Are orcs actually evil?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I don't want to delve into this topic, because it is really complex. My basic answer is: this cannot be really answered because Morm's question number 1 - whether Orcs have a will of their own - is a huge problem by itself. Personally, I believe they DO have a free will of their own (look at Gorbag and Shagrat, for instance), the point is, whether it is also a "freedom to do good" or just "freedom to do evil", so to say.

Originally Posted by blantyr

I would think the answer to the first question depends a great deal on whether the One Ring and Sauron have been destroyed. In the battle before the Black Gate just before the ring was destroyed, the orcs and many other similar species were intensely determined to kill. When Frodo put on the ring and Sauron bent his will on getting the Nazgul to Mount Doom ASAP, Sauron's other servants were as marionettes with their strings cut.

One might propose that Morgoth created them as marionettes, as being subject to his will. Sauron later used them in the same way. Thus, a policy by any of the free peoples to kill on sight in self defense could be considered quite reasonable during the First, Second and Third ages. With the destruction of the Ring, you almost have to sit down and ask the first question all over again.

Anyway, THIS is something I definitely have to object to. First, the One Ring did not rule ALL the Orcs. Never. The most simple proof - there were many Orcs in Middle-Earth who didn't serve Sauron (like those in the Misty Mountains). The fact that after the destruction of the One the armies of Mordor were helpless was simply based on the fact that the power which was sort of guiding them suddenly disappeared. But it is not like they could not exist without it, but also not even that the power would lead them exactly like puppets. Yes, they were sort of "nudged", I would call it, but it wasn't a 100% remote control. It's more like the situation of a commando of soldiers from some cool action-movie where they are in the middle of some enemy base and some clever guy on the radio is giving them instructions "okay, now turn left, go down the stairs, then you should - beeeeep..." "What's that? We lost contact! Oh no! What are we going to do? And what happened to him, anyway? Heelp!"

Also, Morgoth had not created the Orcs, let's please use proper terms. He made them out of some original "material" which was there, and was only later corrupted by him. But anyway, as I said above, there were many Orcs who did not follow Morgoth or Sauron. It was only the matter of the "empire", and anyway, there have been large periods (like after the end of the First Age, i.e. after Morgoth's defeat, but before Sauron's making of the Ring, and also at the end of the Second Age, after Sauron's fall and before his rise in Mirkwood, some 1000 years when he had been totally powerless) when the Orcs were totally free from any big evil masters. So what you said above does not really hold here.

I would suggest that Orcs under the sway of Morgoth and Sauron effectively lacked free will and might reasonably be treated as sentient vermin. During the Fourth Age Aragorn was able to negotiate borders with them and peacefully coexist. While not a lot was written about the Fourth Age, it would seem improper to treat them as sentient vermin after the destruction of the Ring.

And once again: No. And this time definitely not. There is no word about having peace with Orcs. Aragorn negotiated with Easterlings and Southrons, that is, humans. That was absolutely normal, and peace used to exist between Gondor and Harad also in some ages past, and so on. But there was nothing like that about Orcs, and also,

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I would think the answer to the first question depends a great deal on whether the One Ring and Sauron have been destroyed. In the battle before the Black Gate just before the ring was destroyed, the orcs and many other similar species were intensely determined to kill. When Frodo put on the ring and Sauron bent his will on getting the Nazgul to Mount Doom ASAP, Sauron's other servants were as marionettes with their strings cut.

I see the effects of the Ring and Sauron's will (which really are one and the same) on Sauron's Orcs as not so much controlling them, but as a driving force, giving added ferocity and hate to allow them to overcome such battlefield factors as superior fighting skill and weapons. It was said that Sauron had "spell enslaved" beasts in his service, but I don't think one can imply from that that all his servants were incapable of free thought. Sauron was mighty by the standards of Middle-earth, but he wasn't that powerful. If he was, why the need to have Orkish slave-drivers to control the rank-and-file Orcs? Wouldn't they have obeyed his orders without question if they were controlled?

Originally Posted by blantyr

One might propose that Morgoth created them as marionettes, as being subject to his will. Sauron later used them in the same way. Thus, a policy by any of the free peoples to kill on sight in self defense could be considered quite reasonable during the First, Second and Third ages. With the destruction of the Ring, you almost have to sit down and ask the first question all over again.

