Are Orcs That Bad?

[Lalwendë]

I was thinking about the other day about how the Orcs have never really scared me as 'baddies' in any way, shape or form. Yet the Cybermen still have me quaking in my boots because the very thought of humans modifying themselves so that they end up as a race of heartless, homogeneous cybernetic things is just horrible.

So that made me think about how the Orcs are clearly not just 'cannon fodder' either, a mindless, evil mass of enemies who must be put to the sword. Tolkien actually said that they were not beyond redemption, thus they're not such 100% dreadful things that they must be wiped out at all costs. Unlike Daleks (sorry to draw in another Whovian comparison, but hey....).

Then that brought me on to thinking about how Tolkien made it so that Morgoth could not create his own beings, he could only corrupt. That to me opens a whole can of worms because can you say that it's the fault of the Orcs that they behave so badly? Tolkien even muddies things by showing us Orcs chatting happily about retirement!

Tolkien toyed with having them just be mindless beasts, too, but that just doesn't work as a mindless, unintelligent enemy isn't really much of a threat.

Really, the only reason I want Aragorn & Co to hack off Orc heads is that they aren't the good guys, and I want the good guys to live. I don't actually hate the Orcs because there's not a lot of reason to do so. They're ugly, they eat man-flesh, they are cruel. But it's not really their fault, is it? Plus they're not beyond redemption either, so wiping a load of them out is hardly on a scale with Doctor Who sending an army of evil Daleks into the Void, is it?

Are the Orcs not that good at being bad guys, or is it that this notion of them being corrupted muddies the waters too much for them to be seen as really bad.

So. Do Orcs actually work as fictional Bad Guys?

[Eönwë]

So. Do Orcs actually work as fictional Bad Guys?

Yes, because it is because they are not pure evil that they are interesting. It gives things more perspective, and makes things more real. Of course, they are less redeemable than the races of men in the south, but that is because they are part of Morgoth's work. It's not their fault, but they still have unstoppable and unignorable traits that make them seem more evil. They are probably also [designed to be] more susceptible to being evil, and being selfish by nature they are more easily seduced (in the sense of luring) to the bad side. Greed gets in the way of them seeing what's Right or Wrong. And even more importantly, they are brought up in Mordor (or Isengard, or anywhere else with orcs). This means that being Bad is passed down, by parents (did Orcs have parents?) or at least everyone they knew or were friends (hmmm...) with.

The question is, would an orc brought up by "good" elves still be evil? Obviously, it doesn't seem that any elf would take one in, but you never know. Would they be more easily corrupted than all the elves they are around? I have a feeling Morgoth designed them to be more sensitive towards evil, and/or to be attracted to it.

On another note, the nature of good and evil (or if they even exist) is debatable, and so is greed and power-hunger.

[Lalwendë]

But does it work having an enemy that is not 'pure evil' when they are slaughtered on a massive scale? And does it actually make them frightening? The main way Orcs scare us is by sheer force of numbers against the good guys who we love, or even against slightly infuriating heroes like those we see in the Sil (as opposed to the more 'shiny' figures in LotR - but there's another thread in that one ;)).

Would it be better if Orcs were incapable of being redeemed? I think they would be much more frightening.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

One aspect that tends to make orcs interesting
(and clearly not totally evil) is when they are
personalized. Perhaps the best example is
Rosenkrantz and Gilderstern (i. e. Gorbag and
Shagrat), who seemed to have been in the
past friends and freelancers.
(Gorbag) "But anyway, if it (The War
of the Ring) does go well, there should be a lot
more room. What d'you say? - if we get a chance,
you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our
own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's
good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses. "
"Ah!" said Shagrat, "Like old times".

And might the influence of the Ring have had an affect in
setting these (by Orcish standards) friends so violently
and quickly against each other?

[Morthoron]

There was always something disconcerting in the passage from "Over Hill and Under Hill" in The Hobbit:

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 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.

Now, what is particularly troubling is that they hadn't advanced so far as of yet. I do believe Tolkien is intimating that Orcs (or at least Orkishness) will continue to proliferate long after the time period of the tale (and, although it had not yet been written, far further than the events of the Lord of the Rings, which occurred a few score years after The Hobbit).

I had always wondered, given that Tolkien later gave up on the idea that Orcs originally came from elvish stock, and rather arose from mortal men, that Orcs eventually blended into the human race. I know we discussed this somewhere before, but I still find the concept fascinating (and this is especially true when some people look downright Orkish, particularly when vehemently angry -- the distortions of the faces of folk in a frenzied mob look subhuman).

[Laurinquë]

I never really considered the Orcs to be intrinsically evil creatures, nothing is 100% evil like you said Lalwendë. They can't really help themselves, they were made to be evil and raised to be evil, they aren't really and truly evil if they don't understand that what they do is considered wrong. But then many villens don't think they are doing anything particularly bad, or that what they think they do right cancels out any other wrongs they make.

But whether they work as bad guys, of course they do. We love the good guys and anybody who threatens them is automatically made out as villens.

[skip spence]

Now, what is particularly troubling is that they hadn't advanced so far as of yet. I do believe Tolkien is intimating that Orcs (or at least Orkishness) will continue to proliferate long after the time period of the tale (and, although it had not yet been written, far further than the events of the Lord of the Rings, which occurred a few score years after The Hobbit).

I had always wondered, given that Tolkien later gave up on the idea that Orcs originally came from elvish stock, and rather arose from mortal men, that Orcs eventually blended into the human race. I know we discussed this somewhere before, but I still find the concept fascinating (and this is especially true when some people look downright Orkish, particularly when vehemently angry -- the distortions of the faces of folk in a frenzied mob look subhuman).

I agree with what your saying. As I've stated elsewhere, I think it's a mistake to see Orcs as a distinct species from Men and/or Elves. Orcs are rather a representation of the dark side of humanity and they do nothing that Men haven't done a million times thoughout history, which is why they in my opinion are very convincing as the bad guys - much more so then if they were mindless killing machines.

The fact that there are Half-Orcs, Orc-Men and other mixed races that can blend into human societies unnoticed also suggest that Men and Orcs aren't different species like Men and Dwarves are, but rather different "races" that can be distinguished from each other only in the same way as can say caucasians, mongolians or blacks. The RPGs and movies have us seing Orcs as humaniod monsters with greenish skin, fangs, claws and cat-eyes. Tolkien, as far as I'm aware, described them as "degraded" forms of human beings. The difference between Orcs and Men is cultural more than biological and I certainly believe that an Orcling brought up into a nice fosterfamily in Lindon probably would grow up to be a fairly decent individual if is wasn't for that nasty Elvish habit of making fun of anyone who's different.

Now as for the orgins of Orcs this is a can of worms, as Tolkien also discovered. However, if we keep it simple Elves and Men share the same kind of physical body and can have children together so Orcs might have their orgins in both peoples.
It's when we start taking about the soul or fea we run into problems.

[Lalwendë]

I never really considered the Orcs to be intrinsically evil creatures, nothing is 100% evil like you said Lalwendë. They can't really help themselves, they were made to be evil and raised to be evil, they aren't really and truly evil if they don't understand that what they do is considered wrong.

There's another thing to consider...can they actually be evil if they have no choice in the matter? I think Tolkien considered this himself which is why he said they would be capable of redemption. However, that then also makes them less frightening...and pushes the matter of dealing with Orcs into questions of morality.

Now, what is particularly troubling is that they hadn't advanced so far as of yet. I do believe Tolkien is intimating that Orcs (or at least Orkishness) will continue to proliferate long after the time period of the tale (and, although it had not yet been written, far further than the events of the Lord of the Rings, which occurred a few score years after The Hobbit).

I had always wondered, given that Tolkien later gave up on the idea that Orcs originally came from elvish stock, and rather arose from mortal men, that Orcs eventually blended into the human race. I know we discussed this somewhere before, but I still find the concept fascinating (and this is especially true when some people look downright Orkish, particularly when vehemently angry -- the distortions of the faces of folk in a frenzied mob look subhuman).

Do you think this was Tolkien allowing too much of his own feelings about the real world to creep into his creation? I do. It's all very well setting it up that the worst traits of human (mis)behaviour stem from Orcish blood (and quite intriguing), however he neatly skips the fact that in his tales a lot of Elves, Men and Dwarves without a single drop of Orcish blood did plenty of bad things too. It lacks coherence.

I personally think that had he allowed Morgoth to create the Orcs himself, Tolkien would have been free from ethical and moral concerns in creating the race. He could have made them mad, bad and dangerous to know, a relentless, ruthless and 'other' enemy that had to be dealt with. Of course, this would alter his ideas about sub-creation but then I think the Orc Problem kind of spoils that concept in any case.

[skip spence]

I personally think that had he allowed Morgoth to create the Orcs himself, Tolkien would have been free from ethical and moral concerns in creating the race. He could have made them mad, bad and dangerous to know, a relentless, ruthless and 'other' enemy that had to be dealt with. Of course, this would alter his ideas about sub-creation but then I think the Orc Problem kind of spoils that concept in any case.

But had he done so the Orcs wouldn't have been nearly as convincing as they are now. As you already suggested, to be Evil one must clearly recognize Good and reject it. A creature born Evil without a chance of redemtion can't reject Good because it knows of no such thing and thus can't in fact be Evil either as it only is what it is and has no choice in the matter. Obviously Tolkien understood this clearly.

The other option to remove the moral concern regarding the slaughter of Orcs is viewing them as beasts. But that wouldn't be convincing either and this Tolkien also understood clearly. The quoted dialogue between Shagrat and Gorbag among many other examples show that Orcs in no way were beasts but rational and intelligent creatures just like other speaking folk.

So, although Tolkien seemed to have developed a distaste for the Elvish/Human orgins of Orcs, he was stuck with it as it was the only alternative that really made sense and was coherent with his creation.

[Lalwendë]

The shame is that Tolkien never showed us an Orc who might be redeemed, nor he did he put any in a position where they might be. The characters see them as bad through and through, and in fact we only know that an Orc might be redeemed by reference to a letter Tolkien drafted. We are shown Orcs who talk of retirement and might deduce from that, if we are so inclined, that Orcs are not mere killing machines, but the chance is never put in their way.

That to me makes them less effective as bad guys. They should be shown to have the power of choice over their destinies (and in so rejecting the choice to be good, demonstrate their 'badness') or they should be ruthless and designed to be bad. That to me makes a more effective enemy figure. We see Saruman and Gollum given their chances, why not an Orc or two?

I know this sounds nitpicky, but I've been thinking about it for a while (after being dazzled by the sheer horror of the Daleks and Cybermen - superb creations), and Tolkien never really resolved it to his own satisfaction either. I want to explore why they somehow do not work as an enemy which is truly frightening.

[skip spence]

The shame is that Tolkien never showed us an Orc who might be redeemed, nor he did he put any in a position where they might be. The characters see them as bad through and through, and in fact we only know that an Orc might be redeemed by reference to a letter Tolkien drafted.

