That's not even one of Uglúk's faults

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Why don't you think Grishnakh's comment regarding Ugluk was not sarcasm? He certainly was capable of it.

It might have been, however, even if it was, it implies Grishnákh thought about this and certainly he did not consider himself nor Uglúk of having this "fault". This would raise the question how did he see himself, and how did the Orcs as a society see themselves, and it seems that Grishnákh did not think kindness is an important value, rather a weakness or an useless thing. The Orcs as a society were, in contrary to Men, composed mostly of individuals who thought the same as Grishnákh - considering these qualities unimportant. In a human society today, you have people who think it's a good thing to help those who are less fortunate and there are people who don't care in the slightest. Orcish society is the same only there is the difference that in their society the second type of people are quite large. How large, we don't know, but let's say above 90% (it may as well be 99%). Anyway, the point of the thread is the conclusion that can be made on basis of this, if any Orcs we know had any of these qualities.

Originally Posted by elempi

The orcs had a very clear sense of morality; they were just lousy at applying it to themselves. The planks in their own eyes just stayed where they were and they were always good at pointing out the slivers in other orcs' eyes - especially when it served their meagre ambitions. I'd give examples but I don't have the books with me.

I would like you to do so. I can't remember anything like that in this moment.

[alatar]

Uglúk worthy? I never read that into that part of the story. Eomer, to me, fights him on the ground due to some other reason - terrain, horse wounded or could be wounded, etc. Eomer singles out Uglúk because he is the biggest orc in the bunch, surrounded by the almost biggest body guards. This group holds together while the other orcs flee pell-mell. Eomer surely realized that this group would take special consideration, and so decided to do his own mopping up. Plus, as a leader, it's his duty to take down the leader of the opposition.

And more about the orcs: In RotK, when Sauron falls, it is noted that the orcs, trolls and other evil creatures become suddenly leaderless and so try to escape by whatever means. The men, long in Sauron's evil service, hold together and ask for no quarter. So there's clearly a distinction between men and orcs.

Could the orcs be like other hive organisms - ants? Do they live to serve a leader, and are "steerless" when that leader dies? Could this mean that there are levels of consciousness in orcdom? At the bottom of the pyramid you could have drone-like orcs that simply follow orders and aren't really skilled. Above that you have some middle managers who can whip up the troops a bit but not plan large scale battles. And beyond that, you may have some orcs that lead missions, or are breed for specific purposes, and some of these, having to interact with humans, are the most cognizant.

It's these that we'd be discussing, and they may have noticed some idiosyncrasies regarding the human culture, and some may even have considered some of these traits.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by alatar

Uglúk worthy? I never read that into that part of the story. Eomer, to me, fights him on the ground due to some other reason - terrain, horse wounded or could be wounded, etc. Eomer singles out Uglúk because he is the biggest orc in the bunch, surrounded by the almost biggest body guards.

If it were only for the terrain, it would not make sense in the way it is mentioned. Why would Tolkien say it the way he says?

Originally Posted by TT; Chapter 3: The Uruk-hai

So it was that they did not see the last stand, when Uglúk was overtaken and brought to bay at the very edge of Fangorn. There he was slain at last by Éomer, the Third Marshal of the Mark, who dismounted and fought him sword to sword. And over the wide fields the keen-eyed Riders hunted down the few Orcs that had escaped and still had strength to fly.

