Orcseys - always Evil?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

A topic oft spoken about. Try the search function if you want to know more about Goblin kids.

Gollum used to eat them, remember.

[narfforc]

Yes they did have children, Tolkien states this when he says: They had life and multiplied after the manner of the Children of Iluvatar. We know that The Eldar and Atani bore children.

[Eldar14]

Gothmog, you raise a very good point regarding how there are lions in captivity which don't attack their keepers. However, this isn't because the lions are tame.

In most cases of a predatory animal being kept in activity, such as in zoos or circuses, the zookeeper plays a very clever game to convince the creature that the keeper is dominant, and that the keeper is more powerful than the predator. There have been cases where once this illusion is broken the lion will kill the keeper.

For example, one way this happens from time to time is if a new creature is introduced, and this animal doesn't yet know the keepers position, it may attack the keeper. The instant this happens, and the keeper shows their weekness, the other animals also attack.

So, while there often is an illusion of tameness amongst naturally violent animals, this is merely an illusion created by the animal's fear and respect for its keeper. The parrallel for orcs in regard to this phenomenon wouldn't be an orc growing up in society and fitting in, but the fact that an orc doesn't attack his superiors because he believes them to be stronger.

It's not that the lion is tame to its keeper, but that it believes its keeper is more powerful.

[Gothmog]

You're probably right, Eldar14, but the animals I thought of was not the usual zoo-animals and their keepers, but animals that of some reason has been left without parents and are raised by an animal keeper, not in a zoo together with other lions (or whatever the animal is). Besides, there are few animals that hunt humans for food. Polar bears are the only land living animal that do that. In other cases, wild animals attack to defend themself, their offspring or their own area.

To keep the animals, or in this case orcs, away from strerssing situations might be necessary. But then an orc isn't comparable with an animal; the orcs have a more advanced brain and can think for themselves. If they don't want to adapt to the elven/human world, then they won't. But if they have a wish to leave the life of their kin behind, then I still think it's possible.

[The Saucepan Man]

This talk of lions and dogs is all very well, as far as it goes, but I am not sure that it really answers the original question.

I would agree that certain patterns of behaviour can be trained in animals, although they can still retain instinctive reactions. The main difference between the dog and the lion in the example above, I think, is that dogs have been selectively bred over many years for certain characteristics, reduced aggression for example. And so the instinct to attack is not as strong in the dog as it is in the lion, which is one step away from being wild.

Originally Posted by Gothmog

But then an orc isn't comparable with an animal; the orcs have a more advanced brain and can think for themselves.

Not necessarily. In some of his writings, Tolkien suggests that Orcs (or at least some of them) were mere beasts, without “fea” and wholly subject to the will of their Master. But I am not sure that distinction between sentient beings and beasts matters too much here, as behaviour will be a mixture of breeding (genetics) and training (education) in humans as well as animals. So, whichever view one takes as to the nature of Orcs, I think it fair to say that certain characteristics, both physical and mental, might be altered through both selective breeding (in the long term) and training/education (in the shorter term). Indeed, there are examples of both in Tolkien’s works. The Uruk-Hai were selectively bred (for strength, aggression and resistance to sunlight) by Sauron (although it is fair to assume that magic may have been involved here too). And the more regimented, hierarchically obedient nature of Lugbúrz Orcs and Isengarders, in contrast to the Goblins of the Misty Mountains, might be attributable to their “military” training as warriors.

The difficulty, as I see it, with the lion and dog discussion is that we are talking here about evil, rather than about physical and mental characteristics such as height, aggression etc. And evil, in Tolkien’s world (and philosophy) at least, is not a genetic trait or a learned behaviour. It is the result of Morgoth’s marring of Arda. And, specifically with regard to Orcs, they are evil because Morgoth “created” them to be so. As Son of Númenor (quoting Sharkû) pointed out, they are “creatures begotten of Sin and naturally bad” (although apparently not irredeemably so). I find it difficult, in these circumstances, to see how evil could be bred or trained out of them. If they are, by their very nature evil, how is it possible for them to change? Indeed, Tolkien’s comment on their redeemability notwithstanding, I find it difficult to see how they could be redeemed through their own actions, or through the actions of anyone other than Eru himself. Perhaps, therefore, their only possibility for redemption would be following their death, by the grace of Eru.