Although I see your point I don't fully agree. While most characters like for example Sam do see the Orcs as bad though and through this isn't the authors voice. Some of the wiser characters like Gandalf do express views that they in fact don't hate the minions of the enemy but rather feel sorry for them. After the War of the Ring Aragorn also pardons the enemy combatants (including the Orcs) and grants them lands where they will be free to make their own destiny, something he wouldn't have done if he considered them beyond redemtion.


That to me makes them less effective as bad guys. They should be shown to have the power of choice over their destinies (and in so rejecting the choice to be good, demonstrate their 'badness') or they should be ruthless and designed to be bad. That to me makes a more effective enemy figure. We see Saruman and Gollum given their chances, why not an Orc or two?


Well Orcs are bred to be ruthless and mean. The nice and plesant individuals don't stand much of a chance to reproduce and raise a bunch of well behaved kids, I'd guess. From a very young age the only thing they learn to value and fear is power. How could they be anything but mean and nasty?


I know this sounds nitpicky, but I've been thinking about it for a while (after being dazzled by the sheer horror of the Daleks and Cybermen - superb creations), and Tolkien never really resolved it to his own satisfaction either. I want to explore why they somehow do not work as an enemy which is truly frightening.


As I already said, the Orcs work perfectly fine as an enemy for me. Had they been pure evil and justifiable cannon-fodder I wouldn't buy it, it wouldn't be realistic (I know nothing about Daleks or Cybermen).

The naked lunch (borrowing a phrase from one of my favourite authors Bill Burroughs) is that Orcs are Men, simple as. That is also why they are very scary to me.

[Nogrod]

I want to explore why they somehow do not work as an enemy which is truly frightening.I guess one reason for it is that the orcs in the end lack personality.

I mean, yes there are a few scenes like the one between Gorbag and Shagrat already quoted here where one gets to have a glance into their personalities but they are rare and few and there is no consistent personal character of whom we could read through the book, see him develop to some direction, to see how his dreams and fears play out with the general unfolding of the tale, how their relations to other known characters develop etc...

Also, almost all depicted orcs are not that good fighters or otherwise fearsome opponents as the main characters seem to be able to kill them by tens if not by hundreds. One gets afraid of them most when they threathen hobbits without a human, elf or dwarf to help them out as to hobbits they stand as real threats (but even here Tolkien gives the hobbits the strengtht and guts to beat them when it counts).

[skip spence]

Also, almost all depicted orcs are not that good fighters or otherwise fearsome opponents as the main characters seem to be able to kill them by tens if not by hundreds. One gets afraid of them most when they threathen hobbits without a human, elf or dwarf to help them out as to hobbits they stand as real threats (but even here Tolkien gives the hobbits the strengtht and guts to beat them when it counts).

That's a good point and one I never liked as an adult. As a kid though I always felt comforted by always knowing that the good guys in the end had the strenght to fend off the Orcs. But yeah, it's silly that Orcs always seem to be weaker, more cowardly and less skilled then the heroes when there's no coherent reason for it being so.

Presumably, Orcs train at warfare and fighting all of their life and would therefore be better warriors than most free men with other interests. Also, Morgoth and Sauron would have an interest in breeding big Orcs, yet they are much smaller than the Men and Elves they spring from. Perhaps Eru's prank that?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I think portraying orcs as poor fighters can be
exagerated. Remember, in LOTR orcs are
gewnerally seen going against the best of the best
of the good guys, Gondor and Rohan in the Third
Age were increasingly militarized societies with highly
trained warriors and systems of warfare, and Sauron
seems to have deliberately bred orcs of various sizes
and capabilities (for example, the tracker orc and his
companion patrolling in Mordor after Frodo and the
"great elf warrior" escaped into Mordor).

[Morthoron]

As Lalwende, skip spence and others have inferred, I believe Orcs presented as much of a problem to Tolkien as it does to we, the readers. There is, of course, the original statement that the wise 'believed' Orcs to be descended from imprisoned, twisted Elves; however, that goes against Tolkien's references to Elves dying of sadness (a sort of emotional suicide), and rape being a cause of such death:

"Among all these evils there is no record of any among the Elves that took another's spouse by force; for this was wholly against their nature, and one so forced would have rejected bodily life and passed to Mandos. Guile or trickery in this matter was scarcely possible, for the Eldar can read at once in the eyes and voice of another whether they be wed or unwed."

Would an elf submit to such abomination as procreating at the behest of Morgoth? It seems unlikely.

Then we pass to the odd mention of Bolg being the son of Azog, which I believe is the only reference to familial relations of orcs anywhere in Tolkien's work. With whom was Azog doing his begetting? I bet Mrs. Azog was a real looker. :Merisu:

We then pass on the the squint-eyed Southerner, half-orcs and Uruk-hai of Lord of the Rings (as well as Tolkiens later assessment that orcs rose from men and not elves). Granted, Saruman was not the first to breed Uruk-hai (that was Sauron's genetic breakthrough, as well as the Olog-hai), but I always thought it comical the way Peter Jackson presented the Uruk's birthing in mud hatcheries. But really, Tolkien gives such an incomplete view of Orkish domesticity and breeding, that it's really all up to conjecture. One wonders what really was going on in the subterranean vaults of Orthanc or Barad-dur. It's certain that it wasn't pleasant.

P.S. Sorry, I didn't complete my thought (my resident eight year-old Elf princess demanded an audience).

It would seem that Tolkien chose a Jekyll and Hyde approach to Orcs, wherein the overall genetic pattern of Orcs was totally given over to the Hyde aspect of humanity: cruelty, mercilessness, bestiality, thievery and profanity. But I believe somewhere in Tolkien's letters (can't recall where and am too busy to look it up) he speaks of Orkish redeemability and questions whether or not Orcs have souls (I believe I read that somewhere, but not conclusively). When I have time I'll look it up (or perhaps some other enterprising soul can find it).

It seems that Orcs were indeed cannon fodder for Tolkien to handily pile before the bright swords of the righteous, and they are indeed not up to snuff as far as bravery and skill in comparison to their elf, dwarf and mannish enemies; in fact, when Barad-dur collapses the Orcs retreat in chaos, whereas there remain bold groups of Easterlings who bravely fight on to the last man against Aragorn's army. It was perhaps a strategic mistake on the part of both Sauron and Morgoth to rely on Orcs to fill the bulk of their legions.

[Eönwë]

It's all very well setting it up that the worst traits of human (mis)behaviour stem from Orcish blood (and quite intriguing), however he neatly skips the fact that in his tales a lot of Elves, Men and Dwarves without a single drop of Orcish blood did plenty of bad things too. It lacks coherence.
Well, not really. The Orcs just do more of the bad stuff that Elves and Men (Dwarves aren't connected- or are they. Originally they were all going to be evil, according to the BoLT, at least I think) do. If elves/men were there ancestors, then I just think that Morgoth brought out their bad side, so much so that it unbalanced the good side. And what about the Evil Men? Thousands of them are killed, and they are the normal humans. I think it makes them more scary when they are enslaved by someone evil, even though they have the capacity to be good.

if we keep it simple Elves and Men share the same kind of physical body and can have children together so Orcs might have their orgins in both peoples.
It's when we start taking about the soul or fea we run into problems.

Are you suggesting Immortal Orcs?

While most characters like for example Sam do see the Orcs as bad though and through this isn't the authors voice. Some of the wiser characters like Gandalf do express views that they in fact don't hate the minions of the enemy but rather feel sorry for them. After the War of the Ring Aragorn also pardons the enemy combatants (including the Orcs) and grants them lands where they will be free to make their own destiny, something he wouldn't have done if he considered them beyond redemtion.
You would feel sorry for someone that was enslaved to do evil if they couldn't do aything else.

Also, almost all depicted orcs are not that good fighters or otherwise fearsome opponents as the main characters seem to be able to kill them by tens if not by hundreds. One gets afraid of them most when they threathen hobbits without a human, elf or dwarf to help them out as to hobbits they stand as real threats (but even here Tolkien gives the hobbits the strengtht and guts to beat them when it counts).
But during the first book, the only hobbit to kill an orc was Sam. And once in a while, an orc chieftain comes along, and then there's trouble.

That's a good point and one I never liked as an adult. As a kid though I always felt comforted by always knowing that the good guys in the end had the strenght to fend off the Orcs. But yeah, it's silly that Orcs always seem to be weaker, more cowardly and less skilled then the heroes when there's no coherent reason for it being so.

Presumably, Orcs train at warfare and fighting all of their life and would therefore be better warriors than most free men with other interests. Also, Morgoth and Sauron would have an interest in breeding big Orcs, yet they are much smaller than the Men and Elves they spring from.

But in Tolkien's work, all the really tall CoI (Children of Ilúvatar- ooh! Another abbreviation) are good. Look at the Númenoreans (and so, Tuor). And Turgon. But then Thingol could have been better. Anyway, evil characters are often portrayed as being smaller, weaker, cowering/crouching/stooping creatures. And anyway, what about Uruks? (and I'm not talking about Saruman's). Anyway, since Morgoth made so many, he probably didn't care (or were they "Spartan" in their selection of warriors?).

And then again, there is the free will and intelligence question. An intelligent slave would be more capable. Of course, there is the question of rebellion, but maybe being isolated stopped that. Like in Moria, in the Chamber of Mazarbul, once the chieftain died the others ran off (they came back with reinforcements, but that's not the point. In fact, this points even more to the fact that they are more effective). If they had been mindless "machines" then they would have just gone straight to their death. They know when they're outnumbered and get suport. In this way they are more effective, and less die that way. Being selfish just makes them more formidable, as they are less likely to die.
Anyway, it is said that those that fight because they are forced to/payed to will be worse in battle, as they don't really need to win the fight- the only thing that affects them is whether or not they die in the battle itself. The orcs don't need to fight, unlike the "good guys" who would otherwise get invaded and killed.

And orcs are brought up to kill and torture for fun, in the same way as people nowadays are brought up to play sports/other games for fun. This is just another sport for them. And some people say that sport is just the body's natural instinct to make people feel superior to others (the ones they beat) and to keep the body fit and ready to fight/kill. And what better way to establish your superiority than to kill someone. Just like when people go hunting (just so you know, I don't know anyone who does so I don't know how it feels) they establish their superiority and skill over other animals. Also, when it was still legal, being able to hunt creatures that were able to kill Man (like lions, tigers, certain bears, wolves, etc) was considered as a sign of power. Anyway, orcs did find pleasure in making people suffer, especially their most powerful enemies.

[Eönwë]

It was perhaps a strategic mistake on the part of both Sauron and Morgoth to rely on Orcs to fill the bulk of their legions.

But orcs come cheap (or in fact, for free). It takes much more effort (and gold or force) to get allies if you are a Dark Lord.

