A Question of Loyalty

[Inziladun]

All right. It's pretty well settled, to my mind, that if any of the Nazgûl had found the One Ring they would have returned it to Sauron.
They would have done so, regardless of whether Sauron physically held the Nine, because their wills were captive to the Nine, which in turn were in thrall to the One.
However, what about the lesser servants of Sauron, specifically the Orcs? They served Sauron and usually followed his orders without question, but there were some indications their loyalty to him was far from perfect.
Grishnákh of the Red Eye seemed to have an interest in the Ring that lay beyond simple attention to duty when Merry and Pippin gave out their hints about it.

'Do I want it? Do I want it?' said Grishnákh, as if puzzled. But his arms were trembling.

'Search you! I'll cut you both to quivering shreds. I don't need the help of your legs to get you away-and have you all to myself!'

(emphasis added)
Both quotes are from TTT The Uruk-Hai

Grishnákh was all business until he really considered the Ring. Then he apparently intended to turn his back on his fellows and do who knows what for his own ends.

And deep in their dark hearts the Orcs loathed the Master whom they served in fear, the maker only of their misery.

Silm Of the Coming of the Elves

'Master' there refers to Melkor, but that quote seems equally applicable to Sauron's troops in later ages.

'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.'

TTT The Choices of Master Samwise

That exchange between the Orc-captains Gorbag and Shagrat tells me the Orcs weren't all that thrilled with toiling under Sauron's thumb from birth to death.
The question is this: if Orcs, be it just one, or a band of them, had actually held the One in their hands, would they have returned it to Sauron? Could they have done so, being already in the mind of evil and seemingly specially vulnerable to lust of it?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

The question is this: if Orcs, be it just one, or a band of them, had actually held the One in their hands, would they have returned it to Sauron? Could they have done so, being already in the mind of evil and seemingly specially vulnerable to lust of it?

Certainly Grisnakh wouldn't have returned it. But I think trying to use it
would have been like Frodo trying it on Mount Doom.

Letters #246
Sauron sent at once the Ringwraiths. They were naturally fully
instructed, and in no way deceived as to the real lordship of the
Ring... if he still preserved some sanity...thery would simply have
waited. Until Sauron himself came.

It would be interesting if Grishakh fled to the northern Misty Mountains
and began to experiment with understanding and wearing the Ring.
Would Sauron have been distracted from attacks by his armies, have
sent the nazgtul, have taken the dangerous tack of going north
immediately with some of his forces or alone?

[Gordis]

I think the magical pull of the Ring was so strong that it would overcome any loyalty, especially such a questionable loyalty as Orcs have for Sauron.


That was exactly how Sauron reasoned when choosing whom to send for the Ring. He couldn't send Men, even as loyal as the Mouth, he couldn't send Orcs, he only could send the Nazgul.

The Nazgul could be trusted to bring the Ring back to Sauron not because they were loyal per se either, but because Sauron had a firm hold on their wills by other magical items - the Nine Rings he himself held (see how it is explained in UT). Had the Witch-King his own Ring on his finger, he would have been sorely tempted to take the One to become the Ringlord himself.

As for Orcs - I have no doubt that any Orc who had chanced upon the One would try to steal it. If a group of Orcs got the One, they would fight to death over it and then the winner would try to hole up somewhere deep to become "another Gollum".

[Hakon]

I think that there must have been some Orc captains who thought they could steal the ring and become the new dark lord.

'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.'

Also that quote has one line that bothers me. Like old times. Why would the Orcs call that old times? It is almost like they are talking about a time before they were Sauron's servants.

[radagastly]

Originally posted by Hakon:

Also that quote has one line that bothers me. Like old times. Why would the Orcs call that old times? It is almost like they are talking about a time before they were Sauron's servants.

I always suspected that "old times" in that quote simply referred to a time before Sauron rose to power again, and the orcs lived in their lair in the Misty Mountains, or south of that in Moria, or anywhere else they lived before Sauron came back to Mordor and started "calling all evil things to him." Wasn't it that call that got Gollum captured? It certainly would have attracted the orcs as well.