In these circumstances, notions of genetics and learned behaviour seem inappropriate.

Of course, the whole notion of a race of beings that are evil by their very nature through no fault of their own give rises to a number of philosophical problems which is why, I think, Tolkien came round to the view that they were mere beasts rather than creatures with souls. My own view, however, is that this approach conflicts with the portrayal in LotR of characters such as Shagrat, Grishnakh and Ugluk, and so the problem (for me, at least) remains.

Further reading:

Inherent Evil

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I had this discussion with a friend of mine recently, it is one that often comes up and is very difficult without the books on hand. I cannot find it even with them, but I seem to recall a place where, I think it is either Shagrat and Gorbag or the Orc Tracker and his friend (when Frodo and Sam are hiding in the bushes) that says something along the lines of;
"I wish we could go away from all this war and have a peaceful life with no big bosses around."
You'll have to confirm my quotation, as I cannot find it.

This suggested to me, at first, that, given the chance, Orcs would go forth and live out good lives where they had nothing to fear. But Reading the Silmarillion brought something to my mind. This in particular:

Originally Posted by Tollers

Wolves there were, or creatures that walked in wolf shapes, and other fell beings of shadow; and amongst them were the Orcs, who afterwards wrought ruin in Beleriand: yet they were few and wary, and did but smell out the ways of the land, awaiting the return of their Lord.
The Silmarillion: Chapter 15 - Of the Sindar

To me, this suggested that the Orcs are somewhat lost without their lord to guide them to do evil. Looking at how they moved through the forests after the fall of Boromir would suggest that they would delight in trampling all living things even if it were not in their way.

This is a big assumption, I suppose. It seems that violence is in their nature as it were, in the same way that the love of gold is in the nature of Dwarves. Yet, I would say that, from Tolkien's words that they are not 'incurable' just as Gimli was, in a way, cured of his gold lust. "Your hands shall run with gold, yet over you, gold shall have no dominion." I would guess that it is plausible, then, that the Orcs could be 'cured' of their violent ways if given the opportunity.

I can't comment with any authority on the subject, but I would guess that after the fall of Sauron, the Orcs probably tried to find somewhere to go to live out lives without big bosses. Then again, one could look at the goblins in the Misty Mountains (From The Hobbit) and, indeed, Moria. They had no links with Sauron that is mentioned, so one can only assume that they went under their own leadership, in a way. But then once again, you could argue that at the time of The Hobbit, Sauron was still prudent as The Necromancer in Mirkwood and his influence may have even been amongst them, or at least the fear of his return.

Just a thought.

[Gothmog]

To comment both SpM's and Hookbill's posts; I don't know if Orcs had their own fea but I do think that they had some sort of free will, judging by the way they sometimes talk about their masters. I can't confirm Hookbill's quote, but I'm sure I've heard orcs talk negative about their masters, and if they were under total control, this would be impossible for them. Also, it happens that the orcs are driven away and flee before an overwhelming enemy. If Sauron, or Morgoth, could control them fully, they would fight until the last drop of black goblin blood. This shows some sort of free mind and maybe some sort of soul?

Their behaviour, with destroying all living things for the fun of it as one part, can be both nature and nurture-related. We know too little about the orcs' development and their "education" to say something about this, really...

I'm leaning more to the view of an orc with some sort of soul, but with a partly inherited "evil". Though it is possible for this creature to redeem itself turn it's back to it's origin, it would be hard. But much of the evil of warrior orcs comes from their training and treatment when their younger and from that, a hatred to all things arises.

I know that it seems as if Tolkien meant the orcs to be soulless killing machines in some texts, but the way he portays them that doesn't seem to fit.

And yes SpM, the dog-lion comparison isn't totally applicable.

The first thing we need to decide is: is orcs' minds free? Next thing: how much of their evil is inherited? Only after answering these questions (and probably more that I've forgotten right now), we'll find an answer to this problem...