Are beasts of burden in Middle-earth used by the Evil Forces considered inherently "evil"?

Question

As I was recently re-watching the LOTR trilogy, it occurred to me that only the evil forces use (besides horses/oxen) what I consider "beasts of burden", such as Cave Trolls, Oliphants, Fell Beasts, Great Beasts (the huge animals that pull Grond), Wargs, etc.

It seems to me that these mindless creatures could be found in the wild & domesticated and/or bred by Elves/Dwarves/Men (of the West) to be used for the benefit of the good forces. How cool would it be to see an elf riding a fell beast? I realize some of these creatures might have an innate predilection towards aggression and blood-thirst, but they obviously can still be tamed/trained somewhat, similar to guard dogs.

Are these beast of burden hopelessly evil or could they be used by the good guys, assuming they are available?

Answer 1

Some of Beasts of Burden are Probably Inherently Evil While Others Are Just Beasts

Firstly, since your question references the movies, I would point out that the movie version of The Hobbit shows a number of different types of animals being used as beasts of burden. Thorin and his nephews ride goats up to Ravenhill. Dain rides a pig. Thranduil rides an Elk. So in movieverse, there are plenty of different types of beasts of burden around.

Next, I think we have to address the creatures that you've referenced one by one.

Trolls are probably evil

In The Two Towers book, Treebeard tells us that Trolls were made by "the Enemy" (likely Morgoth) in mockery of Ents as the Orcs were of Elves.

'Maybe you have heard of Trolls? They are mighty strong. But Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as orcs were of Elves. We are stronger than Trolls.'

If we assume that "cave trolls" are truly a type of troll, then I think we can assume that they are creatures of the dark forces, a twisted mockery of Ents.

Oliphaunts are probably not evil

The Oliphaunts appear to be associated with the Haradrim men rather than with Sauron or Morgoth. Sam has the following to say about oliphaunts:

But I've heard tales of the big folk down away in the Sunlands. Swertlings we call ‘em in our tales; and they ride on oliphaunts, ‘tis said, when they fight. They put houses and towers on the oliphaunteses backs and all, and the oliphaunts throw rocks and trees at one another. So when you said "Men out of the South, all in red and gold," I said "were there any oliphaunts?"

While the Haradrim do fight for Sauron, they are ultimately just men and probably not capable of creating things like orcs and trolls. It is far more likely that oliphaunts are animals that the the Haradrim have tamed. As for why Men of the West don't use them -- it is likely that they aren't an animal that occurs in the wild in the West. They seem associated firmly with the South.

It is unclear whether fell beasts are always evil, but the description of them seems to suggest it.

We know relatively little about the origins of the fell beasts, other than the suggestion they are of "an older world." They certainly seem to be unpleasant beasts from the description we get in Return of the King.

... it was a winged creature: if bird, then greater than all other birds, and it was naked, and neither quill nor feather did it bear, and its vast pinions were as webs of hide between horned fingers; and it stank. A creature of an older world maybe it was, whose kind, lingering in forgotten mountains cold beneath the Moon, outstayed their day, and in hideous eyrie bred this last untimely brood, apt to evil.

Given that ugly, stinky creatures in Tolkien are often evil, this doesn't bode well. The "apt to evil" line is also rather damning, though "apt" to evil isn't quite the same as unambiguously evil. However, there is also the suggestion that the Dark Lord made these creatures even worse by feeding them "fell meats."

And the Dark Lord took it, and nursed it with fell meats, until it grew beyond the measure of all other things that fly; and he gave it to his servant to be his steed.

So it sounds like you have creatures who already tended toward evil that Sauron made even worse.

Wargs are probably evil

We don't know much about the origins of Wargs, but Tolkien describes them as "demonic wolves" in a letter to Gene Wolfe.

Dear Mr Wolfe, Thank you very much for your letter. The etymology of words and names in my story has two sides: (1) their etymology within the story; and (2) the sources from which I, as an author, derive them. I expect you mean the latter. Orc I derived from Anglo-Saxon, a word meaning demon, usually supposed to be derived from the Latin Orcus -- Hell. But I doubt this, though the matter is too involved to set out here. Warg is simple. It is an old word for wolf, which also had the sense of an outlaw or hunted criminal. This is its usual sense in surviving texts.* I adopted the word, which had a good sound for the meaning, as a name for this particular brand of demonic wolf in the story.

"Demonic wolves" certainly seems to suggest evil. Also, every time we see the wargs in the books, they are doing evil works. This includes in The Hobbit when they aren't really allied with Sauron, but are still working with the goblins.

As for the beasts that pull Grond ... I have no idea. I believe these are just called "great beasts" and aren't really addressed anywhere.

Answer 2

This is very similar to the question "Are Pit Bulls mean dogs, or are they trained that way?" for several of the creatures you've mentioned here.