A) there was no need to dismount because of the terrain; B) no wounded horse or anything - first, Éomer's house is mentioned in the books by name and he is not mentioned to be wounded; second, Tolkien could slip in an input sentence to say that he was wounded or why Éomer dismounted - C) the fact Tolkien does not mention why Éomer dismounted can mean only one thing: that he explains it in the sentence. Follow my thoughts, please. If Tolkien did not care to explain to us why Éomer dismounted, why even mention that he dismounted? He could have ended the sentence by the words "Third Marshal of the Mark". Now, he does not say why Éomer dismounted - at least not explicitely. Yet what follows in the sentence after the information that Éomer dismounted? And fought him sword to sword. We could easily replace the "and" with "to": meaning of purpose, Éomer dismounted to fight Uglúk sword to sword. So this tells us why Éomer dismounted. Yet the "and" gives it sort of a different level - Tolkien did not say "to", therefore making the other sentence just a bonus information to the previously mentioned fact (he dismounted), but making it connected in the way that both the parts of the sentence have the same level. Uglúk was slain by Éomer. And what else do we learn about this? Éomer dismounted and fought him sword to sword. Both these actions are connected by the same origin, or purpose: the reason why he dismounted was the same to the one why he fought him sword to sword, yet we don't learn any third reason, it is still hidden inside these few words. And the words sword to sword imply only one thing: equality. Whatever the case, Éomer saw Uglúk as someone who has the same level as himself. And that's not, in my opinion, only about taking down enemy leader: or at least not in Éomer's case. He must have realised that who stands in front of him is not only a nasty Orc, a nameless face in the crowd, but someone who theoretically could switch place with him, the Third Marshal of the Mark, as the text itself says and therefore, emphasises. The message is clear, even shocking: Uglúk can be compared to Éomer. And if I go to the extreme, recently there appeared the thread about Anti-Dwarves: if you want me to be shocking and provocative, I could say that Uglúk is Anti-Éomer - and Éomer is Anti-Uglúk. Hm, looking at this I might even make a little study of this.
But for now, enough of the language analysis

Originally Posted by alatar

And more about the orcs: In RotK, when Sauron falls, it is noted that the orcs, trolls and other evil creatures become suddenly leaderless and so try to escape by whatever means. The men, long in Sauron's evil service, hold together and ask for no quarter. So there's clearly a distinction between men and orcs.

This was mentioned before and many times and discussed on many threads, you must remember that they were under the command of Sauron and more or less had no free will (warning: I mean because they were enslaved and usurped now, not that they will be beings without free will). At few sentences before, we read this:

Originally Posted by RotK; Chapter 4: Field of Cormallen

and even at that moment all the hosts of Mordor trembled, doubt clutched their hearts, their laughter failed, their hands shook and their limbs were loosed. The Power that drove them on and filled them with hate and fury was wavering, its will was removed from them; and now looking in the eyes of their enemies they saw a deadly light and were afraid.

The difference is in that the Men, Easterlings and Southrons, as they are named in the part you mentioned, had their own leaders, their own cause why they joined Sauron. They were only allies. The Orcs were slaves, and they obeyed their leaders who obeyed their superiors who obeyed Sauron, and Sauron was dead, the Nazgul gone, the leaders could hardly do anything more.

Anyway, this is not the point of this thread and I have to say, unfortunately, that not even the ant-thing is and I want to preventively step in before any debate could start. This thread focuses on individual Orcs known to us and counts with their free will. So however the ideas may be interesting, this thread was not built for that and for the clarity of topic I suggest either reviving an older thread for such debates or start a new one - I must say yesterday I also thought about starting a new thread about Orcs as society, so if anyone wants to discuss this, go ahead. But this one is about individual examples that can eventually be applied on others, so let's stay on topic, please.

[The Might]

Yes, but what others individual Orcs? What true example of kindness is there? I doubt they were really anything else except cannon fodder in the books.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

If it were only for the terrain, it would not make sense in the way it is mentioned. Why would Tolkien say it the way he says?

He wanted to give us something to talk about?

My comment regarding the terrain is that, by this time of the chase, Uglúk and his boys were near Fangorn, it was hilly (uphill) and there were trees. Maybe not the best place in which to fight from horseback.

A) there was no need to dismount because of the terrain;

See above.

B) no wounded horse or anything - first, Éomer's house is mentioned in the books by name and he is not mentioned to be wounded; second, Tolkien could slip in an input sentence to say that he was wounded or why Éomer dismounted

Agreed. But we do not know if Eomer chose to leave his horse behind, as maybe he thought that his horse was already overtired and so risked the chance of death due to the terrain.

C) the fact Tolkien does not mention why Éomer dismounted can mean only one thing:

We'd have something on which to speculate?

that he explains it in the sentence. Follow my thoughts, please. If Tolkien did not care to explain to us why Éomer dismounted, why even mention that he dismounted?