Also, in addition to they end of my previous post, about orcs enjoying murdering and torturing, I found just one of many examples:

[The Drúedain's] losses were heavy in their feud with the Orcs, who returned their hatred and delighted to capture them and torture them. The only reason I used that was because I was just reading it, as there are doubtless an almost infinite quotes of this nature.

[Lalwendë]

It seems that Orcs were indeed cannon fodder for Tolkien to handily pile before the bright swords of the righteous, and they are indeed not up to snuff as far as bravery and skill in comparison to their elf, dwarf and mannish enemies; in fact, when Barad-dur collapses the Orcs retreat in chaos, whereas there remain bold groups of Easterlings who bravely fight on to the last man against Aragorn's army. It was perhaps a strategic mistake on the part of both Sauron and Morgoth to rely on Orcs to fill the bulk of their legions.

That's what I feel. Orcs are just meat for the killing. Obviously there must be some enemy to be slaughtered in a fantasy novel (or must there? Hmmm...), but the Orcs are just too anonymous, too weak and almost pathetic. Again comparing them with Daleks (it was the frightening superiority of Daleks over humans that brought this into my mind - sorry if you don't know what they are......yet ;)), Orcs also seem a little bit thick. And this all stacks up to a bit of an unsatisfying enemy.

I have to note though, that the Orcs we see in LotR are very different to those in the Hobbit and again very different to those in the Sil/UT etc. There's very little to show us how 'evil' these Orcs actually are in LotR. On the contrary, they don't seem all that bad, really, talking of retirement and not just killing Merry and Pippin.

And orcs are brought up to kill and torture for fun, in the same way as people nowadays are brought up to play sports/other games for fun. This is just another sport for them. And some people say that sport is just the body's natural instinct to make people feel superior to others (the ones they beat) and to keep the body fit and ready to fight/kill. And what better way to establish your superiority than to kill someone.

My reservation here is that would it be actually possible to have a functioning society, one with a breeding population, women/females and Orc babies if there was a culture where slaughtering one another proved 'worth'?

Must run, as Shrek 3 has just started and I've been dying to see it! :D

[Eönwë]

That's what I feel. Orcs are just meat for the killing. Obviously there must be some enemy to be slaughtered in a fantasy novel (or must there? Hmmm...), but the Orcs are just too anonymous, too weak and almost pathetic. Again comparing them with Daleks (it was the frightening superiority of Daleks over humans that brought this into my mind - sorry if you don't know what they are......yet ;)), Orcs also seem a little bit thick. And this all stacks up to a bit of an unsatisfying enemy.

But Daleks and cyberman are actually (well, at least partly, but then there is the brain) machines. They have no emotion. They are all part of a whole killing machine. They are the ultimate robotic, patterned movement. There is no variation, no difference. They are effective killing machines, but only as effective as their leader. An orc would run away if about to be killed, a robot would not. Maybe Morgoth liked that idea- that they could fend for themselves when not in use. Orcs are living, breathing beings. Not immortal metal bodis. They are both scary, but in different ways. Daleks and Cybermen are the pinnacle of organistaion, whereas orcs are more like a rabble. But often the come up with their own, horrible solutions.

What I am saying is that they are different types of evil. One works as a whole (Daleks and Cybermen), one works in different ways, but in the same direction.

And anyway, would the Daleks be so interesting if there weren't those "special" ones? There are quite a few episodes devoted to them, just like in LOTR when you get to find out what the orcs really think.

[Boromir88]

What is fascinating to me about Tolkien's orcs is Tolkien asks the question that Sociologists (and Psychologists) are still trying to answer today. It is a question Tolkien throws out there, but doesn't answer, and one that we will probably never have an "answer" to. Is the person to blame for their own choices, or do we blame the system? Do we blame the individual orcs for their cruelty, or the evil purpose (and environment) that Morgoth had for them. I mean the purpose of the Orcs are to really be cruel agents of destruction. Afterall the Mouth of Sauron was said to have been "more" cruel than any orc, and that thought just sends :eek: down my spine. :D

I am not too familiar with The Silmarillion, because honestly I don't like it as a story, and I really was only able to finish it (from cover-to-cover) once. But, I do get a different impression about the Orcs in LOTR than from the Orcs in the Silmarillion. Maybe that is because Sauron made improvements to his Orcs, and we also get more into Sauron's Orcs' minds.

Morgoth's Orcs certainly seemed pathetic and much like Canon Fodder. Wave after wave would come, and they would be slaughtered by our heroes (yet more would keep coming!) I never got the impression that Sauron's Orcs were canon fodder. Afterall, unlike what the movies show (gotta love Hollywood) Sauron didn't seem to have an unlimitted supply of Orcs he could keep throwing out there. He had amassed a lot of forces, but the army he sent to Erebor was made up of Easterlings, arguably the majority of the army the Witch-King commanded (when sieging Gondor) was made up of Men (or in the very least the Orcs wouldn't have outnumbered them by much).

I think Sauron also had a much different approach to "conquest" than Morgoth did. Morgoth eventually just wanted to destroy everything, Sauron on the other hand seemed to avoid war, if he could or if it suited his interests. He sends an emissary to offer peace to the dwarves. The message was pretty much, tell me where the Ring is, stay out of my way, and I'll leave you alone. He does send the MoS out to talk terms with Aragorn et. all. We all knew the "talks" weren't going to be productive, but afterall this was an army that just defeated him and now marched right to his gate. This offers a reason to believe, that first Sauron had a wiser policy than Morgoth, but also Sauron really didn't have the unlimited resources (and Orcs) to spend on constant fighting.

I think his alliance with Saruman shows Sauron's policy the best. He doesn't trust Saruman, but he could use Saruman and when Saruman is useless, he'll deal with the little brat later. I'm sure if the Dwarves had agreed to Sauron's offer, Sauron would have dealt with them eventually. We see Sauron did have superior numbers, but he just didn't have the power to constantly be at war, thus any temporary peace he could make, he probably would.

So, where am I trying to go with all this, ahh Sauron's Orcs never appeared to be canon fodder to me. He couldn't tap into an unlimitted amount and keep throwing them at his enemy. Also, we see our heroes don't actually keep cutting down wave after wave of Orcs.

The fight in Moria, I wouldn't really even call a skirmish. The Fellowship didn't have the endurance to beat back the Orcs, and fight them for 10 minutes as the movies portrayed. The Fellowship high-tailed their butts out of the chamber as soon as they could. The Orc Leader was also one tough cookie:
With a thrus of his huge hide shield he turned Boromir's sword and bore him backwards, throwing him to the ground. Diving under Aragorn's blow with the speed of a striking snake he charged into the Company and thrus with his spear straight at Frodo.~The Bridge of Khazad-dum
Eventhough he was the titled the "orc-cheiftain" this is pretty darn impressive for something that is supposed to be canon fodder. He manhandles the strongest member of the Fellowship, and he has the agility to quickly duck below Aragorn's blow and strike Frodo. That is impressive.

Then at Helm's Deep, I can see an argument being made that Legolas and Gimli did slay over 80 baddies combined, that seems like Tolkien drawing from "classic" heroism. However, we do know that not all of Saruman's army were Uruk-hai (or Orcs), and this was a battle that lasted through the night. I have not the slightest idea the length of the battle, and there were breaks in between (a moment of "parley" too!) But, even a battle that lasts 3-4 hours, killing 40 baddies for one person definitely isn't like Hurin's last stand.

The only moment (to me) that seemed like the Orcs got mowed down easily was Boromir's last stand. Pippin does say all the arrows were aimed at Boromir and he does kill many of them. But, also consider Boromir kind of drove off the first attack, scared away the 2nd with a horn blow, and on the 3rd wave he was killed.

I guess a quick summary if you want to skip all that, the Orcs in LOTR seem different in several ways than Morgoth's Orcs. I wanted to toss out some more things about Orcs and their possible redemption, but I must be off. I guess I will throw this out there, for when I do get a chance, but I was thinking about Orc women. Tolkien confirms in Letters (and it is consistant with the Silmarillion) that Orcs reproduce like the Children of Iluvatar, and thus there had to have been Orc women. But, alas, he doesn't entertain us with how orc childhood was like (under Sauron's regime). Did the Orc women stay at home and nurse their younglings...complete with a pleasant tomato garden and a white picket fence? (Eeh, that seems a little difficult to believe, and also tomatoes had no place in Middle-earth...hmm maybe cabbage). :D

[Lalwendë]

But Daleks and cyberman are actually (well, at least partly, but then there is the brain) machines. They have no emotion. They are all part of a whole killing machine. They are the ultimate robotic, patterned movement. There is no variation, no difference. They are effective killing machines, but only as effective as their leader. An orc would run away if about to be killed, a robot would not. Maybe Morgoth liked that idea- that they could fend for themselves when not in use. Orcs are living, breathing beings. Not immortal metal bodis. They are both scary, but in different ways. Daleks and Cybermen are the pinnacle of organistaion, whereas orcs are more like a rabble. But often the come up with their own, horrible solutions.

What I am saying is that they are different types of evil. One works as a whole (Daleks and Cybermen), one works in different ways, but in the same direction.

And anyway, would the Daleks be so interesting if there weren't those "special" ones? There are quite a few episodes devoted to them, just like in LOTR when you get to find out what the orcs really think.

I believe the Daleks actually turned on their creator, Davros at one point (and there is something interesting in the series just finished that I dare say no more on for those who haven't seen it yet). And they are also hyper intelligent and could easily come up with their own solutions. But my point is it's their sheer ruthlessness and them being unable to be 'redeemed' that makes them so interesting and frightening.

I mean the purpose of the Orcs are to really be cruel agents of destruction. Afterall the Mouth of Sauron was said to have been "more" cruel than any orc, and that thought just sends down my spine.

I find a lot of characters and creations a LOT more frightening than the Orcs - I could make a list rating scariness (might be a fun thread) and scarier than Orcs would be: the Nazgul, Gollum, Shelob, the Balrog, the Watcher in the Water etc etc....

Now onto cannon fodder...Morgoth seems to seek nothing more than annihilation, negation, and his Orcs are far more crazed, whereas Sauron seeks domination and his Orcs are more ordered. I agree Sauron doesn't treat them as cannon fodder, but Tolkien does.

It's possible he was stuck between a rock and a hard place in that he had to have an enemy army to be put to the sword, and like has been said, he literally struggled with the moral implications of that need...maybe I am churlish in that he doesn't fully pull off either having an effectively scary, amoral enemy nor an enemy which has been corrupted to be that way and is to be pitied.

I guess I will throw this out there, for when I do get a chance, but I was thinking about Orc women. Tolkien confirms in Letters (and it is consistant with the Silmarillion) that Orcs reproduce like the Children of Iluvatar, and thus there had to have been Orc women. But, alas, he doesn't entertain us with how orc childhood was like (under Sauron's regime). Did the Orc women stay at home and nurse their younglings...complete with a pleasant tomato garden and a white picket fence? (Eeh, that seems a little difficult to believe, and also tomatoes had no place in Middle-earth...hmm maybe cabbage).