As for the question of this thread, I think that an orc would, I don't doubt, try to keep the Ring, but sooner or later (sooner, since they're orcs) they would succumb, and the Ring would somehow betray them, and they would be captured and brought before Sauron, and tortured forever.

Good thing it didn't happen. What a boring story that would have been.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Hmmm, the "old times" quote raises an additional question as to the longevity of Orcs - were these particular specimens already alive before Sauron came back into power? That is, of course, a sidetrack to the question posed on this thread, and perhaps if there is interest, worthy of its own thread.

[Gordis]

"Old times" in the quote provided by Hakon may indeed refer to times before TA 2942, before Sauron had returned to Mordor.

But "the bad old times of the Great Siege" referred to in the following quote almost certainly happened at the very end of the Second Age:

Gorbag: `You may well put your thinking cap on, if you've got one. It's no laughing matter. No one, no one has ever stuck a pin in Shelob before, as you should know well enough. There's no grief in that; but think-there's someone loose hereabouts as is more dangerous than any other damned rebel that ever walked since the bad old times, since the Great Siege. Something has slipped.'

I wonder could ol' Gorbag be 3000+ years old?

[Morthoron]

Hmmm...if I remember correctly, Tolkien originally envisaged Orcs as physical manifestations of Maiaric spirits won over by Morgoth (this, of course, was before the corrupted elves concept or twisted mortal men idea came into effect). I suppose Orkish longevity depends on which concept you adhere to. If Orcs were, in fact, corrupted elves, then they would be immortal, would they not? However, most of the indications in Lord of the Rings is that Orcs were, at least in the 3rd Age, bred from mannish stock. Once again, the foggy-headed professor of philology never fully finished tinkering with his racial concepts, so the idea, as with many of Tolkien's storylines, will never be fully realized. But that's the reason Middle-earth forums remain prominent, isn't it? I mean really, one never tires of arguing the finer points of Balrog wings or Bombadil's racial designation.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Originally posted by Gordis
But "the bad old times of the Great Siege" referred to in the following quote almost certainly happened at the very end of the Second Age:


Quote:
Gorbag: `You may well put your thinking cap on, if you've got one. It's no laughing matter. No one, no one has ever stuck a pin in Shelob before, as you should know well enough. There's no grief in that; but think-there's someone loose hereabouts as is more dangerous than any other damned rebel that ever walked since the bad old times, since the Great Siege. Something has slipped.'

I wonder could ol' Gorbag be 3000+ years old

My interpretation of that is that Gorbag was just citing history. It
doesn't necessarily indicate he witnessed it personally.

[The Might]

Indeed Orc origins is a very interesting topic, and the problem is there is no clear answer, just more and less likely ones.

But, to remain on topic, I'm sure that any Orc would immediately have tried to make off with the Ring, maybe exert itw power over those around him. For such creatures this treasure would be worth risking anything.


Now as far as their fate in such a situation is concerned, I doubt that Orcs would be in any way successful once they got the Ring. What would happen - and I believe this would happen to all Orcs, no matter their rank - is that the Nazgûl would swiftly kill them.

Tuor provides that interesting quote where Tolkien speaks about what would have happened had Frodo kept the Ring. What is important there is that the Professor underlines the fact that the only thing keeping the Ringwraiths from stabbing him to death is the tranformation that Frodo had gone through during his journey. All of a sudden he wasn't the weak Hobbit on Weathertop, but had seen and gone through so much that he had the authority to keep the Wraiths form hurting him as the master of the Ring.

Now this is debatable, but I personally doubt that any Orc could match Frodo in that respect.

[Hakon]

The other thing here is mental ability. I think that Orcs lack the mental ability to control their own will when the ring is near. Hobbits are like Humans they can control their will if they try. We see Boromir give in to his will for the Ring but before he dies he is in control again. If an Orc found the ring they would instantly be taken over by the power of it and most likely end up dead very soon. Any Orcs near the Orc with the Ring would most likely attack the one with the Ring.

[Gordis]

We seem to agree that no Orc would willingly bring the Ring to Sauron.

The question then is what has happened at Parth Galen from Mordor point of view?

