Are Hobbits capable of evil?

[Hobbes]

That is, regardless of the influence of the ring itself, which might possibly make them do things against their nature...

Or put another way: if we do not find any evil deeds perpetrated by Hobbits (aside from minor faults), is it because they are able to stand by a higher moral code (unlike for instance humans) or because they are one dimensionally good? (just like there are lots of one dimensionally bad characters)

[emplynx]

Frodo Baggins. Farmer Maggot's farm. Mushrooms.

Smegol. The One Ring.

[Renille]

In that situation,Frodo wasn't being evil,necessarily, just mischevious.(A young hobbit trait) And wasn't Smeagol not really a hobbit, but a hobbit-like creature? Plus, he was under the influence of the ring,when he killed Deagol to get it. He desired it so much he would have done anything.

My theory is that yes, hobbits are capable of evil, if they chose to be. But they lead such a sheltered life from the more evil side of the world that most don't really know how. They are not one dimensional, because some do show traces of malice...Lobelia Sackville Baggins, Sandyman,etc., whereas one dimensional evil characters such as Sauron/Ringwraiths are totally bad, not a smidgeon of the other side in them...period. So yeah, I think hobbits are capable of doing evil, but not likely to.

[emplynx]

Smeagol was a Stoor. One of the hobbit "families."

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

Yes, hobbits are capable of Evil. The scourging of the shire. There were many hobbits with quite Evil intent involved in that . Furthermore, All the Creatures of middle earth, even the Valar, were capable of Evil. Why should the hobbits be any different? Their ability to delineate between good and evil is what makes them a "race" of people, not just a hole dwelling shire creature

[Renille]

Smeagol was a Stoor. One of the hobbit "families."

Really?? Sorry emplynx, I guess I have to re-read chapter two! :)

[Ñólendil]

The Shadow of the Past (Book I, Chapter II) will refresh your memory.

[Captain Stern]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, All the Creatures of middle earth, even the Valar, were capable of Evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure Tolkien agrees with you...

Tolkien made Manwe out to be completely free of evil, it says on page 66 in The Silmarillion: "For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the begining, in the thought of Illuvatar, Melkor had been even as he; and he saw not to the depths of Melkor's heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him forever."


Now my cynical view:

However does the fact that they took so long to save the people of Middle Earth from Morgoth qualify as evil to some degree?

Howabout instead of sending the 5 Istari to Middle Earth the Valar could have gone themselves and dragged Sauron away, thus stopping the war of the last alliance from ever happening; and in so doing preventing the horrendous loss of life in that war and the battles in the 3rd Age. The Valar definately seem to have traits of Pride ( Like the Christian God which was why Tolkien probably didn't take the same view as me, him being a devout Catholic and all )

It seems even in Middle Earth human ( and Elf to a lesser degree ) life is cheap. :rolleyes:

[Varda]

From a Christian perspective (which you should notice is not my own), Tolkien might view the reluctance of the Valar to act against Sauran themselves as analagous to how God treats His followers. God allows Satan to tempt humanity and does not intervene unless he really must. He wants to see what humans are capable of by themselves. So the Valar may have believed that sending the Istari to save Middle Earth was enough help and that the races that lived there were capable of handling it by themselves (which proved correct).

That's just my theory... I don't know all that much about Christianity per se, but from what little I DO know that seems to make sense... if anyone has any other theories, as always, feel free... I'm just an ignorant heathen :confused: ~shrugs~

oh and i added this after the fact... my own personal belief is that making the people of Middle Earth fight Sauron shows that people are in control of their own destiny and make their own choices. from a christian stance maybe you'd believe God knew people had the ability to fight evil demons and therefore let it occur.. however, i don't personally believe in predetermined destiny, nor do i really believe in the "guiding hand of God." i think we make our own choices and deal with obstacles in life by ourselves (with help from special people like Istari or Eagles), but in the end... it's our actions that determine our fate to a large extent... maybe that's a Christian belief too... or at least a possible one.. but I'm not sure I believe it in the Christian sense.....

[Ñólendil]

Way to side-step the whole religious debate, Varda, very well done, madam. :p I'll only add that Christianity is a huge religion, filled with many people with very different ideas. At least in my church no two people have the exact same idea about God, or of God, and what God's 'job is' as you might say.