Like I've said, if Orcs are breeding in the normal way, then this reduces the likelihood that their home culture is inherently violent. If you look at the most ruthless of soldiers, they must still retain some basic emotions such as caring for their comrades, for if they didn't, then who would care for them if they were injured? How would they know their comrades didn't have them in their sights instead of the enemy? Even Daleks must retain the sense of comradeship at the very least.

And to raise even a tough little Orcling there has to be a fair degree of care - do Orclings need nappy changes, feeding and amusement? I'd imagine so. It's possible there were Orc nurseries and female Orcs lived in thralldom, but it still means at least 50% of Orcs must have been capable of caring ;)

[Eönwë]

I believe the Daleks actually turned on their creator, Davros at one point (and there is something interesting in the series just finished that I dare say no more on for those who haven't seen it yet). And they are also hyper intelligent and could easily come up with their own solutions. But my point is it's their sheer ruthlessness and them being unable to be 'redeemed' that makes them so interesting and frightening.
But then there was that whole controversy, wasn't there? And anyway, didn't they go for the one who saved their creator? If my creator was saved by one of his/her/other created, I would also go against them.

I find a lot of characters and creations a LOT more frightening than the Orcs - I could make a list rating scariness (might be a fun thread) and scarier than Orcs would be: the Nazgul, Gollum, Shelob, the Balrog, the Watcher in the Water etc etc....
But the orcs are meant to be the weakest of Sauron's (and even more so Morgoth's troops). They are definately more cannon fodder than the others.

[Morthoron]

I guess a quick summary if you want to skip all that, the Orcs in LOTR seem different in several ways than Morgoth's Orcs.

First of all, welcome back to posting (haven't seen you around for a bit).

Second, I don't really think Morgoth's Orcs and Sauron's Orcs differed at all; what is definitely different was the caliber of enemy they faced. The Eldar and Edain were certainly greater warriors than the fading Dunedain in Gondor (and many Gondorions probably could only claim limited Dunedain bloodlines), and the Rohirrim. Even the Dwarves of the 1st Age were greater than their 3rd Age counterparts -- at least weapon and armor-wise -- after all, Azaghâl and his dwarves didn't back down from dragons; whereas the Dwarves of Erebor were soundly thrashed by Smaug. Plus, Morgoth didn't rely as much on Orcs as Sauron. After all, Morgoth's heavy hitters were Balrogs, dragons, trolls and then the Orcs coming...ummm...up the rear. And Morgoth was absolutely victorious against greater foes (until the Valar cavalry had to be called); whereas Sauron won many battles, but lost nearly every war he conducted.

I wanted to toss out some more things about Orcs and their possible redemption, but I must be off. I guess I will throw this out there, for when I do get a chance, but I was thinking about Orc women. Tolkien confirms in Letters (and it is consistant with the Silmarillion) that Orcs reproduce like the Children of Iluvatar, and thus there had to have been Orc women. But, alas, he doesn't entertain us with how orc childhood was like (under Sauron's regime). Did the Orc women stay at home and nurse their younglings...complete with a pleasant tomato garden and a white picket fence? (Eeh, that seems a little difficult to believe, and also tomatoes had no place in Middle-earth...hmm maybe cabbage). :D

Tolkien didn't mention tomato-tending Orc matrons who not-so-tenderly breast-fed their bawling brats (OWWW! those fangs!) because it's obvious Tolkien did not want to evince sympathy for Orcs. Tolkien was not one to offer multi-layered villains in his stories. If you were evil, you get no sympathetic rendering. Evil in Middle-earth always gets punished, doesn't it? Only if you atone, like Boromir, do you get the sympathetic touch (but then, of course, you must die anyway, sorry). Morgoth, Eol, Maeglin, Saeros, Feanor (he paid, precious, yes he did), Caranthir, Celegorm, Curufin (throw in Maglor and Maedhros as well), Mim, Turin (Tolkien's one great anti-hero), Sauron, Ar-Pharazon, Castimir the Usurper, the WiKi, Mouth of Sauron, Saruman (unrepentant up to the end), Denethor (he lost whatever sympathy he could have mustered), Gollum, etc., no one pays off the judge or has a get-out-of-jail free card (except perhaps Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, who gains sympathy in spite of herself).

No one gets to amass riches, kill wantonly and then retire to a seaside resort on the beaches of Umbar (like in real life).

[skip spence]

There is, of course, the original statement that the wise 'believed' Orcs to be descended from imprisoned, twisted Elves; however, that goes against Tolkien's references to Elves dying of sadness (a sort of emotional suicide), and rape being a cause of such death:


Yes that quote seems to make the Elvish orgin improbable. However, one could speculate that an Elf child abducted from his or her parents at a very young age would live on despite horrific conditions as it would know of nothing else.

Are you suggesting Immortal Orcs?

Well, if we go into the Arda metaphysics, a soul (fea) is granted to a child directly by Eru and isn't a product of the two parents as is the body. The difference between a Man and an Elf is the soul, not the body. What happens then when an Elf and a Man produces a child? Well, it seems the child is granted either a Man's soul or an Elf's soul by choice (Elrond chose to belong to the Elves, his brother Elros chose to be a Man etc.).

What about Orcs then? Do they have a soul? I suppose so, as they are not beasts but rational beings capable of procreating in the manner of the Children of Illuvatar. A body (hroa) can not live without a soul (fea) and Melkor could not create life on his own. To my mind the only (somewhat) logical solution is that Orcs either are descended from Elves and thus have an Elvish soul granted by Eru and are immortal, or that they are of human stock and are mortal. Like Morthoron I'm leaning towards the latter alternative which is, I believe, Tolkiens last known position on the matter.

...they are also hyper intelligent and could easily come up with their own solutions. But my point is it's their sheer ruthlessness and them being unable to be 'redeemed' that makes them so interesting and frightening.

But how can a being be hyperintelligent, able to come up with its own solutions and at the same time unredeemable, ie born "evil"? Someone who is intelligent can choose to torture and kill for the fun of it or choose not to, there's no way around that. A whole people that's all bad and completely unredeemable isn't plausable to me. There can be no such thing.


Like I've said, if Orcs are breeding in the normal way, then this reduces the likelihood that their home culture is inherently violent. If you look at the most ruthless of soldiers, they must still retain some basic emotions such as caring for their comrades, for if they didn't, then who would care for them if they were injured?

The Uruk Hai chapter clearly demonstrates that the Orcs were skilled healers in their ways and certainly took care of their own. There was plenty of comradeship too and all the fighting was between the different fractions, not within them, as was the case in Cirith Ungol. In fact, their behaviour is human through and through, although they also are cruel and wicked.

[Lalwendë]

Well, if we go into the Arda metaphysics, a soul (fea) is granted to a child directly by Eru and isn't a product of the two parents as is the body. The difference between a Man and an Elf is the soul, not the body. What happens then when an Elf and a Man produces a child? Well, it seems the child is granted either a Man's soul or an Elf's soul by choice (Elrond chose to belong to the Elves, his brother Elros chose to be a Man etc.).

What about Orcs then? Do they have a soul? I suppose so, as they are not beasts but rational beings capable of procreating in the manner of the Children of Illuvatar. A body (hroa) can not live without a soul (fea) and Melkor could not create life on his own. To my mind the only (somewhat) logical solution is that Orcs either are descended from Elves and thus have an Elvish soul granted by Eru and are immortal, or that they are of human stock and are mortal. Like Morthoron I'm leaning towards the latter alternative which is, I believe, Tolkiens last known position on the matter.

I actually think the idea that Orcs were originally Elves works much better. For one, as soon as the Elves awoke, Morgoth was out there capturing them like a human-catcher in Planet of the Apes, so there had to be Elvish ones. And then there's this question of Eru granting fear to his unborn Children. Would Eru keep granting Fear to new 'mortal' Orcs? It puts him in a sticky wicket. Thinking of Tolkien's own position on Eru, I think he would have been better off staying with the idea that Orcs were originally Elves.

Even if Morgoth got around the problem that only Eru could issue 'souls' by having had some way of recycling Fear into recycled and fixed-up Hroa (which might explain the Orcs' physical ugliness) once an Orc had croaked, then there would be no way he could recycle the Fear of Men as by their nature they leave the world, whereas Elven ones do not.

Though what I actually prefer is not to know exactly what they were, as it leaves it more interesting to have them possibly being Elves and/or Men originally.

I tend not to like a lot of Tolkien's very late stage tinkerings anyway. They muddy things far too much alas.

But how can a being be hyperintelligent, able to come up with its own solutions and at the same time unredeemable, ie born "evil"? Someone who is intelligent can choose to torture and kill for the fun of it or choose not to, there's no way around that. A whole people that's all bad and completely unredeemable isn't plausable to me. There can be no such thing.

If it is by nature evil then it can be like that.

The Uruk Hai chapter clearly demonstrates that the Orcs were skilled healers in their ways and certainly took care of their own. There was plenty of comradeship too and all the fighting was between the different fractions, not within them, as was the case in Cirith Ungol. In fact, their behaviour is human through and through, although they also are cruel and wicked.

Exactly, Orcs must have at least that shred of humanity.

[skip spence]

If it is by nature evil then it can be like that.


No, it can't, and I guess it's here our views differ. You seem to want Tolkien to show beyond a doubt that Orcs are bad to the bone and deserve to be put to the sword? As I don't believe a creature like this can exist I would find such a fantastical creation dull and not very scary (again, I'm not familiar with Daleks or Cybermen and might change my mind if I were).

Personally I don't think there's such a thing as Evil or Good in any absolute sense; these concepts are defined by a certain society in a certain time, place and context and are ever changing. Tolkien appeared to have belived in these absloute values however but he also understood that in order to be Evil, or do what is Evil rather, you would need to have a choice, there would need to be a fall. If you are born irredeemably Evil you have no choice in the matter and are not in fact Evil either. In Tolkien's world Eru, who is Good, created the world, and not even Melkor (or Nerwen;)) was evil in the beginning.

I can buy that Dragons, Balrogs and such are completely malicious, but even they are ancient spirits who once in the depths of time "fell" under the influence of Melkor.

The real enemy in Tolkien's world are by the way not the Orcs but Evil itself, personified by Melkor or Sauron and his Ring.

[Lalwendë]

I also don't think absolute Good and Evil exist - in the real world.* However, if you are going to have an enemy which is slaughtered on a massive scale (because if you don't then they will slaughter you on a massive scale) then this brings in doubts as to whether it is right to kill them. And it does make them less frightening.

It actually brings me back around to davem's Fantasy thread, because I start to question if it was morally right that Tolkien should show Orcs, who are not 'pure evil', being slaughtered in such a light fashion. I'm starting to think that gives a slightly dodgy impression (kind of along the lines of "these guys have souls too and are like us, but it's alright if we put them to the sword because they aren't on our side") and that davem may be right in stating Tolkien ought to have shown us more of the grim realities of war, especially if he was going to frame his enemy as being more like a real world enemy than like the traditional fantasy/sci-fi ruthless enemy.




