Are Orcs That Bad?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Gordis

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.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

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.