My take for the Captain: Look at the War of Wrath. Beleriand is no more. The Valar were everafter hesitant to openly go to war against the diabolical powers of Middle-earth, for fear of destroying it. Their visible power on Earth had passed, and it was time for smaller hands to do what they may. But they didn't wholly forget the peoples of Middle-earth and continued to help them. In researching such matters it may be useful to pay close attention the words of angelic Gandalf. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, as Frodo was meant to have it, and not by its maker. Look at the winds from the west driving away the black night of Mordor, unveiling the dawn. Ponder the Elvish words of Sam below Shelob*, there is grace in The Lord of the Rings! It's not the job of the Blessed Realm to launch a war on a tyrant every time he arises, the Holy Ones and the 'One who is above all thrones' will aid the people of Middle-earth, but there must not be a second War of Wrath. Sauron was the last physical incarnation of Evil on Earth, and so after the War of the Ring there would be less reason for the Authorities to intervene. They did intervene in the War of the Ring.

As for Morgoth specifically, this was even more dangerous. Even when not considering the rebellious Noldor (who they actually did help, despite their rebellion), Morgoth had disseminated his power throughout Arda. It was indeed 'Morgoth's Ring' (also the title of Vol. X of HoMe). To destroy Morgoth they would have to destroy the World (just like the destruction of Sauron could only be brought about through the destruction of the One Ring). And the Powers always feared to go to war in the 'Dying Lands' (as you might call them), because they were so destructive in their wrath. They were capable of raising valleys and throwing down mountains, of tearing the ground asunder, and filling it with water, if let go, the unstained Valar in their might could have unformed the world, and made it into the formless chaos of its beginning, if they so willed. Morgoth, in his early years, was more capable of doing this than any other of his kin, and he would have, had he not any opponents. He hated that anything existed but himself, and wished that all things other would be nothing.

Anyway Tolkien's got his head on straight enough where I think we can take his word for the 'Holy Ones' bit. The Ainur were holy, the One is good, that's the idea. Maybe if his 'gods' resembled those found in other mythologies (like Germanic Mythology), I would contest the 'Holy' description. The Valar were not incapable of error (by which I do not mean unethical acts), and were (as a Race) capable of Falling (Melkor), but those who did not Fall (whilst still capable of erring) were pure. Maybe raising the Pelori and keeping out the Ñoldor was a bad idea (though Melkor would have taken over the Northwest of M-e had they not), maybe the Valar should have marched off to Beleriand immediately, but what do we know? If you're going to look at it from such a perspective (as looking back on military decisions in history), you might as well use some wisdom. They know their business.

Or one may also look at it historically and decide that it is false history. In this realm of thought it would logical to become skeptical of the 'actions of the Authorities' and dispute whether or not these people are really Holy, i.e., whether these are real people at all. But if you're going to accept it as true history (with Secondary Belief, or 'suspension of disbelief' as most say), than surely rejecting the Holy Ones would only be to reject all that is really good in this world? That the Ainur aren't really all their cracked up to be isn't a very happy view, in fact it's downright depressing.





*'O! Star-queen, Star-kindler, from heaven gazing afar, to thee I cry now beneath the shadow of death. O look towards me Everwhite!'

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

I assumed Valar were capable of Evil because Melkor was evil and he was a Valar. I think that they were.. As far as relating theology to the book...I see tolkiens creation of the world as would be a deist point of view no nessecarily a theist(christian) Which by the way is my own veiw;Im mennonite,any way...

I understand your analogy,but like you said, you dont know everything about christian theology...I dont believe god sent us to the world to see if we could withstand temptation, at that time there was no temptation. God has and has always had charecteristics. When he created the world his charecteristics were good. He is loving therefore loving is amiable attribute..and so on..., Satan, much like melkor Was proud of himself and his status and he convinced 1/3 of the angels to follow him. He was cast from heaven and onto earth wich is now the realm of satan. Many people blaim god for current catastrophes even though it is satan who does these things. (i guess thats beside the point). Satan could only pervert the good that god had created... This is where evil came from. God created man to have someone to love who would in return love him...But, much like the noldor,we-we being mankind denied that love and left the heavenly paradise of Eden(Like Valinor), Those are a few parrallels between the christian theology and the History of middle earth. I explain the creationist view point and since you know the history of middle-earth I let you pick out the comparisons.

The Valar are capable of evil, but they see such a tanible difference between the two evil to them is a digusting thing and they see the results of it. I believe they are capable. Hmm...
A proper analogy would be two armies fighting. The soldiers of the side of good are capable of going to the sides of evil, but they have no wish to. Because the opposition is so apparently evil. Whereas with hobbits and elves and such it is a desire and is easier for them to commit evil acts. The race that sees the distinction the least is men. Men find it hard to see through the desire of evil and see the destruction it causes. Perhaps because they are less intelligent.