*In all normal circumstances. However at the very extremes of survival I think such notions fly right out of the window.

[Nogrod]

Personally I don't think there's such a thing as Evil or Good in any absolute sense; these concepts are defined by a certain society in a certain time, place and context and are ever changing.How typical 7th age liberal & educated view that is! And I do completely agree on it. :)

But as was dicussed earlier in this thread, we need to keep in mind that the way we educated people of the 21st century think of things may not be the only criteria with which we should interpret fictional worlds... Looking at Tolkien's own worldview it's quite plausible his world could be "metaphysically absolutist". But there are problems even there.

Tolkien appeared to have belived in these absloute values however but he also understood that in order to be Evil, or do what is Evil rather, you would need to have a choice, there would need to be a fall. If you are born irredeemably Evil you have no choice in the matter and are not in fact Evil either. In Tolkien's world Eru, who is Good, created the world, and not even Melkor (or Nerwen;)) was evil in the beginning.The interesting question here to me is, can something merely just "fallen from grace" be absolutely evil? Wouldn't absolute evil require an autonomous evil principle from where it stems just like the absolut Good emanates from Eru? It's easy to see where the fascination towards Manichean thought comes from be it in the context of the early church or today's power politics...

But if Eru is the sole absolute power there is in the universe then he is in the last stance responsible also of the evil of Melkor and all the other evil...

Btw. did Eru make a choice to be good in the first place? Did Eru have a choice or is his goodness based on his nature or necessity? If Eru made a choice it's not absolute Good he represents but if his godness is necessary then he's not actually Good... :eek:

[Boromir88]

Morthoron, thank you, it's nice to be back.

No one gets to amass riches, kill wantonly and then retire to a seaside resort on the beaches of Umbar (like in real life).
:D That was truly delightful to read, and a good point, Tolkien's baddies to get their come uppance. However, I will say while they do get what they deserve, some of those baddies you list (Gollum, Grima, Denethor) I personally feel sympathetic towards, because there are still good traits I see in them. They are without question evil (and Denethor's case is more grey), but as Gandalf says about Gollum: "I think it is a sad story." Hmm...I wonder if Gandalf would say that about the Orcs? :p

I agree Sauron doesn't treat them as cannon fodder, but Tolkien does.~Lalwende
I guess if Tolkien needed baddies for our heroes to hack down, then that would make the Orcs cannon fodder. But by knowing Tolkien entertained the idea of orc redemption, that doesn't strike sympathy in me. Orcs were vile, cruel, and liked to use torture for their own sport. (Let's not forget the capture and torment of Celebrian). Also, just how "redeemed" are we talking about here.

Lal mentions Gorbag and Shagrat discussing retirement, but to borrow some words from Morthoron, it's not like Tolkien wanted his baddies to retire on a seaside resort on the beaches of Umbar.

"They would," grunted Gorbag. "We'll see. But anyway, if it does go well, there should be a lot more room. What d'you say? - of we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses."
"Ah!" said Shagrat. "Like old times."~The Choices of Master Samwise

Shagrat and Gorbag's "retirement" plan is to simply escape the Big Bosses and go out on their own. They would still stick to their orcish habits, but there would be no one like Morgoth or Sauron controlling them.
“The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted / converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their ‘talking’ was really reeling off ‘records’ set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellion critical words - he knew about them.”~Morgoth’s Ring; Myths Transformed
Tolkien's Orcs were capable of rebellious thoughts against their Big Bosses, but were they capable of living peacefully and being contributors to society? I doubt it. The absense of Morgoth or Sauron would not suddenly dissolve their wickedness. I'll get back to that, but let me kind of jump ahead to Letter 153:
They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad (I nearly wrote ’irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimatly good.)~Letter #153
So, there it is, but Lalwende you mentioned how Tolkien's later writings often muddy the waters, and I'm sorry I'm going to have to do some more muddying. As Bethberry ended up bringing to my attention that Letter 153 was actually a draft that was never sent. This letter was intended for Peter Hastings, a Catholic, but as Carpenter adds in at the end of the draft:
[The draft ends here. At the top, Tolkien has written: 'Not sent,' and has added: 'It seemed to be taking myself too importantly.']
I had brought up in the Modernism thread that Tolkien's friend Norman Cantor argues Tolkien's letters are his conscious thoughts after writing the story. So, it's interesting to hear the author's thoughts and opinions, but they do tend to muddy things up. While they are interesting to read, his Letters are not authoritative. Or as Tolkien puts it in Letter 211 (ironic isn't?):
I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.
I find it interesting that in Letter 153 he stops himself, and never does send out the letter. Going back to my first post, Tolkien asks us the question sociologists and psychologists have been trying to answer for years. Even more fascinating is Sociology and Psychology were not big sciences pre-WWI. But post-war there was a huge boom and now it seems like half the people I meet are psych-majors.

...maybe I am churlish in that he doesn't fully pull off either having an effectively scary, amoral enemy nor an enemy which has been corrupted to be that way and is to be pitied.
An interesting thought, for me Tolkien did pull of an effectively scary, amoral enemy. I'm sorry, I don't find anything to like about the Orcs, anyone who captures, torments, poisons...etc other people for their own sport, is evil. I don't think that Tolkien struggled with whether the Orcs were evil or not, but I do think he struggled with does he blame the Orc or the system? (A question we all struggle to ask ourselves today) I will point out one more thing...when the Big Boss (Sauron) was finally destroyed, and the Orcs have an oppurtunity to sue for pardon, do they? No, Tolkien draws a remarkable comparison to ants losing their queen.

[Boromir88]

Nogrod, perhaps it would interest you to know that Tolkien didn't believe in absolute evil:
In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil.~Letter 183
And critics are always complaining that Tolkien was such a conservative. :rolleyes:

Edit: aha I found it...here's an older thread that might interest you, skip and Nogrod.

Absolutely Evil (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12772)

[Lalwendë]

Yeah it all comes back to Eru and Tolkien's desire to keep Eru as a force of ultimate Good and that all which stems from him being, ultimately, Good too. Which means of course the Orcs have to be able to be redeemed (and have to be given a chance at redemption) or we could rightly ask why Eru permitted them to exist. But then you start wondering why they never get a chance at redemption. Then of course you also wonder where the Evil which Morgoth turned to actually comes from if Eru created everything...

Remind me if I ever write a fantasy epic not to bother with an Eru figure ;)

[skip spence]

..if you are going to have an enemy which is slaughtered on a massive scale (because if you don't then they will slaughter you on a massive scale) then this brings in doubts as to whether it is right to kill them. And it does make them less frightening.

It actually brings me back around to davem's Fantasy thread, because I start to question if it was morally right that Tolkien should show Orcs, who are not 'pure evil', being slaughtered in such a light fashion. I'm starting to think that gives a slightly dodgy impression (kind of along the lines of "these guys have souls too and are like us, but it's alright if we put them to the sword because they aren't on our side") and that davem may be right in stating Tolkien ought to have shown us more of the grim realities of war, especially if he was going to frame his enemy as being more like a real world enemy than like the traditional fantasy/sci-fi ruthless enemy.

This you can certainly debate. I for one find some episodes in JRRTs work rather distasteful, such as Gimli and Legolas' lighthearted killing contest in Helm's Deep and the brutal slaughter of Orcs in the Silmarillion ("to the last and least" - was that really nessesary?).

Then again, one of the main things I enjoy about Tolkien is his ability to create an illusion that this once happened, that his myths are a part of out own history here on earth, not just something he made up about Elves and Dragons. Completely righteous good guys fighting amoral irredeemable enemies is to me more unrealistic than magic, Elves and Dragons and therefore I have no real problem with the slaughter of Orcs (after all, as you said, it's them or you really).
And they are real nasty critters too, torturing for sport like Boro88said.

The good guys are no saints either. Just consider the Rohirrim's treatment of the Pukelmen and the Dunlendings, The Elves hunting of the Petty-Dwarves or the Numenorians chasing away and killing the Dark Men in Tal-Elmar (sp?).

The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted / converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their ‘talking’ was really reeling off ‘records’ set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellion critical words - he knew about them.”~Morgoth’s Ring; Myths Transformed

This, as I remember at least, is a failed attemt from JRRT to morally justifiy the slaughter of Orcs and it is my opinion that he realised it himself, going back to the twisted Men and/or Elves-theory.

[skip spence]

How typical 7th age liberal & educated view that is! And I do completely agree on it. :)
*phew* (if Nogrod agrees with me I know I'm on the right track)

The interesting question here to me is, can something merely just "fallen from grace" be absolutely evil? Wouldn't absolute evil require an autonomous evil principle from where it stems just like the absolut Good emanates from Eru? It's easy to see where the fascination towards Manichean thought comes from be it in the context of the early church or today's power politics...

You're right, in Tolkien's world there is no absolute evil (maybe I was sloppy expressing myself before). Eru is Good and the norm and as everything comes from him there can be no autonomous evil principle. Or can it? Not so sure about that actually, couldn't he have created that too just because? Well. in theory perhaps but not in Arda...


But if Eru is the sole absolute power there is in the universe then he is in the last stance responsible also of the evil of Melkor and all the other evil...

Btw. did Eru make a choice to be good in the first place? Did Eru have a choice or is his goodness based on his nature or necessity? If Eru made a choice it's not absolute Good he represents but if his godness is necessary then he's not actually Good... :eek:

I suppose that whichever choice Eru made it was still Good as he is the norm. Eru makes no mistakes as there is no-one above him with the authority to judge him.

[Lalwendë]

Then again, one of the main things I enjoy about Tolkien is his ability to create an illusion that this once happened, that his myths are a part of out own history here on earth, not just something he made up about Elves and Dragons. Completely righteous good guys fighting amoral irredeemable enemies is to me more unrealistic than magic, Elves and Dragons and therefore I have no real problem with the slaughter of Orcs (after all, as you said, it's them or you really).
And they are real nasty critters too, torturing for sport like Boro88said.


This is true. It would be a terribly boring read if we just had an uber-prig of an Aragorn killing Orcs. However, what I mean is not that they should be 100% Good Guys killing complete Bad Guys, but as davem suggested in his Fantasy thread, maybe seeing some of the gore involved in battle, and some of the fallout, would make these images of slaughter somehow more important.

[skip spence]

...but as davem suggested in his Fantasy thread, maybe seeing some of the gore involved in battle, and some of the fallout, would make these images of slaughter somehow more important.

Yeah, I agree. Tolkien perhaps felt that grown-up readers would be able to discern the message without the gory details that would be too grisly for younger readers to stomach? And he certainly had a penchant for glorifying battles too, with swords shining in the morning sun, banners flying high and men dying almost happily on the battlefield, praised ever after in song and verse.