Sauron sent 40 orcs (IIRC) under Grishnakh to divert twice as many Orcs from Isengard and Moria from carrying two captured hobbits to Isengard and to make them turn to Mordor instead.

The two hobbits, as far as Sauron could suppose might have been carrying the Ring. Yet he sent only orcs. The available Nazgul, however, was not allowed to cross the River.

Why such strange orders? Could it be that Sauron himself was not informed of the happenings in Rohan?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Interesting post by Gordis above. I'll have to reread parts of LOTR (not
at hand now). Trying to put the movie out of mind , what were the motivations of the various orc parties? The Moria lads were out for revenge, but precisely why were the other two bands there? Presumably (?) Saruman's bird spies gave him intel that made him suspect some sort of hobbits/wizards were there. But why were Sauron's lot there? Perhaps detected by outlooks on the east bank of the Anduin? As to orc mental abilities/resistance to the Ring, how about Gorbag or his chum Grisnakh having enough sense to hide with it in some mountain fastness and let the two sides go at it, with Sauron partially distracted searching for the Ring and the G. orcs hoping they'll wear each other out. Picture a situation not unlike Poland between WWI and II, existing only as long as Germany and the U.S.S.R. are distracted/weak.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

But why were Sauron's lot there? Perhaps detected by outlooks on the east bank of the Anduin?

Much further back. According to the Chronology, Sauron's agents in Moria (presumably the "black uruks of Mordor") sent bird-messengers to Barad-dur immediately after the Company's escape. Sauron responded by sending out Grishnakh and his force (presumably much larger than 40, originally). Saruman meanwhile did the same. Grishnakh (and the Nazgul) had originally intended to waylay the Company at Sarn Gebir. There was ample time, since the Co. spent a month in Lorien.

Mind you, Sauron did not *know* the Ring was there. It was a reasonable supposition, but S had had no positive fix on the Ring since he learned of the events at Weathertop and the Bruinen (some weeks after the fact).

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hmmm...if I remember correctly, Tolkien originally envisaged Orcs as physical manifestations of Maiaric spirits won over by Morgoth (this, of course, was before the corrupted elves concept or twisted mortal men idea came into effect).

Other way round, actually, if I'm not mistaken. 'Originally' (i.e. in BoLT and the early 1920s or thereabouts) Morgoth 'brought forth' the Orcs in some unspecified way. Later Tolkien decided that evil couldn't create and came up with the idea that Orcs were corrupted Elves (as in the published Silmarillion). Much later still (in Myths Transformed) he changed his mind again and experimented with the idea that Orcs were twisted Men and/or (at least in the case of some formidable chieftains) Maiar.
Anyway - if Orcs = corrupted Elves, they should be immortal; if (some) Orcs = Maiar, too.

However, most of the indications in Lord of the Rings is that Orcs were, at least in the 3rd Age, bred from mannish stock.

Nope. As far as we know, only Saruman ever cross-bred Men and Orcs; otherwise the Orcs multiplied like the Children of Ilúvatar, i.e. took care of their own breeding without need for special intervention.
But as this is only a side-topic and doesn't contribute to this thread in general, I'll shut up now.

[Hakon]

The Balrogs are supposed to the form of corrupted/fallen Maiar. I think this may answer our earlier discussion in this thread about old times from an orcs point of view. If the Orcs were originally corrupted Elves, then maybe some Orcs are immortal like Elves. If that is so then very few Orcs are probably immortal and most Orcs were bred from men.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Nope. As far as we know, only Saruman ever cross-bred Men and Orcs; otherwise the Orcs multiplied like the Children of Ilúvatar, i.e. took care of their own breeding without need for special intervention.

That is up for conjecture. Sauron bred the Uruk-hai in the 3rd Age, a much larger breed than any previous Orc. Such a noticeable size variation in a fairly stable stock would indicate cross-breeding, as far as my genetic knowledge goes.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

That is up for conjecture. Sauron bred the Uruk-hai in the 3rd Age, a much larger breed than any previous Orc. Such a noticeable size variation in a fairly stable stock would indicate cross-breeding, as far as my genetic knowledge goes.

