I am reading The Hobbit again and I came across this passage in Chapter IV "Over Hill and Under Hill":

There in the shadows on a large flat stone sat a tremendous goblin with a huge head, and armed goblins were standing round him carrying the axes and the bent swords that they use. Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted. They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones. They can tunnel and mine as well as any but the most skilled dwarves, when they take the trouble, though they are usually untidy and dirty. Hammers, axes, swords, daggers, pickaxes, tongs, and also instruments of torture, they make very well, or get other people to make to their design, prisoners and slaves that have to work till they die for want of air and light. It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them, and also not working with their own hands more than they could help; but in those days and those wild parts they had not advanced (as it is called) so far. They did not hate dwarves especially, no more than they hated everybody and everything, and particularly the orderly and prosperous; in some parts wicked dwarves had even made alliances with them. But they had a special grudge against Thorin's people, because of the war which you heard mentioned, but which does not come into this tale; and anyway goblins don't care who they catch, as long as it is done smart and secret, and the prisoners are not able to defend themselves.

When it said that they hated 'particularly the orderly and prosperous' I thought, "That describes the occupy Wall Street people!" But then it goes on and says 'wicked dwarves had even made alliances with them' and I knew for sure it was a good analogy - the wicked dwarves are the rich Democrats!

Okay, okay, I meant this only as a joke and if you're not from the U.S., sorry for the irrelevance.

But, it does bring up an interesting question. Why would dwarves ally themselves with goblins? Dwarves are especially orderly and prosperous, while goblins are not. It must be their wickedness that drives them to such lengths. In games terms they would be corrupt and sliding down the paths of their Shadow Weaknesses. But, what would be their motivation?

Maybe some of these dwarves are treasure-hunters that have Dragon-sickness. In desperate bouts of madness they could have reached out and promised the goblins protection and wealth if aligned. If so, they were probably deceitful, only caring about themselves and the treasure they could gain. They would become more corrupt and eventually enslave their goblin allies and steal from them.

What does everyone else think? Who were these goblin and dwarf allies that Tolkien writes about?

The first thing I thought of was the Petty-Dwarves, mentioned in The Silmarilion. Tolkien talks about them in Turin Turambar's story.

But since (to my knowledge) this is the only place they are mentionned in Tolkien's work, I have no idea if those wicked dwarves and petty-dwarves are in any way related or not...

This is a non-canon answer, thus I am not sure if it helps. But for LOTRO, you have the Dourhands. They were driven by desperation and greed (and a quest for immortality). They also made alliances with goblins and trolls.

I cannot find a canon answer to your general question, but I imagine it is as you say. Dwarves are susceptible to corruption, and it would not be unreasonable for an entire (small) clan of Dwarves to become wicked.

Well, in this respect Middle-earth is more compley than The Hobbit and most of The Lord of the Rings suggest. In the Battle of Dagorlad, a few dwarven contingents sided with Sauron (though less than with the Free Peoples). So, some dwarves are not morally above dealing (or even siding with) the Enemy.

Four of the Seven Houses are rooted and seated in the East, beyond the borders of the LotR map. Their histories are not known in detail (the LotR game had a lot of good stuff developed on these; MERP less so), but at least some of them cooperated with Sauron out of greed or pragmatism.

Thus it's not hard to imagine that the dwarves that allied themselves with orcs are to be found among these eastern dwarves.

Best
Tolwen

What about the rings of power given to the dwarves by Sauron: "Seven for the Dwarf Lords in their halls of stone".

While the bearers were not transformed into Ringwraiths, the rings still had a corrupting effect. Maybe corrupted dwarf lords led clans or partial clans into darkness.

Also think of Thorin shortly before the Battle of Five Armies. If an agent of Mordor had possession of the Arkenstone, what would Thorin have done?

Of the Rings of Power unwittingly forged by the Elves of Eregion for Sauron in the Second Age, seven were given to the Dwarf Lords, including one to Durin III. Once Sauron had forged the One Ring, it is said that although he could not control them directly, he was able to corrupt them with thoughts of "anger and greed", increasing their natural avarice and desire to accumulate huge hoards of treasure.

Given that the Dwarf Lords possessed seven Rings of Power and that Sauron could employ the One Ring to influence them to seek more and more treasure, it is not unreasonable to assume that some of them, or their close entourage, cut deals with the Goblins in order to gain access to rich seams of silver and gold?

[EDIT]

Wow, great minds think alike! When I was writing this, the previous poster beat me to it!

Actually, LotR makes it clear that of the Seven Dwarven Rings, four are eaten by fire dragons whose internal combustion is assumed to be able to melt these normally crafted rings. (Except for the Ruling Ring, all the other rings are crafted in "normal" enchanting processes.)

Durin III's ring is passed down among the rightful rulers of the Longbeards clan of Dwarves (Father: Durin the Deathless, Ancestral Home: Moria). So the first we hear of it is Thorin Oakenshield's grandfather (Thrain or Thror, forget which) having the ring when they escape Smaug's capture of Erebor. Later, Thorin's father returns to Rhovanion (Moria? Erebor?) and gets captured by the Necromancer, his ring taken, and killed. Years later, during the Council of Elrond in LotR, Gloin mentions that the Mouth of Sauron offers King Dain of Erebor a magical ring, once belonging to his fathers, if he will reveal information about Bilbo and the Shire.