One of the factors used to determine an organisms inteligence is to see if it can see long term benefit over apparent short term benefit. For example: A mouse sees a peace of cheese in a mouse trap; the mouse runs to get it looking at is short term advantages(the cheese) and ignoring the long term disadvantages(the relatively big bar and spring that will crash down immediately afterwards.)We would not classify the organism as very intelligent.

The order of intellegence is as I see it as follows(least to greatest)

men
elves
valar

Making the list of their succeptbility to evil the same. So it would seem to one that the valar are incapable of Evil when in reality it is just very unlikely because of their knowledege of the consequences.

One might argue that the Maiar are easily persuaded to evil. Most of the Maiar that became evil had evil masters which adds a factor to the intelligence theory. They were created to help their masters. So that an evil Master would put immense desire on the Valar.
Saruman was the only example of a good turned bad and their is no knowing how much work was done on him.
And Osse was the only example of somone who was almost evil but became good. Neither of which for those reasons are solid against the final theory.

[crow]

Good and bad are relative. Everything is capable of "evil". Hobbits have lived in a peaceful, sheltered enviroment; generally speaking they couldn't help but remain decent, generous and friendly for they never learned to act otherwise. I think Hobbits are capable of "evil", though perhaps less likely to succumb to dark ways than other creatures (i.e. Men, which is to say Homo sapiens).

[Lelondul]

I think you are spot on Inolo. Not much I can say to add to your thoughts other than say I agree :) Tolkien's creation doesn't mirror christianity one-for-one. But I believe that the Valar had indeed withdrawn because they witnessed the destruction they wielded (wether intended or not) on the evil and the fair in Middle-earth. Their generosity in granting the first elf-friends the land of Numenor and increasing the life-spans of these supposedly 'good' men (which many of them were) led to the destruction of Beleriand. I think after this, they were much more cautious and subtle in their dealings with Middle-earth - thus the sending of the Istari to aid the free-peoples in the 3rd Age.

And crow, I considered the Hobbits to posses many 'evil' traits. They were petty (Sackville-Baginsses's jealously of Bilbo and his family), materialistic, and quite subject to rumors (however untrue). They were very provincial, and thus not open to much free-thought. While these traits at once make them engaging and an entirely unique microcosm in Middle-earth, they are far from un-corruptable. More resistant to magic than most, but nevertheless....

[Wayfarer]

Everything in middle earth capable of evil.

However, the magnitude of evil which they are capable is proportional to the magnitude of power overall.

A hobbit would probobly be the least evil of the people in middle earth. Even one that did become bad, such as sandyman or lotho sackville-baggins, would hardly be more than a petty fool. However, a good hobbit is hardly likely to be anything spectacular. Hobbits aren't likely to become something like the mouth of sauron, but neither are they likely to produce any great lords like aragorn or even faramir.

On the other hand, a maia such as Curinur is a far more powerful force for good, but is also a greater force for evil once he falls.

And a Valar, like Melkor, could have been the greatest force for good in Arda. However, he chose to become the greatest force for evil.

Hobbits are capable of evil. It's just that they don't have much direct effect on things either way.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

Thank you wayfarer I believe that ties up that hole in the Intelligence theory.

[Captain Stern]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My take for the Captain: Look at the War of Wrath. Beleriand is no more. The Valar were everafter hesitant to openly go to war against the diabolical powers of Middle-earth, for fear of destroying it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't help but think that that is a poor excuse. If only 2 of the Valar would have gone to Mordor ( directly to Sauron ) they could simply have seized him ( who was he to fight back against them? ) their greater power would have probably quickly overpower him ( Sauron had no other Great Spirits besides himslef to thwart them like Morgoth had ), and then they could have carted him off to Mandos.

I can't see how a confrontation between the Valar and Sauron could cause much devestation. Their confrontation with Morgoth understandably caused tremendous damage; but he had Dragons and other Maiar fighting for him, arguably an equal battle against The Valar in that battle ( at least for many decades ). Sauron however was a solitary spirit compared to Morgoth's legion of them.

However Inoldonil you are right on the money in a sense. Tolkien sees no error in the Christian belief system and so Eru et. all are all that he says that they are, simply because HE invented them.