Not necessarily. It might have been simple artificial selection as when Men breed dogs. Just select the biggest and fiercest and let them interbreed.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Gordis

Not necessarily. It might have been simple artificial selection as when Men breed dogs. Just select the biggest and fiercest and let them interbreed.

Ah, that may be the case for little doggies; however, the Uruk-hai were less susceptible to the effects of the sun than your run of the mill Orc, just as the Olog-hai did not turn to stone like William Huggins. This indicates a new strain thrown into the mix and not merely having big orcs bumping uglies. Or maybe I am misremembering, having had far too much of the 70's than one person should rightly stand.

Ummm...what were we talking about again? And...are you going to eat that brownie? If not, I have the munchies.

*Wanders off and walks into a wall*

[Hakon]

Maybe they had evolved to withstand the sunlight and they were not bred withstand it.

There is also the idea that maybe they were bred by not corrupting the souls of a species but breeding with that species. I think that maybe a regular Orc could have raped a human woman and from that some kind of half Orc was born.

[Formendacil]

Indeed, it asks some interesting genetic question about orks--ones that might be answered if we had a certain answer about their parentage... but not probably. Though Tolkien seems to have waffled between Elves and Men, and toyed with the idea of Melkor having originally incarnated some lesser Maia, who then reproduced--ala Melian, but nastier, nonetheless I think it's fair to say (granted, not going to argue it either way) that Tolkien more or less decided that the idea of Melkor not being able to create his own race of slaves from scratch was a keeper. It's nicely paralleled by Aulë and the Dwarves, anyway, and all in-text evidence in the Lord of the Rings--the only text Tolkien ever really said was canon--is that orks have individual and independent personalities, nasty as they are.

Thus, my opinion would tend to the idea that Orks must have been been perverted somehow from Children of Ilúvatar. This being the case, both Elves and Men (and if you want to throw them in for completeness, Dwarves too) can both stand the sun. No problem there. Tolkien also says that Elves and Men are biologically the same species, for all intents and purposes, since they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, so as far as biology is concerned, it doesn't matter if Orks are bastardised Elves or bastardised Men--either way, they should have no more problem with sun than tanning.

But they do.

Or they did, until Saruman's reintroduction of non-tampered Eruhini DNA.

But (and as we stray from Tolkien to genetics, I admit my knowledge weakens), my understanding is that chromosomes come in pairs. Did Morgoth just tag ONE chromosome with the sun-pain, and then breed it into his orks? It certainly seems easier than hitting EVERY chromosome in that slot, and if sun-pain is a dominant gene, then once Morgoth had done enough breeding, practically every ork would hate the sun (quite apart from cultural pressures put on by the Dark Lord's antipathy, together with Sauron, the Balrogs, the Dragons, etc...).

If, however, Morgoth only tagged a dominant gene with the ork mutation, and then bred the species so that everyone, practically speaking, had it, then Saruman would NOT have needed to introduce an outside genetic, but could have just pursued crossbreeding the recessive, non-ork, genes that (making up numbers) only 2% of the ork population still carried in the late 3rd Age. Certainly, if what Morgoth was doing was playing god with genetics, when Saruman started doing the same thing 6 ages later, the rumours in Eriador could just as easily have assumed that he must have been doing vile crossbreeding with Men, since I'm going to assume genetics wasn't exactly your average Dunlending's forte.

Am I even in the right ballpark, science people? Or am I dressed for football at a cricket match?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

But (and as we stray from Tolkien to genetics, I admit my knowledge weakens), my understanding is that chromosomes come in pairs. Did Morgoth just tag ONE chromosome with the sun-pain, and then breed it into his orks? It certainly seems easier than hitting EVERY chromosome in that slot, and if sun-pain is a dominant gene, then once Morgoth had done enough breeding, practically every ork would hate the sun (quite apart from cultural pressures put on by the Dark Lord's antipathy, together with Sauron, the Balrogs, the Dragons, etc...).

But why would Morgoth want to make his orcs weaker by making giving them "sun-pain"? It seems to me to be a side-effect of the orc-making process rather than one of the features. Or maybe being deep underground made them mutate to having low levels of melanin in their skin in order to create as much vitamin D as possible, and then when they finally got out into the sun, it was too much.

