Are Orcs That Bad?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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).

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

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.