Also, something somewhere about Aule and the Dwarves says something like 'the dwarves were created to withstand the evils of Morgoth and in this Aule succeeded as his creations were never forced into complying with Morgoth, or his underlings, evil designs.'

Having said that, their is also something in the Silmarillion about how when Morgoth altered his song to his own purposes rather than Eru's, his evil song tainted some of everything within Middle-earth thereafter. That their was nothing that was wholly good, nor wholly evil from the point where the songs diverged. But that even in attempting to serve himself, Morgoth served the will of Eru.

All together, this means that their are evil dwarves just because they are tainted by Morogoth's song in general, or have chosen evil. Not that they were forced against their will into serving evil.

And the folks at LotRO are actually quite good at, and very creative with, Middle-earth cannon. Thorough investigation generally reveals that you could interpret things their way. (As far as the setting. We'll leave the LotRO Store alone. )

Yes. However:

The rings were forged between 1500-1600 Second Age. (SA ends in 3441)

The Dragons reappear and afflict the Dwarves in 2570 Third Age
Smaug sacks Erebor 200 years later in 2770.
No more dragon attacks mentioned after.

That gives you roughly 4400-4500 years between the forging and the start of the dragon war. Thrain II's ring was the last one and it was recaptured by Sauron in 2850.

So you have the Dwarf rings active for well over 5000 years.

More than enough time to corrupt even the noblest dwarf...

I think it is also useful to remember that a Dwarf, or a group of Dwarves, need not be evil to the core to ally with Goblins. Dwarves are, even at the best of times, avaricious. I can easily imagine a situation where Dwarves might sell weapons, tools, and even armour to Orcs if the price was right. Alternatively, if the Dwarves have an axe to grind -- a useful idiom considering Dwarf preferences! -- against a particular group of Elves or Men, they might well make common cause to achieve vengeance. In any case, Sauron and his minions could easily manipulate and exploit the worst aspects of Dwarven character to secure their assistance in war without resorting to simple malice.

Really, it is probably more interesting to motivate "wicked" Dwarves with less diabolical flaws since it becomes possible to "save" them. Who better to convince a group of Dwarves doing bad things that they ought to behave differently than the heroes of a TOR campaign? The LM can then transform the Dwarven adversaries from 2-dimensional enemies into potential allies against the Shadow if the Heroes play their cards correctly.

I am interested in this idea. In one of the adventures of my campaign, I feature a mad Dwarf named Borin whom the player-heroes have the chance to "restore." I am thinking of expanding the rules for the Undertaking "Heal Corruption," which only deals with healing a player-hero's own corruption, to include allowing player-heroes to heal the corruption of Loremaster characters.

For my own part, I'm mulling over the possibility of a fellowship having to convince a group of Dwarves to stop selling weapons to Orcs in favor of some sort of favored trading status with Dale or the Woodmen.

Or, what happens with the servants of Sauron frame some Men or Elves in an act sure to incite some Dwarves?

Heck, what if some Men or Elves might unwittingly insult some Dwarves and someone inadvertently "frames" Sauron? The heroes might waste precious time trying to find the servants of the Necromancer when they ought to be reconciling the two parties.

Finally, there may be some old-fashioned competition over resources, a situation in which the Heroes, bereft of a solid foundation in microeconomics, have to explain comparative advantage to both parties and negotiate a trade settlement to avert a disaster.

LOL! The point is that, staying within the cannon, that doesn't happen.

Of course what you do within the campaigns that you run, or participate in, is your own business.

Excuse me, Garn.

No Tolkien scholar, and I lost most of my books to a river...
But what of Tolwen's reference to dwarves siding with Sauron at the battle of Dagorlad?

Referencing my earlier comments, I do not believe it naturally follows that the Dwarves who fought for Sauron at Dagorlad were particularly evil. Who knows what lies they were told to convince them to march under the Eye? Perhaps some fought to secure vengeance against a previous slight, real or imagined? Or, a substantial amount of money may have been on the table.

There are many ways to explain why some dwarves fought for Sauron at Dagorlad.
I was just asking if Garn does have reasons to believe that these dwarves weren't corrupted by the(ir) Ring(s). I'm doing no polemic here, just sincerely asking

BTW, Mordagnir, I really feel like you about “fallen” opponents.

Fallen heroes makes for great tales.

Now, if only JamesRBrown comes up with some rules to heal someone else's corruption, I'll gladly steal it!

That actually isn't completely accurate. Tolkien tells us that in the Second Age when Suaron attacked the Elves of Eregion, Durin abandoned his ally and friend (yes, Tolkien says their was friendship between Celebrimbor and Durin the Deathless) sealing Kahzad-dum in the face of need. Tolkien goes onto explain that though Durin had rebuffed Sauron, the purposes of then Enemy nonetheless we're served when he abandoned Eregion to it's fate. This was the work of the Dwarven Ring of Power upon the heart of Durin the Deathless. (I speak here of Durin the Deathless because Tolkien speaks of an accumulated affect over time with each successive Durin who bore the ring and their Crown of Seven Stars until in the time of Celebrimbor at which point Durin turns away from friendship and furthers the designs of the Enemy without becoming a servant of the Enemy.)

In Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, Dwarves were prey to corruption, but never through coercion. The machinations of the Enemy worked more subtlety on Dwarves, but never wholly as the Second Age example bears witness.

Just to clarify Melkor's influence in the making and shaping of Arda...

The influence of Melkor on Arda-marred through the discord woven into it's founding Song did not affect any of the Free Peoples created by Eru, nor conceived by the Ainur and hallowed by Eru with life. Therefore, Ents and Ent-wives, Dwarves and Hobbits as well as Men and Elves all exist essentially free of the discord and strife Melkor introduced. Arda-marred refers to the natural world not the Free Peoples. Moreover, when you read Tolkien's reflections on his writing of The Simarillion's Ainulindale, the way Melkor marred the work of the other Ainur was through tainting the freedom of the craftsman behind the work. As an example, the violence of the earth with its volcanic activity and instability was introduced into Aule's part of the Ainulindale not through Melkor taking a direct hand in the making of the mountains and the earth. That was Aule's theme to play with his helpers. But, Melkor sung in concert with Aule, and thereby influenced Aule. Under this influence, Aule sung a wrathfully cord into his conception of the mountains and the earth. The result, Arda now contains the potential for violent tectonic activity. Melkor, then, enters Arda and stirs the latent theme within Aule's music to life and so the earth begins to war against the designs of the other Valar. Freedom is the crux which everything turns on in Tolkien's Middle-earth.

Play this out with the Dwarves: Aule creates them to withstand the coercive and dominating tactics of the Enemy; and, in the process, he inures them to the sensitivities of friendship and communion under Eru that all Free People should feel. The Enemy's designs are served in the end becasue there will come a time when dwarven resistance entrenches itself beyond the reach of friends and allies. In so doing, the Free Peoples are sundered in a small but important way, and the Enemy laughs in pleasure at the seeds sown (the planting of the Dwarven Ring of Power) and the the fruit born (isolationism).

Although in the end all things will serve Eru's designs alone.

Regars,
E

This abandonment was proposed in ICE's Lórien and the Halls of the Elven-smiths and for long I took it at face value. But sometime I looked in Tolkien's works, and couldn't find it.
Quite to the contrary. When Elrond with his Eregion-relief force was in dire straits by Sauron's army and doomed in face of far superior forces, the dwarven king (IIRC Durin III; the 'Deathless' was in the First Age) together with Elves from Lórinand (later Lórien) attacked Sauron's army in the rear, allowing Elrond to extricate himself with losses - but nonetheless. Then the dwarves retreated back into Moria in good order (with light losses?) and Sauron was unable to get into, which infuriated him considerably. For the time being he bypassed Moria and Lórinand to continue his campaign in Eriador for recovering the Rings still missing

Best
Tolwen

A few thoughts. First of all by license the canon for the game is strictly the two novels. Other writings by the Professor may help illuminate his thinking, but ultimately even Silmarillion is apocryphal.

Second, I am pretty sure that speaking at the Council of Elrond on the Rings of Power Gandalf states that the Nine are accounted for, the Three Sauron never touched so they remain unsullied, the Seven were devoured by Dragons or else have been recovered by Sauron.

It is not proven beyond all doubt that the Seven are all recovered or devoured by dragons, but I would not bet against Gandalf on it.

As for Corruption and the Shadow working their influence on the hearts of Dwarves, even if all they did was increase the natural Dwarvish leanings toward hard-hearts, stiff necks, and greed for gold, that might be enough. Dwarves have warred in the past with both Elves and Goblins. Dwarves who ar willing to war against elves may well be willing to ally with goblins. As far as friendship with Mordor, if the Dwarves see it as to their advantage I don't see why not. Certainly the baser sort of Dwarf might not see Sauron's objectives as contrary to their own purposes and aims.

I do not meats suggest that it would be by any means common. But certainly possible.

@Tolwen, While I am a long time MERP player, I bought Southern Mirkwood in 1983 when I was in middle schhol. I seldom if ever quote it when I write about something from Tolkien's writings...just for the record. However, I can't find a reference for it in my notes. I'll have to check his letters and see if the quote is in there. Otherwise, this may be one of those seldom times where I have quoted MERP.

We'll see when I return home and check the letters.

Thanks for pointing that out!

Regards,
E

I'd be deep in your debt if you find something in this direction (e.g. the Longbeards willingly shutting the Elves out), since it's be a strong element indeed.

Thanks for looking

Best
Tolwen

Wow, lots of commentary. The following are some responses. Others go unanswered, at this time, simply because I will have to do some additional reading / fact checking to respond accurately. Sorry for the delay.


Corvo,
I'm not a Tolkien Scholar by any means (especially not in comparison to some folks on here who actually do have PhD's!), but I remember things I've read for long periods of time. This happened to be one such case.

BTW, the "LOL" was a matter of humor that so many posters wanted to entice the dwarves through the Seven Dwarven Rings (see below). I understood your request for more info on Dagorlad to be just that. We all miss facts due to the shear amount of info that exists about ME. That was why I responded to begin with, assuming all of the Ring Seduction posters were unaware of the info in my first post.


Mordagnir,
I cannot speak about the Dwarves at the Battle of Dagorlad as I do not recall reading that particular event. Here, memory fails me!

However, I appear to have also failed to communicate my thoughts accurately within this thread. Which, admittedly, I answered offhandedly. My apologies. The following is how I understand things.