Or am I totally wrong here...?

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

But why would Morgoth want to make his orcs weaker by making giving them "sun-pain"? It seems to me to be a side-effect of the orc-making process rather than one of the features. Or maybe being deep underground made them mutate to having low levels of melanin in their skin in order to create as much vitamin D as possible, and then when they finally got out into the sun, it was too much.

Or am I totally wrong here...?

I think that the Morgorth's first orcs may have been created before the first rising of the sun in ME. It is suggested in the published Silmarillon where the "orc from elves" theory is in play, that his first orc breeding experiments were with the Dark Elves who refused the summons to Valinor and this would be before the first ME sunrise. Treebeard, while discussing orcs with Merry and Pippin, also indicates that it was a trait of things bred in the Great Darkness that they could not abide the sun. So it would seem that at the time the first orcs were bred there was no sun and therefore resistance to sunlight was not something that was contemplated.

[JeffF.]

I don't know why there is still a question of their origin. The books are canon ahd the Silmarillion plainly states that Morgoth used Avari, not as one of many theories but clearly. Tolkien's notes published in the HoME series are just story notes, interesting and revealing but NOT canon. Story notes change constantly and until integrated into a finished story and published are merely evolutions of the story line.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by JeffF.

I don't know why there is still a question of their origin. The books are canon ahd the Silmarillion plainly states that Morgoth used Avari, not as one of many theories but clearly. Tolkien's notes published in the HoME series are just story notes, interesting and revealing but NOT canon. Story notes change constantly and until integrated into a finished story and published are merely evolutions of the story line.

To be fair, the idea of Orcs coming from captured Quendi is presented as the best guess of the 'wise of Eressëa', but that doesn't mean they were necessarily correct. That does seem the most likely scenario to me, though.

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by JeffF.

I don't know why there is still a question of their origin. The books are canon ahd the Silmarillion plainly states that Morgoth used Avari, not as one of many theories but clearly. Tolkien's notes published in the HoME series are just story notes, interesting and revealing but NOT canon. Story notes change constantly and until integrated into a finished story and published are merely evolutions of the story line.

The Silmarillion is not canon under this definition, because it was made of notes integrated into a finished story by Christopher Tolkien. Some of the HoME notes are more valid than others because of when they were written, it's true, but which ones became the posthumous publication were not determined by Tolkien himself. Tolkien continually changed his mind on everything until publication set it in stone, and that never happened in the Silmarillion until after his demise.

[JeffF.]

I submit that the Silmarillion IS canon, Christopher is JRRT's heir as far as the story of Middle Earth goes, one might s well say that the story of the Jewels in the Silmarillion is untrue or decide that the Men came first. I would think the Wise of Eressea would know far more about the origin of orc than any of us, they will have seen them and fought them.

I think all five books, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit and the trilogy of the LotR must be considered canon together and only when one contradicts the other can there be much debate. There are probably segments of Unifinished Tales which can also be regarded as canon if they are not contradicted by the main books e.g. the Description of Numenor should be canon whereas the chapter on Galadriel and Celeborn might not be since it contradicts itself on minor points of their story (e.g. the name of the ruler of Lorien was Amdir or Magalad and the Elves of Greenwood were either Silvanized in speech or the Sindar lords Sindarized the Elven culture they ruled over).

[Inziladun]

Canon has been a fairly frequent subject of debate here in the past.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Canon has been a fairly frequent subject of debate here in the past.

Or, of course The Thread

[Formendacil]

Inziladun and Eönwë are being most unsporting, linking to all those old threads, but... that's what all of the other oldies were thinking about when you, JeffF. said:

Originally Posted by JeffF.

The books are canon ahd the Silmarillion plainly states that Morgoth used Avari, not as one of many theories but clearly. Tolkien's notes published in the HoME series are just story notes, interesting and revealing but NOT canon.

--so, really, it's only fair that they warned you...

