How we cite our quotes: (Book.Chapter.Paragraph).
Quote #4
"Perhaps he also thought that you were Saruman," said Gimli. "But you speak of him as if he was a friend. I thought Fangorn was dangerous."
"Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Glóin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion. Certainly the forest of Fangorn is perilous—not least to those who are too ready with their axes; and Fangorn himself, he is perilous too; yet he is wise and kindly nonetheless." (3.5.111-2)
Gandalf 2.0 is a bit condescending, isn't he? But the guy does have a point: with the lines of Good and Evil marked pretty clearly at this point, it's easy to forget that all the characters in this novel are dangerous in one way or another. Sure, they are only dangerous to Evil, for the most part. But there was a time when Saruman would also have been dangerous to Evil, and now look at the dude. He has turned his power against the Good. That means that the possibility of danger is not about actual power; it's about choice. Gandalf is immensely powerful, but he does not choose to use that power to destroy innocent people. So he's dangerous, but by no means evil.
Quote #5
"Alas!" said Théoden. "Must we pass this way, where the carrion-beasts devour so many good Riders of the Mark?"
"This is our way," said Gandalf. "Grievous is the fall of your men; but you shall see that at least the wolves of the mountains do not devour them. It is with their friends, the Orcs, that they hold their feast: such indeed is the friendship of their kind. Come!" (3.8.80-1)
Characters like Gollum, Boromir (in The Fellowship of the Ring), Denethor (in The Return of the King) and even Théoden blur the lines between Good and Evil. Still, all of the active servants of Sauron in The Lord of the Rings have not one spark of kindness or fellow feeling in them. We see, in Merry and Pippin's orc adventures and also here, as the wolves eat their dead allies, that all the servants of Sauron appear wicked through and through. They have no friendships, no loyalty—no humanizing qualities at all. How different would The Lord of the Rings be if Sauron or his servants were more three-dimensional as characters, with friendships or loves of their own (besides love of power and pain)?
Quote #6
It seemed to Frodo then that he heard, quite plainly, but far off, voices out of the past:
What a pity Bilbo did not stab the vile creature, when he had the chance!
Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. [...]
Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
"Very well," he answered aloud, lowering his sword. "But still I am afraid. And yet, as you see, I will not touch the creature. For now that I see him, I do pity him." (4.1.120-4)
Frodo has every reason to stab Gollum, and a few more to boot. Even so, Frodo remembers a conversation he has with Gandalf (The Fellowship of the Ring Book 1, Chapter 2) and feels pity for him. Frodo recognizes that there may be some higher purpose for Gollum, and he does not want to interfere. Humble, much, Frodo? In deference to the "ends" that "even the wise cannot see," Frodo spares Gollum's rather pathetic life. Morally speaking, this is probably the key moment in the entire Lord of the Rings arc, and it shows that Frodo isn't so sure about drawing stark lines between good and evil when it comes to folks like Gollum.