The Children of Illuvatar, like humans in the Christian belief structure were treated and judged as numbers. It's all very well for the Valar ( or God ) to say along these lines: "It is time for smaller hands to take action now" or "It is time for men to fight against the evil that threatens them" even if the free peoples defeat the evil, this still ignores the fact that men will suffer, die, widow loved ones, and make children fatherless.

We aren't a single entity, we are individual's and it is not fair to treat us this way.

Of course Eru and The Valar are truly wonderful compared to Christianity's God. I have read pieces of the Bible and 'God' is as terrible and terrifying as anything I've ever read about. For example:

He created us, we did not ask to exist. He gave us diferent personalities, instincts. Some people are evil, some are good, we surely can't be born blank slates the figures just don't add up. Even if that isn't the case if some become evil because of experience it is ultimately God's fault because he created us.
All of this would be redeemable in my view if we are admitted back to his fold where the disharmonies could be washed away ( he is all powerful, he could do this ) Yet he chooses not to do this. Instead he condemns a person who doesn't measure up by his strict standards to an ETERNITY of torment in Hell.

Have you actually read the bible? It is full of threats and orders. It even says that all who do not worship him will go to Hell. What kind of insecure, insane and horrible entity creates intelligent life for the sole purpose of worshiping him, and those who don't, he condemns to an eternity of torment?

I can't see how any 'good' that he can possibly offer makes all of this evil ok.

If you have you'r own ideas about God then that is great, but the Christian God's worship is based either on fear or misunderstanding the religion. Ultimately it has served it's purpose by those in power who created religion, which is to control the masses.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

God created evil...??? Check and make sure your reading the right bible. God did not create anyone evil... We chose evil...
Satan had the right to our souls... He takes evil people to hell.
God saw that this corruption had happened...he knew the only way he could save the world from going to hell was to come to earth live as one of us... and die in a cruel fashion to appease those that he is saving... AND YOU ACCUSE HIM OF SENTENCING PEOPLE TO HELL!!???
YOU have never read the bible. you have only read the small pieces that corrupted minds would have you read... Go ahead and quote those refferences...Its a whole lot easier to defend against than... "Theres a whole lot of threats and stuff in the bible" It is so obvious you do not even try to understand the things you're mocking.

All of this would be redeemable in my view if we are admitted back to his fold where the disharmonies could be washed away ( he is all powerful, he could do this ) Yet he chooses not to do this. Instead he condemns a person who doesn't measure up by his strict standards to an ETERNITY of torment in Hell.


WE DESERVE TO GO TO HELL ETERNALLY BECAUSE WE CHOSE EVIL!!! GOD HAS TRIED TO SAVE US!!!

At least before you start making horrible statments about ones belief.
Research the beliefs your arguing against

[Captain Stern]

It's 4:00 am here, but I'll quote you as soon as I can rest assured.

You talk about the Bible as if you think it contains none of what I've said which leads me to doubt you'r own research. I think maybe you've been reading the Children's Bible, It's all very lovely in that.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

Oh please...

:rolleyes:

I am weak and inexperinced in the bible. I have never read anything but the childrens bible... But you...why you..your a man who can stand on his own with his own theology that doesnt need a strong god to rely on ...

cmon ive heard that illogical line of resoning before
I thought better of you
Of COURSE ive read more than a childrens version of the bible

CONTEXT.... its about context... i know for a fact those quotes are in there...but there taken out of context... some of your quotes were completely false of course but give me the context of the others...

I have studied the bible for a long time...
I am not lying when i say this so now...
I hope you will accept that as true and stop wildly accusing me of things you assume.
The reason i can question your reading of the scriptures is because. It is completely contradicted by the rest of the word.
And because you said yourself youve only read peices.

anyway just give me the quotes and the reffences.
then maybe the two of us can stop and have a more logical argument. Hopefully...

[Ñólendil]

I can't help but think that that is a poor excuse. If only 2 of the Valar would have gone to Mordor ( directly to Sauron ) they could simply have seized him ( who was he to fight back against them? ) their greater power would have probably quickly overpower him ( Sauron had no other Great Spirits besides himslef to thwart them like Morgoth had ), and then they could have carted him off to Mandos.