However, although we've been over this battlefield many times before, it's getting to be a few years, and not only are their new members hereabouts, but we've had The History of the Hobbit come out, which I am inclined to think should be a major factor for davem to consider regarding his shameful position that The Hobbit isn't canon (though I think he's still welcome to exclude it, myself, if he really does limit the canon to The Lord of the Rings, the second edition, exactly as it was last published in Tolkien's lifetime--though that is not, I submit, a canon any of us really want to consider).

In any case, it's quite the claim around here to assert that ANYTHING is canon in Middle-earth. We've probably got people that will say The Lord of the Rings itself isn't canon, but The Book of Lost Tales is--though I grant I can't actually think of anyone who'd take that position.

The difficulty with The Silmarillion, as already noted, is that it was most definitely not a complete text that Tolkien left behind. The last complete version was the Quenta Noldorinwa, which was finished circa 1930--before The Hobbit, before Númenor, and before half of the present Silm was even considered. Most of the published Silmarillion is directly based on the Quenta Silmarillion of the late 1930s, and the early 1950s revisions that Tolkien added... but not quite. For the final chapters (Nauglamír and Eärendil), Christopher Tolkien was working off thirty years' worth of inconsistent, rare notes and outlines, and he was tweaking stories by adding later (1960s) names, as well as the late version of the tale of Eöl and Aredhel, while ignoring all other sorts of late work, like the Round Earth cosmology and the idea that Celeborn was Telerin of Valinor--mostly because these were too inconsistent both with the rest of the Silmarillion corpus and the LotR, but also because he had to make editorial calls.

Personally, I think Christopher Tolkien gave us the best Silmarillion possible, and better than we deserved or could have expected, but. But. But does that make it canon? That is the question this forum has tangled over (and if we get this thread going right, can make it tango over again), and is still not adequately answered. At this point, without checking my past statements for consistency--which brings up a whole question of interior canon issues I'll leave for the snarky commentators to pick up on--I am of the opinion that The Silmarllion--by which I mean the 1977 published worked edited by Christopher Tolkien with the help of Guy Kay--is NOT a canonical work. It is, in my opinion, a redaction or synthesis of canonical works and is, as such, canonical but not canon--a fine and feathery philosophical distinction that will no doubt get me roasted. I'm also medieval enough to suggest tiers of canon: Published works (LotR, The Hobbit, Tom Bombadil), post-LotR posthumous works (Unfinished Tales, most of the Silm, "The Wanderings of Húrin--and, actually, CoH), and pre-LotR posthumous works (Book of Lost Tales, the Ambarkanta), but that's just me.

And... I think I've made enough contentious statements to get the huorns to be a bit less treeish.

[Hakon]

Let us start the canon debate. I am in for one that I can participate in.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Inziladun and Eönwë are being most unsporting, linking to all those old threads, but... that's what all of the other oldies were thinking about when you, JeffF. said:

I had no intention of being 'unsporting'. I was simply trying to discreetly indicate that canonicity was really not the purpose of this thread, and point JeffF in the right direction for more information on the topic.

[LadyBrooke]

Well I looked at the threads and just as quickly decided to not get involved in the canon debate, because what does it really matter? We each love Tolkien's books for different reasons and that is going to affect what we consider canon. When we're trying to skewer each other over matters of what is canon we might have become just a little bit too obsessed.

On to more related matters.

Originally Posted by Hakon

There is also the idea that maybe they were bred by not corrupting the souls of a species but breeding with that species. I think that maybe a regular Orc could have raped a human woman and from that some kind of half Orc was born.

That's what I always thought happened. If Luthien and Beren, Arwen and Aragorn, Idril and Tour could all have kids, there's no reason why human woman + orc male couldn't reproduce, as nausated as it makes me when I think about it. After all we have to remember the man in Bree who was said to look somewhat like an orc, implying that there were half-breeds that looked more orcish and others that looked more human.

[JeffF.]

The Silmarillion says that the Orcs multiplied in the manner of the Children of Illvutar so sorcery wasn't really necessary to breed orcs with mannish characteristics or to breed them for size like the Uruks, of course it would take much longer than the Peter Jackson spawning technique.

Of course it's only the Silmarillion so nothing in it really happened or applies