[Eönwë]

I suppose that whichever choice Eru made it was still Good as he is the norm. Eru makes no mistakes as there is no-one above him with the authority to judge him.

I think he is more above Good and Evil than any in particular. He sees Melkor as just making it more interesting, so I think he is just standing back and watching the experiment (otherwise known as the life-forms of ME).

[Anárion Cúthalion]

*phew* (if Nogrod agrees with me I know I'm on the right track)



You're right, in Tolkien's world there is no absolute evil (maybe I was sloppy expressing myself before). Eru is Good and the norm and as everything comes from him there can be no autonomous evil principle. Or can it? Not so sure about that actually, couldn't he have created that too just because? Well. in theory perhaps but not in Arda...



I suppose that whichever choice Eru made it was still Good as he is the norm. Eru makes no mistakes as there is no-one above him with the authority to judge him.


I believe it was the theologist Sorenson who said that evil as we understand it is merely "shadow", that evil is not a separate comcept by a twisted version of good. Perhaps Tolkien was influenced in some manner by that thought.

[Boromir88]

...but as davem suggested in his Fantasy thread, maybe seeing some of the gore involved in battle, and some of the fallout, would make these images of slaughter somehow more important.~Lal
And he certainly had a penchant for glorifying battles too, with swords shining in the morning sun, banners flying high and men dying almost happily on the battlefield, praised ever after in song and verse.~skip

And it's interesting that the one time we really experience the pain of war (on the baddies side) is Sam's first encounter, of war, with the dead Haradrim soldier:
It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace - ...~Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Before this, Mablung and Damrod were "cursing" the Southrons, for joining with Sauron. Sam steps in as much like an independent narrator, who just got his first look of "Men against Men."

Perhaps also part of the glorifying is because of the value both the Men of Gondor and Rohan place on battle:
"...For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an end; and though we still hold that a warrior should have more skills and knowledge than only the craft of weapons and slaying, we esteem a warrior, nonetheless, above men of other crafts. Such is the need of our days. So even was my brother, Boromir: a man of prowess, and for that he was accounted the best man in Gondor..."~The Window on the West

[Nogrod]

There seems to be an interesting and uneasy combination of massacre and romantic warfare intertwined in Tolkien's writing.

Just maybe it has to do with the WW1 experiences? Just think of the gap between the literature & ideals Tolkien had read and honoured and the brutal industrially efficient killing of the war. And even if I'm no WW1 historian even I have read descriptions of courageous captains and soldiers who tried to live with some quasi-chivalric code in that war and we all know what happened to them... Polish cavalry even tried it against the Wehrmacht panzers in the second world war!!! (they were probably the last "knights" of Western warfare)

So maybe Tolkien was trying to combine these two? Or maybe he wished to reinstate the chivalry but the reality overtook him as he wrote the battle scenes? Or maybe he wished us to become uneasy in just this way thinking about the uneasy co-existence of chivalric ideas and modern warfare... Whatever.


I believe it was the theologist Sorenson who said that evil as we understand it is merely "shadow", that evil is not a separate comcept by a twisted version of good. Perhaps Tolkien was influenced in some manner by that thought.The idea stems from an early church-fathers consil (I'm not sure if it was the famous Nichaean consil or some other one they held in the first centuries A.D.) where Manicheanism - which said there are autonomous principles of Good and Evil which fight in the world and thus limit each other - was judged to be a heretical way of thinking. After that it has been more or less the official dogma of Christianity that evil is just lack of goodness or twisted goodness if you wish. Even if it has been challenged every now and then during the history.

In this sense I think Tolkien was an orthodox-christian - not meaning a Greek-Catholic but one following the "right doctrine" (orthos doxa). And all the problems that follow from the "orthodox" Christian position follow with Eru as well. That was the reason of my lighthearted playfulness in my last post. Sorry. But I couldn't resist the temptation there and not to bring the theodicea-problem forwards with Eru... :)

[skip spence]

And it's interesting that the one time we really experience the pain of war (on the baddies side) is Sam's first encounter, of war, with the dead Haradrim soldier:

True that. The Hobbits never see any glamour in war as far as I can remember. Bilbo's account of the Battle of Five Armies is his 'least favourite part of the adventure' and although no symphathy is evoked for the Goblins there's little or no glorification of the rout either.

Btw, I quickly browsed the Absolute Evil thread and and it does interest me. :)

[Stoatly Grimes]

If a race of beings is determined that they are going to kill you and eat your flesh, then I think it's reasonable to attempt to prevent them from doing so. Evil is always an arbitrary concept, but self-preservation is fairly black-and-white (at least in this case).

I imagine the thought-process goes something like this: "The angry orc coming towards me with a blood-stained scimitar does not want to chat; rather, he means to cause significant harm upon my person, because he hates me. Call me belligerent, but I reckon I'll kill him first, as I do not wish to be brutally hacked apart."

It doesn't really matter why or even if they are truly evil, beyond the philosophical interest. If you hesitate to kill them because they might not be evil, they will kill you, perhaps after sustained torture. :(

I can picture a group of "progressive" individuals picketing at the gate of Minas Tirith with placards reading "Orcs have feelings too!" and being promptly butchered after venturing into Mount Gundabad to discuss potential leaflet drives. :eek:

I suppose you could attempt to discuss morality and metaphysics with a gang of marauding orcs over a coffee, but I fear they are some way beyond reasoned discourse.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

It doesn't really matter why or even if they are truly evil, beyond the philosophical interest. If you hesitate to kill them because they might not be evil, they will kill you, perhaps after sustained torture.

I can picture a group of "progressive" individuals picketing at the gate of Minas Tirith with placards reading "Orcs have feelings too!" and being promptly butchered after venturing into Mount Gundabad to discuss potential leaflet drives.

I suppose you could attempt to discuss morality and metaphysics with a gang of marauding orcs

Shame on you! This is not the forum for right wing political posturing:mad:.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

If a race of beings is determined that they are going to kill you and eat your flesh, then I think it's reasonable to attempt to prevent them from doing so. Evil is always an arbitrary concept, but self-preservation is fairly black-and-white (at least in this case).

I imagine the thought-process goes something like this: "The angry orc coming towards me with a blood-stained scimitar does not want to chat; rather, he means to cause significant harm upon my person, because he hates me. Call me belligerent, but I reckon I'll kill him first, as I do not wish to be brutally hacked apart."

It doesn't really matter why or even if they are truly evil, beyond the philosophical interest. If you hesitate to kill them because they might not be evil, they will kill you, perhaps after sustained torture. :(

Well, well, but that's what's been contested on threads like this or the one which had been here recently - I think it was called something like "Orcseys-always evil?" or something like that. But I think this, what you say, is the usual approach from an average Orc towards a human or elf, or (not to forget) also from an average Gondorian soldier towards an Orc. But I would like to point out that it's not necessarily like that. 90% of this approach (of this thinking "if I don't kill it, it kills me") is the chain of wrongdoings from Orcs to Men and from Men to Orcs in the past, which is passed down generations and taught to little Gondorian children or pressed into the heads of Orcs by Sauron. It is "reasonable", under these circumstances, but when you go back and come to the first, "Utumno generation", there was the first impulse - we are quite lucky that we can see to the beginning of the chain of events, and pretty clearly! - and that came from Morgoth, who said: "Now, go out and raid some Elven villages." The first Orcs, basically, had little other choice as slaves. The Elves, then, had little other choice than to defend themselves just the way like SG illustrated above - something they haven't ever seen before suddenly jumped out of the bushes and started to massacre them. Okay. And from that moment on, it was always like that - thanks to deathless guys like Morgoth who kept sending Orcs out, and thus the other races started to build the long-term experience: "Orcs always kill people". And also it was quite likely for some Orcs to actually start to enjoy these raids, killing and such. The Orcs also were not doing much else in their life than raiding Elven/human settlements, and so for them, this was also "normal". Maybe, at one point, one or two stopped to think like this, whether it is right to do it - however still the majority was used to it, the same as let's say humans were to cultivating crops, or it was still worth it more, or easier to leave things like they are than trying to raise a rebellion against Morgoths&Saurons up there, and such... I think it would take a long, long transformation with the condition of the Orcs being set free at first, until they could become at least somewhat "peaceful" race. But on the side of the Free Peoples, there was more of a chance to come up with a different approach to the other side (for example if such a tribe of "free Orcs" formed).

[Boromir88]

Well said Legate. :)

Besides the reasons mentioned by you, and others, I think you have to wonder about this:

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law.~HoME X; Morgoth's Ring

Tolkien hints that by the standards of Elves and Men, orcs might have become "irredeemable," yet the Valar (and Eru) may see it differently. But I think you have to ask, how can Orcs become "redeemed" in a society (of Elves and Men) that believe, by their own standards, are irredeemable?

[Morthoron]

Tolkien hints that by the standards of Elves and Men, orcs might have become "irredeemable," yet the Valar (and Eru) may see it differently. But I think you have to ask, how can Orcs become "redeemed" in a society (of Elves and Men) that believe, by their own standards, are irredeemable?

Tolkien's societal norms are static, unchanging for ages (one of the few real dislikes I have for the overall tale); ergo, there is little chance for attitudinal changes within societies regarding those of another race (Elves of Lorien still holding a centuries-old grudge against the Dwarves, for instance). I guess what one would have to really ask is, given the static nature of societies (Orcs included), does it seem likely that such redemption could take place? The answer would be no, given the information we have.

Tolkien societies are not like those of the antebellum South and North United States, where negroes were considered chattel and not-human or subhuman in the South, but with a growing abolitionist movement in the North that fought against the inhumane and reactionary policies of slavery.

I don't see a Gondorion Orkish Abolition League (GOAL) for the better treatment of Orks being started up anytime soon.

[skip spence]

Tolkien societies are not like those of the antebellum South and North United States, where negroes were considered chattel and not-human or subhuman in the South, but with a growing abolitionist movement in the North that fought against the inhumane and reactionary policies of slavery.

I don't see a Gondorion Orkish Abolition League (GOAL) for the better treatment of Orks being started up anytime soon.

That reminds me of one thing about the Uruk Hai I've never seen any artists or film-makers take up on: they are often described as being black.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Tolkien's societal norms are static, unchanging for ages (one of the few real dislikes I have for the overall tale); ergo, there is little chance for attitudinal changes within societies regarding those of another race (Elves of Lorien still holding a centuries-old grudge against the Dwarves, for instance). I guess what one would have to really ask is, given the static nature of societies (Orcs included), does it seem likely that such redemption could take place? The answer would be no, given the information we have.