Aule specifically designed the dwarves to be both physically and mentally adverse to Morgoth. Physically in that they were durable and withstood heat and flame better than the Elves, because these were the weapons Morgoth used. They also received physical strength of arm to be able to be able to injure Morgoth's servants when battle ensued. Mentally, the dwarves were prepared in how they thought, to be less inclined to pay heed to Morgoth's temptations. They were xenophobic in order to mistrust other peoples so they were unlikely to be hoodwinked by outside influences. They were unforgiving so that, unlike Man, they could not forget and fall prey to the same trick in an updated scheme. They thought more about their race than themselves as individuals.

While all of the above are generalizations, these are recurring themes when dealing with the dwarves. Obviously there are going to be exceptions on both the individual and group level. Otherwise you have stasis, unchanging, and without tension and change there is no story.

The Children of Illuvator (Elves and Man) are just that -- the creation of independent free-willed life forms devised by Illuvator alone. However, the Dwarves are not his creation. They are designed by Aule, and Tolkien specifically states they are an imperfect design. Illuvator says he will adopt (provide them life and free-will), but will not alter them in any manner from the way in which Aule crafted them.

So can Morgoth, Sauron or any other evil creature tempt the Dwarves? Yes, absolutely, the Dwarves are not perfect creatures. Despite what readers of this thread thought I meant, I was not trying to say that dwarves were immune from the temptations of evil. The dwarves, when tempted, have free-will like the other races and must choose to believe, follow and perform evil acts. But it is a choice. Dwarves cannot be forced, or coerced, into evil.

This coercion into evil is exactly what has been suggested by the malign nature of the Seven Dwarven Rings. Just because 7 dwarves, out of an entire race, wore evilly tainted rings that does not mean that any other dwarves were tempted into espousing evil. No ring succeed in forcing any Dwarf into evil. Ergo, the ring-wearers cannot tempt other dwarves based on the ring's influence. These seven ring-wearing dwarves can, of their own volition, tempt other dwarves if that ring-wearer has chosen to believe, follow or act in an evil manner. But that is their choice, not the affect of the ring.


Elaudin,
Tolwen addresses the main issues regarding Celembrimbor, which I appreciate because I could not recall the event.

I just want to comment that sometimes it is a matter of perspective. Did Durin abandon Celembrimbor or did he act in the best interests of himself, his family and his race? Despite the possibility that what was best for himself might not be best for his friend, would acting in a manner that was not in Celembrimbor's best interest make Durin evil? Not right or wrong, but Morogothian / Sauronic type evil?

I will have to get back to you on the Song of the Ainur.

Horsa,

You are correct. Saul Zeantz Company, doing business as Middle-earth Enterprises (MeE/SZC), holds all merchandizing, but not literary, rights to all material within The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. All of the Middle-earth RPGs have been licensed from MeE/SZC.

Besides The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, the Tolkien Estate retains all rights to all of Tolkien's other works.

However, within this RPG game, the priority in order of degree of cannon, has to be: TOR products, LotR, Hobbit. All other Tolkien material does not officially matter to this game.

Elaudin,
Assuming you are quoting MERP, all I can say is... Annoying when that happens, isn't it?

As soon as you pick up the dice and open the game books, you diverge from canon.

**************************

A Great Dragon attacks a Dwarf Hold. The Clan Leader is one of the Dwarvish Ring bearers. The dwarves are not caught completely by surprise. Their readiness results in an epic pitched battle to the death in the depths of their mountain stronghold.

During the battle, the Clan Leader is murdered by one of his own. The murderer, a dwarf and one of the king's inner circle, is overcome with lust for the ring. The loss of the king throws the dwarves into disarray and the citadel falls where it otherwise might have survived. In the confusion of the battle, the ring is lost to the dragons flames, along with the dwarf's left hand.

The murderer flees with the other refugees. The clan scatters and the murderer, his crime unknown but perhaps suspected, leaves them to their fate. He wanders alone at first, but gradually gathers a following of wicked dwarves, men and even half breed orcs.

****************************

A Dwarf slayer is the son of a Clan Leader/Ring Bearer. When his father dies (old age or murder?) the son returns to claim the throne. However he discovers that the Ring, the Clan's greatest treasure is missing! It has been stolen! Wracked by guilt, anger and shame the heir embarks on a secret but increasingly brutal investigation.

When the ring cannot be found in the dwarf hold, he begins hunting down messengers, ambassadors, everyone who was in the citadel when the ring vanished. As time passes and his anger grows, so does the list of crimes he commits in search of the thief and his precious treasure...

Who took the ring? Was it even stolen? Perhaps the aged CL felt his heir was unworthy...

*****************************************

A Dward scholar stumbles upon a scroll that indicates that a Dwarf Ring of Power may have escaped a dragon's fire along with it's bearer. He gathers a party of doughty dwarves and begins the quest to recover the ring.

As the quest drags on the strain begins to show. Dwarven henchmen are sacrificed in traps, battles and eventually executed for questioning his judgement. Their questioning of local peoples becomes increasingly violent, devolving into torture and sadism.

Eventually, the trail leads to an orc band that sought refuge in Moria. The scholar and his wicked band boldly march into the mines, confident that the ring will soon be theirs. Perhaps Balin's party wasn't the first dwarf settlement in the ruined mines after all...

