Were Dragons inherently "evil"?

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

I agree with what has been said. Smaug's conversation with Bilbo hints that he is a dragon capable of philosophical discussion and intrigue.

Satan, among the many other evils found in the world's cultures, is also capable of brilliant philosophy and was quite charismatic. I've always been of the opinion that polished manners and a nice outfit don't mitigate what a person's real self is.

However, I also agree that there is not enough information on dragons out there to prove or disprove free will and a chance of goodness in dragons

Smaug's age and apparent wisdom seems to be proof that he knows he's evil and likes it.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

Smaug's age and apparent wisdom seems to be proof that he knows he's evil and likes it.

I think that his discussion on ethics with Bilbo shows that he at least has some theoretical understanding of good to debate, sympathize (if not empathize), and manipulate Bilbo. Who knows if somewhere out there lives a dragon not utterly steeped in evil?

[Pervinca Took]

Tolkien said something similar about orcs - that they were aware of good behaviour and bad - viz Shagrat and Gorbag's conversation, where they spoke of 'a few trusty lads' and one didn't trust the other when he was 'mad for fun,' nor the other's lads, nor all of his own. The good behaviour would be 'good behaviour among villains/honour amongst thieves,' I guess. They also thought to heartlessly leave a corpse of a fellow being unburied a 'regular elvish trick.'

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

The good behaviour would be 'good behaviour among villains/honour amongst thieves,' I guess. They also thought to heartlessly leave a corpse of a fellow being unburied a 'regular elvish trick.'

Then again, Shagrat and Gprbag seemed to make light of leaving one of their fellows for Shelob, when he could have been saved. Orcs also threaten to eat one another, and I doubt that was an idle threat.

In line with that, I can't see any dragon risking its neck to save a fellow, unless doing so would be to its benefit.

[Pervinca Took]

Yes, that was the other bit of what Tolkien said about orcs - that they were sort of aware of good and bad but didn't often/ever act upon the 'good' instinct. I can't remember his exact words, or where they are from. Probably one of the Letters.

And indeed, welcome back Aaron!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Pervinca Took

Yes, that was the other bit of what Tolkien said about orcs - that they were sort of aware of good and bad but didn't often/ever act upon the 'good' instinct. I can't remember his exact words, or where they are from. Probably one of the Letters.

It's from his essay on Orcs published in Morgoth's Ring. Although it's expanded quite a bit by Shippey, who has a nice discussion of Shagrat and Gorbag, their recognition of "good" conduct and their failure ever to do it.

The nature of the fear or souls or whatever of Morgoth's creatures was always problematical for Tolkien, and the writings in MR showing him wrestling with ideas philosophically and theologically without reaching a firm conclusion. As a good Catholic he was very uncomfortable with the idea of "hereditary damnation," and tried out making the Orcs beasts or automatons rather than sentient, rational beings.

Dragons, once he decided that Morgoth didn't simply "make" them, he viewed as reptilian creatures presumably bred to monstrous size and then inhabited or possessed by "evil spirits" (which one supposes must be lesser Maiar of Melkor's following, junior Balrogs). But that would only apply, one would think, to those worms spawned in the Elder Days, not to their remote egg-hatched descendants, with regard to whom the same problems as with the Orcs arise.

Of course, from a literary perspective Tolkien viewed Dragons as very avatars of evil, or at least that aspect of evil manifested in greed, possessiveness and wanton destruction (the wily lawyerliness is a (brilliant) Tolkien invention). In Beowulf and the Volsung legend T regarded the dragons as manifestations of the Primeval Darkness, the wild black forest of savagery and chaos within which human life was just a small firelit hall.

[Faramir Jones]

I've been looking in Unfinished Tales, in particular the 'Narn', and came across this dimly remembered (by me) passage, when Nienor, lost in the mist, returned to Amon Ethir:

And as she climbed so the fog grew thinner, until she came at last out into the sunlight on the bare summit. Then she stepped forward and looked westward. And there right before her was the great head of Glaurung, who had even then crept up from the other side; and before she was aware her eyes looked in his eyes, and they were terrible, being filled with the fell spirit of Morgoth, his master.(My emphasis)

The fact that so large a creature can move so fast and so silently I found genuinely scary; and then we have the emphasis that his eyes had the same spirit as his master Morgoth. Certainly Glaurung was bred by the latter as a living weapon, as Zigûr correctly says.

In terms of Chrysophylax the Rich, I agree with you, Pervinca, about him being a 'slightly more moderate beast' than Glaurung and Smaug. But we need to remember that the world of Farmer Giles of Ham is quite different from that of Middle-earth.

Giles and Chrysophylax end up haggling, as if they were in a marketplace. Giles, not being a knight, doesn't feel any obligation to actually kill that dragon, and agreed to let him keep part of his fortune in return for defending his share against the King. This he does; and Giles ends up by becoming King of the Little Kingdom. Chrysophylax stays with the latter for a long time, to the benefit of Giles; because 'a man who has a tame dragon is naturally respected'.

What is particularly interesting is that Giles decided to give Chrysophylax his liberty, and that the dragon intended to keep their agreed pact of non-aggression. The reason given is interesting:

In his bad heart of hearts the dragon felt as kindly disposed towards Giles as a dragon can feel towards anyone. After all there was Tailbiter: his life might have easily been taken, and all his hoard too. (My emphasis)

The different world and Giles' character means that one can envisage a dragon having a kind of respect for the latter. There's also the fact that his cave and the borders of Giles' kingdom are quite distant; so there would be no obvious reason for Chrysophylax to come into conflict with him and his people in the future.