Well... actually the thing you mentioned with the Lórien Elves made me think of a possible hope for the Orcs. The Elves held a grudge against the Dwarves, but when Gimli came with the Fellowship, and Galadriel approved letting him in, and later, it became kind of first spark of the friendship between the Elves of Lórien and the Dwarves. Maybe had something similar happened with an Orc...? I am inclined to think at least Galadriel would be able to think favourably about him. Had there been a company of Elf-friends who would happen to take an Orc with them - which is not that impossible to think, that there will be at least a few folks, for example including Gandalf, who would get friendly with some Orc, let's say a fostered one or whatever - and a similar situation occured, I think that would be a nice new beginning for inter-racial relationships.

[Eönwë]

Tolkien's societal norms are static, unchanging for ages (one of the few real dislikes I have for the overall tale); ergo, there is little chance for attitudinal changes within societies regarding those of another race (Elves of Lorien still holding a centuries-old grudge against the Dwarves, for instance). I guess what one would have to really ask is, given the static nature of societies (Orcs included), does it seem likely that such redemption could take place? The answer would be no, given the information we have.

But isn't the staticness partly because elves are immortal (Men change alliances at certain times). If everyone around you has lived through a war against the orcs, and tells you how disgusting and cruel they are (first hand account) and what the did to Jimbobaurë, etc, then you would have something aggainst them too. Things are much less easily forgotten by elves because of their immortality. Think about- Cirdan has lived through probably all the torments of the Elves and Men, and would have a good cause to oppose orcs. He can go on telling people about the evilness lf orcs for 3+ ages. That must have an effect (or rather, lower the likelihood of change). If you are brought up in an orc-hating society, with people that have actually seen their horrors, then there is not much chance of change.

Likewise Morgoth, then Sauron, constantly drive their orcs against the "goodies". The ircs don't stand a chance. They give in to what (by the marvels of genetic engineering) their impulses are, having no regard for social harmony, and are taught to enjoy torturing. It's quite hard to escape from such a totalitarian system, when your leader is a powerful god. Not to mention he can read your mind.

Dwarves are a mostly cut-off people from the outside world (they keep to themselves), so their thoughts stagnate within their tunnels. Not to mention the many attacks on them by "goblins".

Men, on the other hand, are different. Having a short lifespan compared to dwarves and elves, things are forgotten much more quickly. Their alliances do fluctuate.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Men, on the other hand, are different. Having a short lifespan compared to dwarves and elves, things are forgotten much more quickly. Their alliances do fluctuate.

These last sentences actually hold something in it. That's also what I thought, then, that after the Elves left Middle-Earth and the Dominion of Men came, it would be much more likely for the Men and Orcs to become friendly at some times, points, moments? And then also, another thought, it sure wasn't that bad with Man-Orc relationships - although they may not have been best friends, in many battles for example the Haradrim or Easterlings and the Orcs fought alongside each other, and in some places they lived next to each other. Their relationships probably were not ideal, of course, but it at least wasn't like that every Orc was an enemy on sight - and sure the long-time living together must have brought at least several good inter-racial friendships, if even to a limited number of people... so in a paradox, the grounds for better Orc-Man relationships were not actually in the "good post-Númenorean civilisation" but among the Men from the East and South... and now, when I think of the possible half-Orc crossbreeds... hmm... (ah yes, now I remember, I think I wrote something about Uglúkromeo&Juliet on that old thread about Orcs back then...)

[Thinlómien]

I'm glad I decided to read through this thread after all... very interesting and thought-provoking. I won't stay here to write a novel, though, because I have dozens of other things to do today, unfortunately. However, I will say one thing. Some people have complained that in the Silmarillion, Orcs are merely cannon fodder, while they are more like real enemy soldiers in LotR. I don't think the difference is in how Orcs were in different ages, or not that much even in how their opponents were in different ages, but rather, in the difference of the narrative of the two books. Silmarillion's style is far more epic and mythology-like, and in all old myths and tales we have the heroes defeating unnumbered hordes of enemies. I think it's as simple as that.

[Lalwendë]

I've just finished reading Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go and it has given me a dreadful thought about the Orcs...

Never Let Me Go deals with cloned people raised for the sole purpose of donating their organs (this won't spoil the plot for you, do not worry!). As you read the novel you notice that there are lots of cliches used in the voice of the narrator and as it moves on you realise why, and that is these people have been raised to have limited expectations, focussed on the job they are destined to do, to be harvested - the limited language reflects the limited expectations. Nobody rebels, though they have small hopes in their limited way, they even hurry more quickly along the path to being harvested. They have their purpose and (maddeningly to the reader) seem to accept it.

That we see no Orcs rebel and refuse to be the mere cannon fodder of Sauron and Morgoth suggests to me that they too have been raised to expect nothing else. Even the hopes of Shagrat and Gorbag are small ones, simply involving more of the same but without a master.

Orcs have had their 'humanity' stripped away and are utilitarian beings bred and raised for a purpose (I'm shuddering to think now of the millions of real children being 'educated' to become the obedient desk jockeys and consumers of the future....). I feel sorry for them at the same time as feeling a wee bit superior because I wasn't just bred to be some Dark Lord's slave.

I think this might be how Tolkien gets them to 'work' as an enemy force. Yes, they are a bit rubbish compared to ruthless hyper-intelligent enemies like Daleks and Ubermenschen like Cybermen, but they are almost shadow selves of humanity, what we can be if we allow our 'masters' to determine our fates. Maybe this is what makes them so scary - are they repulsive as they are almost-but-not-quite-human, and a reminder of what might be? And also repulsive because we cannot reconcile feeling sorry for their fates at the same time as not wanting them to exist? :eek:

[Morthoron]

Never Let Me Go deals with cloned people raised for the sole purpose of donating their organs (this won't spoil the plot for you, do not worry!). As you read the novel you notice that there are lots of cliches used in the voice of the narrator and as it moves on you realise why, and that is these people have been raised to have limited expectations, focussed on the job they are destined to do, to be harvested - the limited language reflects the limited expectations. Nobody rebels, though they have small hopes in their limited way, they even hurry more quickly along the path to being harvested. They have their purpose and (maddeningly to the reader) seem to accept it.

Although they are not harvested, this sounds a bit like the future humans trapped within the caste system of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (genetically bred and raised from birth to be in on one of three levels of workers).

Orcs have had their 'humanity' stripped away and are utilitarian beings bred and raised for a purpose (I'm shuddering to think now of the millions of real children being 'educated' to become the obedient desk jockeys and consumers of the future....). I feel sorry for them at the same time as feeling a wee bit superior because I wasn't just bred to be some Dark Lord's slave.

I think this might be how Tolkien gets them to 'work' as an enemy force. Yes, they are a bit rubbish compared to ruthless hyper-intelligent enemies like Daleks and Ubermenschen like Cybermen, but they are almost shadow selves of humanity, what we can be if we allow our 'masters' to determine our fates. Maybe this is what makes them so scary - are they repulsive as they are almost-but-not-quite-human, and a reminder of what might be? And also repulsive because we cannot reconcile feeling sorry for their fates at the same time as not wanting them to exist? :eek:

The scenario is certainly possible within the framework of humanity, and without any exotic genetic manipulation. People generally have a flock or mob mentality in any case. How else could one explain how easily simple Nazi soldiers could so easily work within the framework of the Final Solution, day in and day out working among the incinerators? Or Japanese suicide bombers (or the Al Queda suicide bombers, or Republicans who still maintain that Bush is a good president, etc.).

[Lalwendë]

Although they are not harvested, this sounds a bit like the future humans trapped within the caste system of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (genetically bred and raised from birth to be in on one of three levels of workers).

That's a huge favourite of mine. In contrast, the events in this novel seem to be set in near contemporary England. Little detail is given of how they come into being, except dark hints at things far more unpleasant than what we see in the novel. It's well worth reading - difficult to initially get into the rhythm of the narrator's voice though as she intentionally speaks in cliches. The banality of her tone is part of the horror of it...

The scenario is certainly possible within the framework of humanity, and without any exotic genetic manipulation. People generally have a flock or mob mentality in any case. How else could one explain how easily simple Nazi soldiers could so easily work within the framework of the Final Solution, day in and day out working among the incinerators? Or Japanese suicide bombers (or the Al Queda suicide bombers, or Republicans who still maintain that Bush is a good president, etc.).

People are easily persuaded. From reading how these characters accept their fate stoically, how some even hasten it, it's easy to see how just from the correct application of education a person can be made to accept almost anything. Rather than exploring the wilder edges of such 'science' as was available to him, maybe Morgoth simply raised his Orcs to think in a certain way?

As Tolkien says, there are Orcs around even today, people who have not necessarily been raised in the right way (or who have been raised in the wrong way, seeing as there may not be a 'right' way but there are certainly 'wrong' ways). Or maybe it's going too far to say Orcs were more a state of mind in Middle-earth ;) However, rather than thinking of Orcs as naturally 'bad to the bone', it is actually more frightening to think of them as having been raised to be blood thirsty and vicious, brought up in a culture which demanded that of them. It makes them a more satisfying enemy than mere 'McEeeevil' stereotypes, to see them as humanity's dark side.

[Morthoron]

People are easily persuaded. From reading how these characters accept their fate stoically, how some even hasten it, it's easy to see how just from the correct application of education a person can be made to accept almost anything. Rather than exploring the wilder edges of such 'science' as was available to him, maybe Morgoth simply raised his Orcs to think in a certain way?

The "Cult" of Morgoth, of Melkor as a divinity to be worshipped, was something Tolkien toyed with throughout the Silmarillion and beyond. It was ressurrected by Sauron in Numenor, and then Tolkien attempted to revive it in his aborted 4th Age tale. Considering Morgoth's "Ring" was Arda itself, perhaps he exercised his malign influence over the Orcs from the...ummm...ground up, a sort of combination of John Locke's Tabula Rasa, Pavlovian psychology and Mendelian crossbreeding. The admixture was then heavily dosed with religious fervor (after all, religious fanaticism is the incubator for atrocity), for it certainly seemed that vain Morgoth, like any despotic demagogue, relished the worshipfulness of his subjects. The Orcs, therefore, had no chance or inclination to be anything but what they were, given both the societal pressure and mores (if Orcs could be said to have mores), and monstrous influence of divine Morgoth exerting immense pressure through his Ring (ie., Arda).

Interestingly, Sauron was not able to exert the same power over Orcs with his Ring. There is the instance of Shagrat and Gorbag speaking what amounts to heresy against their superiors, and planning their own little soiree without Sauron's control; also, the orcs of Moria had a history of crowning their own king (Azog and Bolg), which seems to be contrary to Orcs being bound directly to the Dark Lord. They even managed their own wars without the seeming direct influence of Saurons (Orcs and Dwarves, and the Battle of Five Armies). Perhaps this was due to Gundabad and Moria being further from Mordor, and the power exerted by Sauron's Ring grew less over considerable distance (unlike Morgoth, whose power corrupted the very earth).