I totally agree that you diverge from official canon the moment you start playing, by substitute personal canon - whatever is acceptable in your personal campaign.

As to the examples you provide, I read the last two as 'dwarf chose to do evil'.

In the first example, the first two paragraphs are possibly 'ring tempts dwarf', but the last paragraph is definitely 'dwarf chose to do evil'.

The reasoning behind my answer is as follows:
1) Perception / Knowledge: If a person cannot perceive, and/or does not know about the Ring, it cannot tempt that person. (The Prancing Pony. No one reacted until after seeing the Ring. Same with Boromir who would otherwise have mugged Frodo the moment he got within range at the Council of Elrond.)
2) Proximity: The temptation experienced by other people for the One Ruling Ring seems to be based on proximity. The Rings have a finite area of affect within which to tempt others. (Almost everybody at the Council of Elrond - but not everyone in Rivendell.)
3) Time: The total amount of time that the Ring is within the presence of a person affects the degree to which they are tempted by the Ring. Long association allowing a quicker response to the Ring's call. Absence decreases the strength of the response, but cannot remove it completely. (The re-emergence of Smeagol in Return of the King - years after living without the Ring.)
4) State: The active or passive state of the One Ruling Ring. When the Ring is active and not in Sauron's possession, the Ring expends more energy to tempt others. When the Ring is passive, while Sauron is incorporeal for instance, it exerts less temptation to return to him. The other Rings of Power (Greater or Lesser), if tainted by Sauron, are affected by the One Ruling Rings state as well and respond with increase temptation than normal. (Bilbo at Rivendell. This one is a bit awkward because the One Ruling Ring was passive through most of Bilbo's long ownership. Thus he was not especially tempted by it. However, when shown the Ring in Rivendell the beginnings of the split personality Smeagol/Gollum experiences is revealed.)
5) Enchantment Strength: The Rings of Power, both Lesser and Greater, were crafted at varying degrees of power. The stronger the Ring, the more temptation it may exert. (Only indirect evidence: The Elven smiths crafting the Lesser Rings of Power in Eregion did not suddenly start killing each other.)
6) Sentience: Some enchanted items have a will of their own and can act as they see fit within the limitations of their functionality/abilities. (While the One Ruling Ring displayed sentience, the other Rings do not. It is possible that the sentience of the One Ruling Ring was an ability of it's evil nature.)

An interesting point on ring lore, the Nine were given by Sauron to mortal Men who were thus ensnared by them. Three he never touched so they remained unsullied (they were hidden by the Elven smiths from the start). Of the Seven, we are told by Gandalf that three have been revered by Sauron and the rest the dragons have consumed. This is confirmed by Sauron's messenger to Dain who promises the gift of "rings such as he gave of old ... Three of the rings possessed by your ancestors".

Further we are told that each of the Great Rings has the power to prolong its bearers life, although it does not give more life. They also all have the power to turn their wearers invisible, although the more this is used the more the user fades until consumed by the darkness. Each of the Nine, the Seven, and the Three had its proper gem, but the One alone was unadorned.

whether Sauron himself gave the Seven to the Dwarflords is not entirely certain, but it is not especially important a point. As is stated at the Council of Elrond, were Sauron to regain the One all that had been wrought with the other rings, even the Three, would be laid bare to him.

As far as forcing the Dwarves, or anyone else for that matter, to Evil, I don't believe any of the Rings, even the One could entirely do that. Tempt and twist a person towards evils, certainly. Amplify whatever evil and malice was already present, absolutely. Create evil from nothing, it doesn't seem to work that way. Lady Galadriel describes herself as starting out to use the power of the One for good, only to see her good intentions slowly twist.

I can see Dwarves of a greedy or stubborn nature having thosepersonalityntraits exaggerated. As well as a paranoia. Look at how the Arkenstone acted on the heart and mind of Thorin. It was only he coming of the goblins and their allies that prevented war between the Mountain and the Wood. That situation didn't even have the workings of a Ring of Power.

I cannot recall this information. Where did you find it? Other than Frodo and Bilbo, Gandalf is the only other ring-bearer that we have daily contact with, yet at no time does Gandalf make himself invisible. It would have allowed Gandalf to escape Saruman. Although it ran the risk of revealing he possessed a Greater Ring of Power - something Saruman would have killed Gandalf to obtain.

Totally agree.

The only thing I will add is that, while active, the One Ruling Ring's temptation efforts were so very strong over such a short length of time that they might seem to be forcing a person into evil. Compare Bilbo hissing at Frodo in Rivendell having previously owned the (passive) Ring for 60 years (T.A. 2941-3001) to Frodo's refusal to throw the (active) Ring into the Crack of Doom after only 18 years (T.A. 3001-25 Mar 3019). Taking special note that Frodo appears never to have worn the ring until after he left the Shire - which would imply that the Ring had less opportunity to tempt him. So 95% of the Rings' temptation of Frodo was during the 7 months (23 Sep 3018 - 25 Mar 3019) he traveled to Mount Doom.

That is a huge amount of temptation to withstand. Which may be directly related to the confusion over how much temptation the 7 Dwarven and 9 Mortal Rings could exert.