It certainly seems simple enough, doesn't it? Why indeed did not the Valar do what you say they should have? Certainly your idea seems unrealistic, for some reason. Perhaps it has something to do with letting history take its course, while aiding the good. Is it really possible for the Ainur to protect to the Free from the Tyrants all the time? Always though the question of physical destruction arises. I don't know. See for example this passage from a letter, concerning the Istari: Why they should take such a form is bound up with the 'mythology' of the 'angelic' Powers of the world of this fable. At this point in the fabulous history the purpose was precisely to limit and hinder their exhibition of 'power' on the physical plane, and so that they should do what they were primarily sent for: strain, advise, instruct, arouse the hearts and minds of those threatened by Sauron to a resistance with their own strengths; and not just to do the job for them. They thus appeared as 'old' sage figures. But in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers or 'gods'. The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). ...

That would seem to contain answers, or to lead to answers.

For the sake of everyone here (or perhaps only myself ;) ), I think we should get off the religious subject as far as the Bible goes, and stick to Tolkien's works. Otherwise this topic could go on forever about The Bible, forgetting altogether whether or not Hobbits are capable of evil. Anyway in my experience such a discussion usually ends in a huge flame war. I usually let debates roll on, but Biblical stuff (already picking up heat at this early stage) in a LOTR Books topic is dangerous. I'm pretty sure you can start up a topic on God in The Bible in the General Forum.

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

As much as I would love to go on....

I fear Inoldonil is right..
i still encourage you to find the aforementioned quotes and research them.

If nothing else so you would have a more solid argument.
There are truths in scripture you will find if you try to find them.

ill resign my side of the argument as for the Hobbits being evil
Does the intelligence theory have no relevance or was I to late in posting it or is it wrong or right..or is it painfully obvious or what.

Good night.

[crow]

um, carden? This secularized Jew/agnostic (for lack of a better term) is not happy with a certain post in which you ranted about us chosing evil, God trying to save us, blah, blah, blah. This is not a Bible discussion group. If it was I'd point a few things out to you (I have, incidentally, studied the Hebrew Bible). Sorry if this post is late and unnecessary. I'm taken aback and slightly insulted and would simply like to express it.

[TrewynEvenstar]

One word - Gollum. I think he's fairly evil, and I'm pretty sure that Gandalf says that Gollum was or is, depending on how you look at it, a hobbit.

[Captain Stern]

CardenIAntauraNauco I am sorry for the bluntness of my post. I didn't take into consideration how important religion is to some people. And, you're right I should have included quotes to back up my point.

I can't quote them now but I'm hoping I can later on today ;) once I find a bible. Anyway a lot of what I said was in 'Revelations'. Regardless I may have been a bit hasty in my reasoning. When I thought about it later on that night, The New Testament is in a lot of ways diferent to the Old Testament, it is much more 'friendly' as you will no doubt know better than me. The new testament was written by other people based supposedly on the teachings of Christ, and it bears very little resemblance to The Old Testament as you know.

Regardless, as people have rightly pointed out, this discussion doesn't belong on this thread, I'll be happy to continue it in General Discussions with you and I'll try to be more polite e.t.c :)

[CardenIAntauraNauco]

um, carden? This secularized Jew/agnostic (for lack of a better term) is not happy with a certain post in which you ranted about us chosing evil, God trying to save us, blah, blah, blah. This is not a Bible discussion group. If it was I'd point a few things out to you (I have, incidentally, studied the Hebrew Bible). Sorry if this post is late and unnecessary. I'm taken aback and slightly insulted and would simply like to express it.

You are right. This is not a bible discussion group and iIwas wrong to bring it up...

[Wayfarer]

Will say nothing, despite the inane stupidity of some prior arguments.

Needless to say, both sides in the short argument above exhibited traits common to a flamefest, and neither really has a decent argument.

[GrooveAttack]

here is my outlook on this topic when it aint on the bible: gollum was called a hobbit once in the lord of thei rings, so yes. BUT, the ring made him the way he was, so no, because it was not natural

[Wayfarer]

Yes... that's right.

Actually, smeagol was a pretty sneaky and mischevious guy, but for all I can tell, he was no worse than a young frodo baggins, and possibly better behaved than merry and pippen are portrayed in the movie.

[Ñólendil]

Complementary to your argument Mr. Wayfarer, Tolkien reveals in one his letters that Sméagol was a nasty, mean Hobbit before he ever found the Ring.

[GrooveAttack]

Okay, the its settled, i guess they ARE capable of evil.

[Frodo'sGirl]

I think they are totally capable of evil it depends on the situation
they might be evil when is comes to romance of something because that never comes up in the book among hobbits. hmmmm
interesting consept, evil hobbits mawahahaha that would be funny now that i think of it lol:)