As Tolkien says, there are Orcs around even today, people who have not necessarily been raised in the right way (or who have been raised in the wrong way, seeing as there may not be a 'right' way but there are certainly 'wrong' ways). Or maybe it's going too far to say Orcs were more a state of mind in Middle-earth ;) However, rather than thinking of Orcs as naturally 'bad to the bone', it is actually more frightening to think of them as having been raised to be blood thirsty and vicious, brought up in a culture which demanded that of them. It makes them a more satisfying enemy than mere 'McEeeevil' stereotypes, to see them as humanity's dark side.

Well, there are 'real history' examples of this type of brutal behavior being at least attempted to be bred into a society, and what must be remembered is that in both the cases of Morgoth and Sauron we are speaking in terms of immortals who could carry out such breeding programs over millenia (unlike the abbreviated attempts of Man, which only last a relatively short time). Give Hitler a few thousand years to develop a blonde, blue-eyed master race, and the results would be horrifying.

[skip spence]

However, rather than thinking of Orcs as naturally 'bad to the bone', it is actually more frightening to think of them as having been raised to be blood thirsty and vicious, brought up in a culture which demanded that of them. It makes them a more satisfying enemy than mere 'McEeeevil' stereotypes, to see them as humanity's dark side.

Yep, that's how I see the Orcs as well and I believe I expressed that (or perhaps only implied it) earlier on this thread. As for 'humanity's dark side' I certainly assign the flock mentality you've talked about to it, at least the dark aspects that so often come to light; the few examples that have been mentioned here are just page one of a long. long book or horrors. The bright side of humanity is that once in a while we manage to rise above it, despite overwhelming odds. I'd like to think that eventually even the Orcs did. But then they are no longer Orcs, as I believe Orcness is mainly a state of mind for Tolkien, given his talk about modern day Orcs. An Orc reformed is no longer an Orc.

[Lalwendë]

You know what? I'm sure that the plug-ugly Orcs we saw in the films have made us all think that Orcs resembled re-animated corpses or something, when they were probably just a bit ugly. ;) I must look this up and see what I think...

Because it's something on the inside of an Orc that makes them nasty.

The bright side of humanity is that once in a while we manage to rise above it, despite overwhelming odds. I'd like to think that eventually even the Orcs did. But then they are no longer Orcs, as I believe Orcness is mainly a state of mind for Tolkien, given his talk about modern day Orcs. An Orc reformed is no longer an Orc.

And they must have been able to do this or otherwise Tolkien would not have mentioned the possibility of redemption for them. So they had the chance of free will. The question is how much of the urge to seek freedom had been bred out of them in their raising and in their culture.

I also wonder whether a redeemed Orc might look quite so ugly? It's not easy to imagine one of PJ's re-animated corpse zombie Orcs being redeemed and sitting in Ithilien pressing flowers but it might not be so unimaginable if that Orc wasn't such a pig, eh?

Interestingly, Sauron was not able to exert the same power over Orcs with his Ring. There is the instance of Shagrat and Gorbag speaking what amounts to heresy against their superiors, and planning their own little soiree without Sauron's control; also, the orcs of Moria had a history of crowning their own king (Azog and Bolg), which seems to be contrary to Orcs being bound directly to the Dark Lord. They even managed their own wars without the seeming direct influence of Saurons (Orcs and Dwarves, and the Battle of Five Armies). Perhaps this was due to Gundabad and Moria being further from Mordor, and the power exerted by Sauron's Ring grew less over considerable distance (unlike Morgoth, whose power corrupted the very earth).

Wasn't much of that period a time when Sauron had lost much of his power? He only came to Dol Guldur 1,000 years into the third age, and back to Mordor much later than that. I think maybe that the loss of Sauron's Ring meant he had to spend much longer in marshalling his forces and extending his influence before he could once more assault the West. Contrast that with the speed with which he must have acted to marshall his troops between the fall of Numenor and the Last Alliance, a time when he was in possession of the Ring.

I reckon Orcs would have taken the chance to run amok (as it might have seen from Sauron's point of view) during that period, be independent, even form an Orcish monarchy in Moria.

A people who had been born and brought up to act in a certain way might find it very hard or even impossible to shake off the yoke that Morgoth had placed on them. Odd cultural traditions persist in the real world for years after they have ceased to serve any useful purpose, such as foot binding, or even the wearing of ties.

I'd like to explore more of these ideas about a 'Cult of Morgoth' though, might be a good thread at some time soon...

[skip spence]

You know what? I'm sure that the plug-ugly Orcs we saw in the films have made us all think that Orcs resembled re-animated corpses or something, when they were probably just a bit ugly. ;) I must look this up and see what I think...

Because it's something on the inside of an Orc that makes them nasty.


I think you're right. Although the Orcs were no George Clooneys or Brad Pitts they weren't Frankenstein's monster either. As I said earlier, "half-orcs" and similar could infiltrate human societies so the real deal couldn't have looked that monstrous. Actually I remember reading somewhere a more direct description of how they looked like. Gonna try to Google it...

Ok, here goes, it's apparently from the letters:

: "Orcs are squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."


Oh dear. Well, I suppose they did look like ugly humans after all. Poor sods.

There's also this phrase from the Silmarillion:

Whence they came, or what they were, the Elves knew not then, thinking them perhaps to be Avari who had become evil and savage in the wild; in which they guessed all too near, it is said

If the Elves thought them to be Avari gone evil and savage in the wild the Orcs can't have looked or behaved all that different to themselves, I reckon.


I also wonder whether a redeemed Orc might look quite so ugly? It's not easy to imagine one of PJ's re-animated corpse zombie Orcs being redeemed and sitting in Ithilien pressing flowers but it might not be so unimaginable if that Orc wasn't such a pig, eh?

That's quite a picture you're painting and yes, it's very hard to imagine that Lurtz fella picking flowers and reciting poems haha.

And yeah, it's easier picturing a redeemed Orc if he or she mind you looked less monstrous. But that says more about us then them I suppose.

[Gwathagor]

Interestingly, Sauron was not able to exert the same power over Orcs with his Ring. There is the instance of Shagrat and Gorbag speaking what amounts to heresy against their superiors, and planning their own little soiree without Sauron's control; also, the orcs of Moria had a history of crowning their own king (Azog and Bolg), which seems to be contrary to Orcs being bound directly to the Dark Lord. They even managed their own wars without the seeming direct influence of Saurons (Orcs and Dwarves, and the Battle of Five Armies). Perhaps this was due to Gundabad and Moria being further from Mordor, and the power exerted by Sauron's Ring grew less over considerable distance (unlike Morgoth, whose power corrupted the very earth).

Distance probably has much to do with it; also, I imagine that Shagrat and Gorbag's insubordinate attitudes would have been impossible had Sauron actually been in possession of the Ring at that time. His power over his subjects was imcomplete without it.

[Morthoron]

Distance probably has much to do with it; also, I imagine that Shagrat and Gorbag's insubordinate attitudes would have been impossible had Sauron actually been in possession of the Ring at that time. His power over his subjects was imcomplete without it.

And yet, even having direct possession of his Ring Sauron was defeated twice (against Numenor and also the Last Alliance). Strange how such concentrated malice and a supernatural force of coercion could utterly fail, particularly in the case of Sauron's forces fleeing without a fight before Ar-Pharazon and the Numenoreans. One would think that such a binding of will as exerted by the Ring would cause Sauron's subjects to blindly be slaughtered by the superior Numenoreans; instead, the orcs seem to have maintained their own will (and common sense) and just ran rather than being butchered.

It seems Sauron did no better with his Ring than without it; in fact, his greatest military successes against Gondor and Arnor occurred without the Ring (although indirectly through the WiKi, Wainriders, Balchoth, etc.). Sauron sucked as a general/military tactician -- his true abilities lied in personal appeal, dissembling, influence and deception (as Annatar and among the Numenoreans, for instance). Which leads to the question: would Sauron have been better served concentrating on searching for the Ring or directing his attack on the West at an earlier date?

[Gwathagor]

It seems Sauron did no better with his Ring than without it

Of course, one of the basic premises of the trilogy is that if Sauron gets ahold of the ring, they're all screwed - since, at least in principle, he's more powerful with the Ring than without it. But it's possible that Sauron, Gandalf, and Elrond were entirely mistaken on this point. I'm sure you could argue it.

[Morthoron]

Of course, one of the basic premises of the trilogy is that if Sauron gets ahold of the ring, they're all screwed - since, at least in principle, he's more powerful with the Ring than without it. But it's possible that Sauron, Gandalf, and Elrond were entirely mistaken on this point. I'm sure you could argue it.

Hmmm...If Frodo and Sam had failed to destroy the Ring (and thus Sauron), the West would have been defeated without Sauron once using the Ring in the 3rd Age. If Bilbo had not stumbled upon Gollum and the Ring remained under the mountain, again, Sauron would have won without the ring. I know, it's all academic at this point, but it seems to me that making the Ring was the worst thing Sauron ever did for his own objectives. Sauron in effect sowed the seed of his own destruction, and it wasn't really necessary. All he really had to do was outlast his enemies, which he already was well on his way to doing.

[Groin Redbeard]

Hmm... well has there ever been an Orc who's done something that could be defined as good? There is such a thing as good and evil, although some people try to brush that concept off with their relative point of thinking. As far as I'm concerned Orcs are evil and always will be.

[Gordis]

I know, it's all academic at this point, but it seems to me that making the Ring was the worst thing Sauron ever did for his own objectives. Sauron in effect sowed the seed of his own destruction, and it wasn't really necessary. All he really had to do was outlast his enemies, which he already was well on his way to doing.
Without the Ring, Sauron would have been reduced to impotence and doomed to remain forever as a powerless spirit already after he died in the Downfall. No Third Age Sauron...

[Morthoron]

Without the Ring, Sauron would have been reduced to impotence and doomed to remain forever as a powerless spirit already after he died in the Downfall. No Third Age Sauron...

Yes, I suppose you're right. Never mind.

There is such a thing as good and evil, although some people try to brush that concept off with their relative point of thinking. As far as I'm concerned Orcs are evil and always will be.

But good and evil are relative terms, and what is considered good or evil changes, sometimes drastically, from one age to the next. If not, then the earth would still be flat and the sun would still revolve around it, every scientist since Galileo would either be forced to recant or be burned at the stake, and we would not be having this discussion because the internet would not have been invented. Or perhaps you are saying that would be a good thing?

In regards to Orcs, I believe Tolkien said that no thing in Middle-earth was inherently evil; therefore, after being removed from the coercive powers of Morgoth and Sauron, there would not be the continual compulsion to do evil, and in order to survive amongst their enemies, Orcs may have had to adopt tactics for survival that tended towards goodness (or at least non-malignance), or face eradication.

[Faramir Jones]

Our attitudes towards orcs would be quite different if we saw Theoden, Denethor or other rulers of the Free Peoples confronted by, first, orcs claiming political asylum from being persecuted by Sauron or other rulers; and second, the rulers of groups of orcs looking to make peace, saying they want to remain neutral in the war.