Over the weekend, I spent much of the time re-reading Tolkien's letters that reference both separately and together the Rings of Power, Dwarves, and Durin. This, as well as the passages in the more commonly known works paint an interesting picture of dwarves. I will post later tonight the quotes relevant to this discussion juxtaposed with those from The Silmarillion and the UT as well as The LotR.

In short, Durin barred the gates of Khazad-dum during Sauron's assault on Eregion. Durin then issued forth with his host after the city was laid waste and Sauron turned to engage Elrond. It seems the crux of this question about Durin's motives revolves around two conflicting accounts for the receipt of his Dwarven Ring. One accounts attributes the gift to Sauron's giving, and another to the hand of Celebrombor. The act of giving with its intention influences the outcome of use for Tolkien. Regardless, all the Dwarven Rings Sauron had a hand in the creation of and, consequently, some anticipation of mastery over their wearers. But, in truth, mastery fell short of Suaron's hopes though the Rings nonetheless manipulated their Dwarven wearer's hearts to Suaron's profit in the end.

As I said, I will post the relevant quotes for those interested. Oh, and bye-the-bye, the MERP reference is in the Moria campaign module as opposed to the Lorien module.

Regards,
E

Thanks for the clarification. It seems memory isn't as good as in former times

Best
Tolwen

So true.

I was really starting to enjoy the combination of Windows 7 and e-books because of the automatic indexing of document contents. Combined you have a master index of every reference to anybody anywhere.

Now if only I had not fried my Win7 systems' motherboard.

The information about the Great Rings is from The Shadow of the Past.

Gandalf:"But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous.
A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he nearly continues, until at last. Every minute is weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings. Yes, sooner or later -- later, if he is strong or well meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last -- sooner or later the dark power will devour him."

This may not apply to the Three as they were made in secret by the Elvin smiths and Sauron's touch never sullied them.

Also worth noting is that Gandalf (one of the Istari), Galadriel and Elrond are not of mortal race.

Gandalf was reluctant in the extreme to use his magic, even in minor ways, once Sauron openly declared himself. When he uses his magic to kindle a fire on the Redhorn pass he says "I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the Mouths of Anduin.". It is quite likely that he did not use the power of his Ring to escape Sauruman as this would have declared the Ring and his ownership of it to both Sauron and. Sauruman alike. When Frodo sees Galadriel's Ring in Lorien she cautions him not to speak of it, as Sauron suspects but does not know it is there.

If you're looking for a scholarly treatment of the Rings and with a the relavnt passages quoted, you might have a look at the article The Rings of Power - History and Abilities in Other Minds, Issue #3. Perhaps you find some inspiration there.

Best
Tolwen

OMG, it's "Rosebud" from Citizen Kane all over again! Tolkien goofed!

I kind of forgot the quotation you cited. I vaguely recalled reading it when you posted it, but could not place it. Heck, I started looking through the HoME since you did not provide a book title!

But in re-reading that entry (Fellowship of the Ring, ch 2: The Shadow of the Past, p56) I realized that this is one of those situations where editing reveals errors in the official text.

Not with regards to anything we've been talking about so far. Just that if the Greater Rings conferred invisibility and Gandalf instantly recognized it as a Greater Ring of Power (discussed in the pages following your quote), then he should have instantly recognized which ring it had to be.

My reasoning? There are only 20 of the Greater Rings (1+3+7+9=20), of which we can account for the 3 and the 9 instantly. As well as 5 of the 7 Dwarven Rings -- those eaten by Dragons as they are historical fact at this point, and Thrain's ring when he was captured by the Necromancer - taking place during Gandalf's second visit to Dol Guldur. So at least 17 Rings are immediately accounted for. Now add the fact that all of the Greater Rings of Power "had it's proper gem", and it should have been obvious back in T.A. 2941 when Bilbo displayed the ring! Even if Gandalf does not have a proper description of the One Ruling Ring, the process of elimination makes it clear that Bilbo's Ring cannot be either of the two unaccounted for Dwarven Rings! (I say unaccounted because I cannot recall any details about the loss of those other 2 rings.)

Remember, Gandalf in the quote you cited, says that only the Greater Rings had invisiblity. So none of the Lesser Rings of Power need to be considered, there are no viable alternatives.

Yup! Gandalf goofed. He should have known the One to be the One as soon as Bilbo revealed it for it had no stone, and confered invisibility. Unless Frodo misreported him, and there were lesser rings made by the Elvin smiths "mere essays in ring craft, but still dangerous to mortals" that also confered invisibility. He may not have known the fates of all Seven, the dispositions of the Nine he knew very well, and at least two of the three, his and Elrond's I am sure, if not Galadriel's also. If he was thrown off it would have been by the belief that the One had been destroyed shortly after the defeat of Sauron. It was only after Bilbo's finding that even Gandalf teased out the record of Isuldur and spoke to Gollum, thus piecing together the true history of the Ring. But still it seems an awfully obvious conclusion to overlook for so long.

As for Ring no,enclature, only the Greater are termed "Rings of Power" by Gandalf, the others he calls "Lesser Rings" but still potently magical.

In working out material about Middle Earth for gaming and study I prefer not to break kafabe. I like to remain within th ebounds of Tolkien's central litterary conceit, that the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings are translations of the Red Book of Westmarch, and that Silmarillion etc are also translations of writings from the Elvish.