Heroes can rack up points dispatching numerous unnamed faceless bad guys, but really cool heroes have to take down the 'Boss' baddie as well. Didn't Aragorn slay a less-than-nameless orc in Moria? Though pleased to meet him, Aragorn didn't catch his name, but this particular orc was bigger and badder than the others. Also, by having a rider dismount, we add some texture to the story. Makes you remember (somewhat) Eomer's deeds more. As we'd spent all of that time running alongside Ugluk, surely we have to read of his spectacular end, and for the same price, learn that Eomer sans horse is tougher than this mean old head-lopping orc. It's, as we say, a two-fer.

He could have ended the sentence by the words "Third Marshal of the Mark". Now, he does not say why Éomer dismounted - at least not explicitely. Yet what follows in the sentence after the information that Éomer dismounted? And fought him sword to sword. We could easily replace the "and" with "to": meaning of purpose, Éomer dismounted to fight Uglúk sword to sword. So this tells us why Éomer dismounted. Yet the "and" gives it sort of a different level - Tolkien did not say "to", therefore making the other sentence just a bonus information to the previously mentioned fact (he dismounted), but making it connected in the way that both the parts of the sentence have the same level. Uglúk was slain by Éomer. And what else do we learn about this? Éomer dismounted and fought him sword to sword. Both these actions are connected by the same origin, or purpose: the reason why he dismounted was the same to the one why he fought him sword to sword, yet we don't learn any third reason, it is still hidden inside these few words. And the words sword to sword imply only one thing: equality. Whatever the case, Éomer saw Uglúk as someone who has the same level as himself. And that's not, in my opinion, only about taking down enemy leader: or at least not in Éomer's case. He must have realised that who stands in front of him is not only a nasty Orc, a nameless face in the crowd, but someone who theoretically could switch place with him, the Third Marshal of the Mark, as the text itself says and therefore, emphasises. The message is clear, even shocking: Uglúk can be compared to Éomer. And if I go to the extreme, recently there appeared the thread about Anti-Dwarves: if you want me to be shocking and provocative, I could say that Uglúk is Anti-Éomer - and Éomer is Anti-Uglúk. Hm, looking at this I might even make a little study of this.
But for now, enough of the language analysis

That's a lot to read into so short a text - not that I can argue with it. Okay, let's say that Eomer sees this big orc with a name tag and says, "Hey, he's an important character just like me, and so the bylaws indicate that I can fight him man-to-orc instead of shooting him from a far and safe distance, if I so choose." Now, Eomer has fought orcs before, and seemingly has some sense about him. He rings them in to keep them from getting into the forest where his horses will be less effective (see above), and continually harries them until dawn, when he and his men will have yet another advantage. So, knowing this about him, how fey do we allow him to be? Will this future King willy-nilly decide to duel any big orc that looks important? Does need drive him, or does he simply enjoy the combat, regardless of the risk and implications of his possible loss? Is he that macho?

I see him as fighting Ugluk out of necessity, not honor, as orcs have none.

And just who is the anti-Eowyn then?

But this one is about individual examples that can eventually be applied on others, so let's stay on topic, please.

Sorry. My point was that the number of orcs who may be individuals might be small; of these, the number that have the traits that you are considering may just be those that have had contact with humans.

Did Azog show a moral flaw when he let Nár live to tell of the humiliating death of Thrór? Instead of simply killing the two, Azog had to pridefully boast (easy to do when a Balrog has your back), and this led to his eventual downfall.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

And just who is the anti-Eowyn then?

That's easy. Gríma. (And that's another thread.)

I could be wrong but it seems to me that the eaves of the forest are described as being a distance from the remains of the battle, so "there were trees" is not exactly true.

Legate, your language analysis holds up as far as it is analysis; but there's a point at which you switch to opinion. There's nothing in the text to support that Eomer saw Ugluk as an equal in any other way except that he was leader of the orcs.

I still haven't had a chance to dig out my books, but I promise to do so.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by alatar

My comment regarding the terrain is that, by this time of the chase, Uglúk and his boys were near Fangorn, it was hilly (uphill) and there were trees. Maybe not the best place in which to fight from horseback.

