vengeance of the Dwarves for Thrór is unmatched in Arda- even the vengeance of the Noldor for Finwë doesn't quite compare, in that it is only the Noldor, and not all the Eldar, who follow Fëanor into exile and revenge. With the Dwarves, Thráin has Dwarves of many (all?) houses at his back. The Elven equivalent would have required the Vanyar and the Teleri to have marched with the Noldor.

Furthermore, one can see from The Hobbit that Thorin exercised absolute authority over the Longbeards. We not only see this in the actions of Balin and the rest of the Unlucky Thirteen, but in the actions of Dáin and the Dwarves of the Iron Hills. Dáin was a pretty independent lord, as things go. He'd been lording it over the Iron Hills Dwarves since the Battle of Azanulbizar, and without his troops Thorin was in a pickle and no mistake- but despite being a clearly more levelheaded Dwarf (as we see from his post-Thorin's death actions), and a senior, powerful lord in his own right, he does not waver a bit from obeying Thorin.

So checks and balances? Seems unlikely.

[Saurondil]

Originally Posted by Saurreg

As a citizen from a quasi-patriachal state, I can tell you that concerns or rather, fears of the patriarch going rogue is of the uptmost concerns of both the citizens and government. As such there are measures adopted to prevent absolute power from falling totally into the hands of one man. Hence Singapore has two deputy Prime Ministers and three Ministers for Defence.

That stated I wonder if the dwarven houses had such fail safe mechanisms in place. What would happen if a leader of a great house turned rogue and perhaps "evil" as we have more or less defined in this thread? Could the other dwarves of the same house have stopped this leader from committing undersirable acts? Or would a possible culture of respect to elders, strict social hierarchy, apolitical lifestyles and strong centralized rule dissuade such a self-righting course?

Magna Carta anyone?

## Perhaps the constitution of Numenor, so far as it is recoverable, would be enough to ensure that kind of culture. It seems to depend on custom, much more than on statute. In an ideal state, there would be no law - it would not be needed;custom - as among the Hobbits, who were influenced by the Dunedain - would be enough.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I agree that Dwarves would have been the primary source of outside commerce for the Shire in the time of the War of the Ring. However, there's a variable in Saruman. He had been covertly buying tobacco for some time leading up to the War, and it is said that the "money" he paid for the merchandise was corrupting the hobbits with whom he was doing business. That would seem to be a fair amount of coinage, and I wonder what sort of currency he would have used.

## Might the invention of money be another of Saruman's bad deeds (and a form of likeness to Sauron, by trying to dominate others) ? It would require technology, too - and Tolkien is not overly keen on technology. Corrupting the Sackville-Bagginses (& other Hobbits ?) with cash would fit TLOTR well enough. Barter OTOH, with perishable goods, would allow a comparatively trouble-free economy, one closer to nature. Cash might count as a mathom, to put in the mathom house at Michel Delving. (TLOTR as anti-capitalist fable ? Maybe not.) This would indicate a contrast between Hobbits and dwarves - the latter are inclined to possessiveness, the former are not (unless tempted by the Ring or Saruman).