This approach allows for diversion from the two novels while not getting overly bogged down in every scrap put out by Christopher. After all Middle Earth was a continual evolving place, whether through editorial revision, creative growth, or translator's increasing prowess.

This is not the only place where Tolkien makes a goof in LotR. Smeagol/Gollum's internal debate and the scene with the fox in the Shire are also both editorial inventions that clearly were not true accounts of these events. In both cases all of the hobbits present (chiefly Frodo and Sam) were asleep and so could not have witnessed the events to record them in the Red Book.

Hi all,
I think the moral ambiguity of some elements of the Dwarven population is a useful element to have in the game -- especially since these dark days have most of the Free Peoples are tragically estranged, and should find it only too easy to believe each other to have turned to evil.
Of course TOR is about the good guys vs the bad guys, and broadly speaking the Free Peoples of north-western Middle-earth stayed good guys. (The Dourhands are a fine foe for a dwarf PC to 'love to hate', but LOTRO with its insatiable need for sword-fodder did end up overusing them!)

Hi fatbaldhobbit,
5000 years would be a nice long time to do a job of corruption -- by undermining and temptation if not by direct coercion to evil, but...

So actually the dwarf-lords' Rings of Power only had a normal dwarvish life span of something under 300 years in which to work their wicked ways upon anyone.
Further, I think I once read that the dwarf-lords only even got greedy towards the end of their span.
I'm intrigued with Eluadin's idea that Durin might have suffered from an accumulator effect as III, IV, V and especially VI, under whose rule the dwarves of Moria fatefully delved too deep. On balance I don't think I buy it -- surely his reincarnations give him a fresh start each time -- but it's an intriguing notion that I'd love to use in my game, e.g. by having it expressed as the theory of an NPC or in a centuries-old work of lore.

Cheers!
--Os.

Wait... what?? This confuses me.

I shouldn't have said that I was bad. But, if you have to know what I meant...

I meant that the occupy Wall Street people (who were not working but camped out in public parks all over America's cities, leaving trash and causing all kinds of headaches for those cities that mayors had to move them out and regulate them) are kind of like goblins. They seemed to hate the 'particularly orderly and prosperous' Americans that run banks and corporations. And to top it off, they made alliances with the rich Democrats, who I likened to wicked Dwarves. Those Dems really just want power, and they would turn on the occupiers if it benefited them some how.

Like I said, I was bad. I shouldn't have generalized like that.

Osric,

Tolkien did allow a handful of dead Elves to return to life and to Middle-earth. They returned, bodily, as adults and with their mental faculties intact. So it might be possible that Durin the Deathless could come back and, upon wearing the ring again, get progressively worse.

Having said that, I think Durin is the only named dwarf who is suspected of returning. No dwarven returnees are confirmed. The few Elven (+1 Man, Beren) returnees have been confirmed.

Personally, it seems unlikely to me. I find it more likely Durin imitators are, quelle suprize!, compared to Durin, then if they do anything interesting they change their name to +1. (My apologies to the French if I've butchered your language.)


Tolwen,

Ok, Tolwen, now I'm just annoyed.

That article was a 'buzz-kill'. I had been contemplating the introduction of one of those early, somewhat flawed Lesser Rings into my campaign. Like the Lesser Ring of Splendiferous Communication. Which the ring-bearer believes makes him smoother than Rico Suave... but actually makes them start speaking in Ig-pay Atin-lay.

Can't you just imagine the Party's reaction!

Actually, that was an interesting article, although getting past the first couple pages is a bit awkward. Its' initial subject appears tangential, with little relevancy, until halfway through the 2nd or 3rd page when the implications start registering. Reading onward it becomes obvious that the article is laid out logically. But the start is awkward.

But it killed off my ring collection.

I knew what you meant.

One could make a pretty legit argument that the Nazgul are a lot like the "1%" as well, with their desire to have the whole of everything to themselves.

Enough of that...

I quite like the idea of "wicked dwarves" though!

Hi Garn,

I've heard that (awkwardness) before, and it might have profited from more ripening and proof-reading. But it is as it stands now. At least you took some profit from it (even if not according to your original ideas).

I hope you're not too annoyed by stopping your previous ideas

Perhaps you may find another solution for ring-collection

Best
Tolwen

This is a long-winded post, so my apologies to those in advance who are better served by getting right to the point...

Well here are the interesting tidbits from Tolkien's letters to add to the other quotes. The relevant letters are 131 (Tolkien's primary reflection on the interdependence of The LotR on The Silmarillion, and why the latter should not be published without the former. Also, he goes to great lengths to explain some of the inner workings behind his grand 'mythology' and the reasoning for the way that things are. Sadly, this letter is more often remembered for its 'other hands and minds' quote.); 153 (One of the most important in my opinion as a fellow Catholic has written to contest the way Middle-earth works, essentially takes issue with Tolkien's metaphysics. In this letter Tolkien offers a theological reflection of sorts on how Middle-earth 'works'.); and, lastly, 211-212 (One continuous response spaced across two letters to a series of questions posed by a LotR enthusiast. And, in Tolkien fashion, he offers no simple answers but long expositions.). Well there's the context.