At the edge of Fangorn, to be precise. But this does not mean still that the Riders would have to dismount, as long as they did not enter the forest itself (and maybe even then, to a certain distance... though Fangorn was a wild forest...). Anyway, there were Mauhúr and his lads coming out of the forest before, and we don't hear anything about the Riders dismounting, as far as I know.

Originally Posted by alatar

Agreed. But we do not know if Eomer chose to leave his horse behind, as maybe he thought that his horse was already overtired and so risked the chance of death due to the terrain.

A Rohir, leaving his horse behind just like that? Very, very improbable.

Originally Posted by alatar

So, knowing this about him, how fey do we allow him to be? Will this future King willy-nilly decide to duel any big orc that looks important? Does need drive him, or does he simply enjoy the combat, regardless of the risk and implications of his possible loss? Is he that macho?

I already stated my opinion (see above in my post and below now):

Originally Posted by alatar

I see him as fighting Ugluk out of necessity, not honor, as orcs have none.

That's your opinion. However, that does not speak about Uglúk, but about Éomer - he, unlike you apparently, believes that Uglúk deserves the "honourable fight", whatever kind of nassty creature he is.

Originally Posted by alatar

Did Azog show a moral flaw when he let Nár live to tell of the humiliating death of Thrór? Instead of simply killing the two, Azog had to pridefully boast (easy to do when a Balrog has your back), and this led to his eventual downfall.

That would be for the goblin historians to judge. The successive leader would probably say so ("Azog was an idiot, I will be a better leader. And we will have revenge for our defeat. Let's crush the Dwarves!!!" ...and so they went to Erebor...).

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Legate, your language analysis holds up as far as it is analysis; but there's a point at which you switch to opinion. There's nothing in the text to support that Eomer saw Ugluk as an equal in any other way except that he was leader of the orcs.

It is just an opinion and I said it. But that's what I encourage people to do. And I said it also because it better illustrates the way I see the Orcs, like Uglúk, so people can get clearer picture of what I have in mind when I am speaking more in general.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

At the edge of Fangorn, to be precise. But this does not mean still that the Riders would have to dismount, as long as they did not enter the forest itself (and maybe even then, to a certain distance... though Fangorn was a wild forest...). Anyway, there were Mauhúr and his lads coming out of the forest before, and we don't hear anything about the Riders dismounting, as far as I know.

The forest did not start all in a line; trees began to appear before reaching the 'edge.' But that has to be backed up, like I stated.

A Rohir, leaving his horse behind just like that? Very, very improbable.

Did they slay the orcs at night from their horses - not known for crawling - or did they leave them then and give battle, as they will later at Helm's Deep? And Eomer gives horses to strangers, so improbable things do happen.

That's your opinion. However, that does not speak about Uglúk, but about Éomer - he, unlike you apparently, believes that Uglúk deserves the "honourable fight", whatever kind of nassty creature he is.

That would be your opinion regarding Eomer. Why would he risk this? How did he know Ugluk was 'worthy,' while all of the other orcs that he shot from a distance or stabbed as they slept not worthy? Why do we not see this later? Was, in all of Middle Earth, only Ugluk worthy of such attentions?

That would be for the goblin historians to judge. The successive leader would probably say so ("Azog was an idiot, I will be a better leader. And we will have revenge for our defeat. Let's crush the Dwarves!!!" ...and so they went to Erebor...).

"We need to assemble our troops to attack those thieving dwarfs. Send messages to all our kin - use the good dwarven stationary this time..."


Sorry for the double post.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That's easy. Gríma. (And that's another thread.)

And opposites do attract...

I could be wrong but it seems to me that the eaves of the forest are described as being a distance from the remains of the battle, so "there were trees" is not exactly true.

Though not exactly false. In another thread we established beyond all doubt that any dwarf could run from Parth Galen to Fangorn in 3.5 days, and so extrapolating from there, we have to assume that the hobbits - Merry and Pippin - were somewhat closer to trees as they had to crawl/walk to them before sunrise. Ugluk, having outraced said dwarf, surely would find 'some trees' in a few strides.

Don't have my books on me, but hope to back this up (or back out ) soon.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

An interesting subject, but also one where I fear that we will not find an answer that we can all agree upon.