Oliphaunts: Nope, not evil, just animals. They were used as mounts by the Haradrim. They're about as good or evil as a warhorse from Rohan was considered good or evil (ignoring a Lord of Horses like Shadowfax). Just need to train them.

Cave Trolls: Similar to orcs, they were a lifeform from Middle-Earth that was corrupted by Morgoth. Except they're twisted Ents instead of twisted Elves. Not beasts, but evil.

Fell Beasts: They were bred by Sauron, so not really certain to say if they were evil or not. Gandalf has mentioned they came from an older world, so maybe they were around during the earlier wars with Morgoth?

Great Beasts: Similar to the Oliphaunts, they were trained to do this. There is some speculation where these animals were corrupted by Melkor.

Wargs: They are described as an 'evil breed of wolves', so no, you can't tame them.

Most of the examples you gave were creatures that were specifically corrupted by Melkor and Sauron. However, don't see anything that says the Oliphaunts and Great Beasts were specifically evil.

To answer your question: No, beasts of burden are not inherently evil, just made that way. (Not certain on wargs, couldn't find anything specific about it)

Answer 3

It ultimately comes down to if they were first bred by Morgoth or if they existed independent of the dark lord. Orcs, trolls and dragons clearly could not exist, if Morgoth did not exist. But oliphants and many other beasts would. I think thats what it ultimately would come down to! Anything, that is originally bred by Morgoth is inherently evil.

Answer 4

The other answers have some flaws.

1) "Oliphants are just animals". Not exactly. Oliphants are clearly prehistoric relatives of elephants. In The Two towers Sam says oliphants have noses like snakes and throw rocks and trees. When the hobbits see one the narration clearly states it has an long snout like s a serpent and is much more mammoth than modern elephants. And research into the intelligence of non human animals in recent decades indicates that extraterrestrial observers might classify proboscideans, apes, and cetaceans - as well as humans - as semi intelligent or even fully intelligent, and thus possibly people.

2) Fell beasts. The description of the Witch king's mount makes it unclear if there was only one of them and the other Nazgul rode other flying creatures, or if there were a bunch grown in the same brood. The description makes it seem like a type of flying dragon and thus naturally as "evil" as dragons naturally are or maybe some type of "terror dactyl".

3) Grond is pulled by "great beasts" that are not described. But a few paragraphs before that there is a description of "Then came great beasts, like houses in the red and fitful light, the mumakil of the Harad dragging through the lanes amid the fires huge towers and engines." The Mumakil or Oliphants were prehistoric elephants. So it is logical to assume that the "great beasts" pulling Grond are some mammoth type of prehistoric proboscideans, unless the men of Harad have also tamed other types of now extinct megafauna.

Answer 5

The short answer is no; they are not inherently evil. There exist no beings or creatures in the world of Middle Earth that are inherently evil. The thing that you have to consider is that corruption is an element of the Middle Earth mythology that runs rampant throughout that universe. Most creatures in their native form are simply just as they are. When jockeyed for the purpose of evil, they become evil. Some creatures were bred for the purpose of serving evil ones, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're inherently evil either. Evil implies that there is exists a nefarious motive, which requires some sense of self-identity and/or sentience.

Now here's where it gets tricky...

On the other hand, there exist no beings in this universe that are all 100% good, either. It's been a while since I've read some of the other LotR books, but the concept of the "Will of Eru" (Eru Iluvatar being the root deity) is mentioned a few times. In the early moments of the Middle Earth Universe, when the Ainur sang their songs of creation throughout Arda (the world) and guided the events of the early creatures (elves, etc.), certain songs were not sung so much in harmony of the "Will of Eru;" Melkor is one such example. Thus, Melkor sang songs that were in discord of the main melody, so to speak.

Technically, evil is the manifestation of the corruption that occurs from actions/thoughts/motives that do not run alongside the "Will of Eru."

I remember reading in one of the books where it stated something along the lines that the "Will of Eru" is the untainted natural state of things. As long as something is in its natural state, it shouldn't be corrupted. If you think about it, every sentient being in the Middle Earth universe has a taint of corruption, because the existence of a will apart from that of Eru is pretty much grounds for some degree of evil. But this also begs the question, that if something is bred for evil, but becomes re-aligned to follow the "Will of Eru," does it become uncorrupted? Who knows.

But if anyone was ever curious as to why Gandalf never just openly dominated his circumstances with his awesome magical power, it was because he was afraid of being corrupted. Saruman used his power so abundantly for his own purposes and his own will that he corrupted himself rapidly and fell into evil. Gandalf probably reasoned that involving himself in the politics of the kingdoms of Middle Earth was, instead, less of a schism from the "natural way" of things. in essence, Gandalf feared the use of his own power.