So, Letter 131 agrees with The UT that Durin did not issue forth from Moria while Eregion was ravaged and Ost-in-Edhil was razed. After Sauron moved onto re-engage Elrond and the remnant of Eregion's Elves did Durin issue forth in alliance with the Lindar of Lindorinand led by Amroth. Nowhere does Tolkien address explicitly why Durin did not come to Celembrimbor's aide. But, the truth is Durin did not.

Could a Dwarven Ring of Power have influenced this decision? Let me re-phrase the question: If Durin possessed a Dwarven Ring, would it have influenced his decision-making process? Here's how Tolkien describes the influence of the Rings. (Side note here, this is Letter 131 and 211-2 written in 1951 and 1958. Unlike the books themselves, this is Tolkien reflecting on the way the Rings work as the Sub-creator of Middle-earth. This is different and more authoritative in an objective sense then when reading about how the Rings work from within the books themselves.) The chief power of all the rings "was prevention or slowing of decay (I.e. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance....But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination." With the One Ring, Sauron "could see the thoughts of all those that used the lesser rings, could govern all that they did, and in the end could utterly enslave them." Side note here, Tolkien specifically refers to lesser rings in the context of the One Ruling Ring to which all other Rings of Power are lesser rings. "These [Sauron] gave, for their ultimate corruption and enslavement, to those who would accept them (out of ambition or greed)", the only motive Tolkien states for accepting a Ring from Sauron.

Here we pass from Tolkien's reflections on Middle-earth to Tolkien as the voice narrating Middle-earth's history. The Dwarves possessed thoughts not completely fathomable by Sauron for they "ill endure the domination of others, and the thoughts of their hearts are hard to fathom, nor can they be turned to shadows" (The Silmarillion, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age). But, the the Rings did have an affect on the Dwarves, "but wrath and an overmastering greed of gold were kindled in [Dwarven] hearts, of which evil enough after came to the profit of Sauron."

Couple this with Tolkien's explanation of the workings of the Rings of Power and a picture emerges of Dwarves not enslaved to the One Will of Sauron, for enslavement by domination to the will of another Dwarves resisted. But, enslavement to their own greed and ambition was the "ultimate corruption and enslavement, to those who would accept them" that Tolkien speaks to in his reflections. Durin, if he possessed a Dwarven Ring at the sacking of Eregion would have been exposed to Sauron through the Ring. And, Sauron could influence Durin through the Ring though not master or coerce him. But, Sauron could enflame his desire to preserve the splendor of Khazad-dum (for the Primary function of the Ring's were to preserve) over the need of his ally Celebrimbor; and, in so doing, Durin would bar the gates before exposing what he most "desired or loved" to assault by issuing forth. Only when the threat of Sauron is no longer on Durin's doorstep does he issue forth. What he treasures couldn't be endangered by his action to aid the Elves of Eregion. That said, the question becomes: Was Durin in possession of a Ring during the Wars of the Elves and Sauron? If Sauron gave Durin the Ring, the Letters and The Silmarillion indicate this explicitly, then Durin would not have had a Ring when Sauron razed Ost-in-Edhil. The sequence of events could not have allowed it since Sauron only gains possession after the fact. But, if the Dwarven legend told of in The LotR appendices is true, then Durin would have had the Ring and been open to Sauron's influence (not coercion though). No clear answer to this question, but I am inclined to follow Tolkien's Letters since they are explicit reflections of Tolkien while not engaged in the sub-creative act of narrating Middle-earth's history. But, that would be my personal position.

All of this to say that it's possible either way as I believe Garn pointed out - largely a matter of interpretation.

To Osric's comment about the "reincarnation" of Durin: Only Elves re-incarnate because they alone are tied to the Fate of Arda and immortality (Letter 153). Durin the Deathlessis not the re-incarnation of Durin the Eldest Father, but "so like to his forefather that he received the name of Durin" (The LotR, Appendix A). An interesting TOR story arc may be working out an explanation of the Dwarven belief that Durin the Deathless was to the Dwarves of Durin's Line a re-incarnation...

Going back to the original question of wicked dwarves, how and who they are, Tolkien states something very interesting as far as corruption is concerned. Evil, rebellion and discord were already in existence before Eru said "Let it Be" and Arda was created. "The Fall or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. Trees may 'go bad' as in the Old Forest; Elves may turn into Orcs, and if this required the special perversive malice of Morgoth, still Elves themselves could do evil deeds. Even the 'good' Valar as inhabiting the World could at least err; as the great Valar did in their dealings with the Elves; or as the lesser of their kind (as the Istari or wizards) could in various ways become self-seeking" (Letter 211-2). Aule then becomes the example par execellance Tolkien gives in his making of the Dwarves. Maybe, then, explaining the wicked dwarves is less about whether or not dwarves can be corrupted and more how, given what we know of Middle-earth, Dwarves would become corrupted - and the Dwarven Rings would have been one such avenue while Sauron possessed the One Ruling Ring or in the Third Age as the Necromancer or Sauron Redividus (Letter 131).

TOR provides us mechanics for charting the Fall of an individual hero whose fall is primarily a consequence of engaging the Shadow. What would the mechanic be for an entire people to become corrupted?

Maybe that question is what Tolwen was asking in his Hope and Shadow thread...?

Regards,
E

Ps. Sorry for the lengthy post but I promised quotes and not inferences. I didn't expect it to take so long though to post it. But, then again when you have a newborn in the house everything takes longer!