Originally Posted by The Might

Orcs as a society are incapable of living together in peace, although there do indeed seem to be certain exceptions from this rule.
However, I am wondering if these exceptions were only moments of kindness or hints that there is more behind it.

If that was the case could it be that these Orcs were not understood by anyone, including the Valar? Because we see there would have been some hope for Gollum, but never anything is said of Orcs.

I do belive that orcs are incabable of living together in peace the way hobbits do, but that is not saying that they could not have their own independant and relatively peaceful societies societies.

Surely there must also have been crime of sorts amongst hobbits and we know that both elfs and men can be both warmongering and wicked. So these things will of course also be pressent amongst orcs, but I do not think that it is a given that they will start slaughtering each other whenever they have the chance.

It is seldome that you see orcs fighting within there own ranks, it seems to me that as long as that it is clear who is in command then they are quite capable of working together. It is when they are confronted with another group of orcs, which they don't identify with that they start killing each other.

This subject is something that has pussled me ever since I read the books for the first time. At first I thought that orcs where just mindless beasts, but when I read that conversation between Shagrat and Gorbag. . . That was gave me the sence that there was more to the orcs than just being mindles brawlers.

[alatar]

Regarding trees and Uglúk's last stand, here is the text that makes me think as I do (emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by TTT:The Uruk Hai

The Isengarders began to run with a redoubled pace that astonished Pippin, a terrific spurt it seemed for the end of a race. Then he saw that the sun was sinking, falling behind the Misty Mountains; shadows reached over the land. The soldiers of Mordor lifted their heads and also began to put on speed. The forest was dark and close. Already they had passed a few outlying trees. The land was beginning to slope upwards, ever more steeply; but the orcs did not halt. Both Uglúk and Grishnákh shouted, spurring them to a last effort.

Before the orcs make their last camp upon the hillock, they already have encountered trees, and the ground in sloping upward in the direction that they wish to go (and later try to escape).

The eaves of the forest were very near, probably no more than three furlongs away, but they could go no further. The horsemen had encircled them. A small band disobeyed Uglúk's command, and ran on towards the forest: only three returned.

The edge of the forest, even though we already have trees, is only ~660 yards or 603 meters away at most. And did I mention 'sloping?'

Then with a great cry the Riders charged from the East; the red light gleamed on mail and spear. The Orcs yelled and shot all the arrows that remained to them. The hobbits saw several horsemen fall; but their line held on up the hill and over it, and wheeled round and charged again. Most of the raiders that were left alive then broke and fled, this way and that, pursued one by one to the death. But one band, holding together in a black wedge, drove resolutely in the direction of the forest. Straight up the slope they charged towards the watchers. Now they were drawing near, and it seemed certain that they would escape: they had already hewn down three Riders that barred their way.

We have Uglúk and his mates trying to escape to the forest, uphill with some tree cover. Three Riders - not Rohirrim, or men, but Riders were hewn down by the orcs. Doesn't Eomer lose a total of 15 men during the whole affair, and here in this brief moment he loses 20% of the total, and that because of a "band?" To me, this means that not only were these orcs the best of the bunch, but also that they had some advantage.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

It might have been, however, even if it was, it implies Grishnákh thought about this and certainly he did not consider himself nor Uglúk of having this "fault". This would raise the question how did he see himself, and how did the Orcs as a society see themselves, and it seems that Grishnákh did not think kindness is an important value, rather a weakness or an useless thing. The Orcs as a society were, in contrary to Men, composed mostly of individuals who thought the same as Grishnákh - considering these qualities unimportant. In a human society today, you have people who think it's a good thing to help those who are less fortunate and there are people who don't care in the slightest. Orcish society is the same only there is the difference that in their society the second type of people are quite large. How large, we don't know, but let's say above 90% (it may as well be 99%). Anyway, the point of the thread is the conclusion that can be made on basis of this, if any Orcs we know had any of these qualities.

Maybe a little context will go a long way.

Perhaps "kindness to enemies" was the fault.

[Huinesoron]

First off, I see a couple of references to Oddlots in the thread; I can confirm that Oddlots was written by Philosopher@Large, AKA Bellatrys (author of the famous Leithian Script). I don't think she has much of an online presence these days, but I happen to have archived a bunch of her stuff from Oddlots here, including the Arthedain Annex of LotR-M criticism.

Now, orcish morality. Before we can find their moral flaws, we need to know what their morals are. Legate has already mentioned the idea of them being anti-kindness:

Originally Posted by TTT 3: The Uruk-Hai

What do you think you've been kept alive for? My dear little fellows, please believe me when I say that it was not out of kindness: that's not even one of Uglúk's faults.

What is 'kindness'? Kuruharan suggests it might be 'kindness to enemies', but that still doesn't answer my question. A working definition might be: to do something for someone weaker than you at your own expense. It would be 'kindness' not to eat Merry and Pip, because orcs enjoy the taste of man-flesh, and the Hobbits are captives; it's not 'kindness' to obey Orders, because both the Eye and the White Hand are stronger than the orcs.

In other words:

Orc Moral #1: Might Makes Right.
Orc Moral #2: Follow Orders.

Legate has also pointed out that, while not being altruistic, orcs are expected to show solidarity:

Originally Posted by RotK 2: The Land of Shadow

‘I’ll give your name and number to the Nazgûl,’ said the soldier lowering his voice to a hiss. ‘One of them’s in charge at the Tower now.'

The other halted, and his voice was full of fear and rage. ‘You cursed peaching sneakthief!’ he yelled. ‘You can’t do your job, and you can’t even stick by your own folk. Go to your filthy Shriekers, and may they freeze the flesh off you! If the enemy doesn’t get them first. They’ve done in Number One, I’ve heard, and I hope it’s true!'

Interestingly, it's the physically weaker orc who gets outraged about this moral code being broken: the tracker is the second speaker. But, as The Might points out, the orcs wouldn't be willing to go up against Shelob for each other. There is a firm moral here, but also a flexible one:

Orc Moral #3: Stand by your Kin (when the Bosses aren't around).

Grishnákh seems to follow this on an intra-orc level, caring more about his own Mordor troops than Ugluk's Isengarders. Neither of them care much about the Northerners.

What else do we know? Something that, bizarrely, a lot of people on the Downs don't seem to have registered: orcs aren't cannibals.

Originally Posted by TTT 3: The Uruk-Hai

'Aye, we must stick together,' growled Uglúk. 'I don't trust you little swine. You've no guts outside your own sties. But for us you'd all have run away. We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here, and we shall lead you back by the way we choose. I am Uglúk. I have spoken.'

'You have spoken more than enough, Uglúk,' sneered the evil voice. 'I wonder how they would like it in Lugbúrz. They might think that Uglúk's shoulders needed relieving of a swollen head. They might ask where his strange ideas came from. Did they come from Saruman, perhaps? Who does he think he is, setting up on his own with his filthy white badges? They might agree with me, with Grishnákh their trusted messenger; and I Grishnákh say this: Saruman is a fool. and a dirty treacherous fool. But the Great Eye is on him.

'Swine is it? How do you folk like being called swine by the muck-rakers of a dirty little wizard? It's orc-flesh they eat, I'll warrant.'

(Oddly enough, it was Oddlots that first pointed this out to me.)

Look at that line from Grishnákh - those aren't the words of someone who could ever imagine eating orc. That's someone for whom 'they eat orc-flesh' is a dire insult. Man-flesh, they will eat and enjoy, but their own 'species' is off-limits.

Orc Moral #4: Orcs are not Food.

That's probably enough to be going on with. (To be honest, the first three were - I've just seen too many 'Orcs as cannibal' comments and wanted to counter them. ^_~) So do we ever see an 'immoral' orc?

As it happens, most of these morals are highlighted by their breaking. Ugluk acts 'kindly'; he claims to be following Orders, but he also heals Merry's head wound, which wasn't really necessary. (I tend to agree with Philosopher@Large that Tolkien deliberately gave him a certain tarnished nobility, and that his final duel is part of this.) Grishnákh is pretty terribly at obeying Orders, first leaving the prisoners, then trying to take the Ring himself. And the entirety of Book 6 is stuffed full of a complete lack of solidarity.

My conclusion? Though orcs have a moral code, they absolutely suck at sticking to it. Which... isn't really all that surprising, considering.

hS