I disagree with the base assumption that Orcs were "created". The sole being in the cosmos in question capable of actual creation was Eru, who had possession of the Fire. Orcs must have had their origins with the Children created by Eru Ilúvatar, and therefore, were only ruined and twisted by Morgoth. The society forced upon them by Morgoth, and later, Sauron, would have been geared toward fostering and steadily increasing a hatred for the "Free Peoples" of the world. That being the case, the Orcs would not have been irredeemable, but it would have needed a very long time and careful handling of them by the West to turn them away from evil.

Originally Posted by blantyr

One might also want to consider the difference between Tolkien's time and our own. In World War II and before, it was quite traditional to demonize the enemy. The hun, the nazi or the nips were presented in government propaganda and Hollywood film as subhuman beings, killers and lacking morals. In short, ordinary people in western countries saw fellow human beings as if they were orcs. Fiction commonly portrayed characters as wearing black hats or white, as pure heroes or vile villains.

There's a fundamental difference between historical villains of our world and the Orcs. The latter were universally known to be servants of an actual "divine" incarnate evil being. The Orcs did not serve an ideology, or a certain way of life, but a "fallen angel" who had made them what they were over millenia. Their deeds and way of life needed no exaggeration for propaganda purposes.

Originally Posted by blantyr

I would suggest that Orcs under the sway of Morgoth and Sauron effectively lacked free will and might reasonably be treated as sentient vermin. During the Fourth Age Aragorn was able to negotiate borders with them and peacefully coexist. While not a lot was written about the Fourth Age, it would seem improper to treat them as sentient vermin after the destruction of the Ring.

I think it was the Men of Rhûn and Harad whom Gondor made peace with, not the Orcs. No more is said of them in the books, though certainly not all were killed. With the dissolution of Sauron, and their allies in the East and South no longer hostile to Gondor, I like to think that the Orcs were by and large free of external evil influences. As I said though, it took a very long time to make them evil, so it would have also taken a very long time for them to have renounced that.

x/d with Legate, who had similar thoughts

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I don't want to delve into this topic, because it is really complex. My basic answer is: this cannot be really answered because Morm's question number 1 - whether Orcs have a will of their own - is a huge problem by itself. Personally, I believe they DO have a free will of their own (look at Gorbag and Shagrat, for instance), the point is, whether it is also a "freedom to do good" or just "freedom to do evil", so to say.

I hope this isn't just arguing semantics, but if they have no opportunity or freedom to to good how can they have a will of their own. If their only choice is to do evil they are not evil as they cannot control their actions whereas if they have the choice between good and evil and choose evil they are evil, so to speak.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by mormegil

I hope this isn't just arguing semantics, but if they have no opportunity or freedom to to good how can they have a will of their own. If their only choice is to do evil they are not evil as they cannot control their actions whereas if they have the choice between good and evil and choose evil they are evil, so to speak.

Maybe they can only do evil because they only know evil? They have no experience of ever doing anything good.

And "freedom to do evil" also has choices: to do it, or to do nothing (ie not good and not evil). I'm not really sure where I'm leading with this, but I think it's a valuable point.

Originally Posted by blantyr

Fiction commonly portrayed characters as wearing black hats or white, as pure heroes or vile villains.
...
Modern fiction might often have more complex and shaded characters, with flawed heroes, selfish manipulative damsels and sympathetic villains with believable motivations. In many ways modern fiction might be more realistic and complex than the old 1950s stuff.

If you think that Tolkien's characters are black and white, then you are greatly mistaken. There isn't one that is either. You list three examples of what Tolkien doesn't have, but I can provide examples of such characters (off the top of my head), because he does have them:

flawed heroes=Thorin, Turin
selfish manipulative damsel=Lobelia S-B. I haven't read UT yet, so I'm not sure if Erendis fits under this category
sympathetic villains with believable motivations=Maedhros, Maglor, Caranthir (they aren't exactly villains, but they are during the kinslaying, and they all show their good side at one point or another). Gollum, who battles with his good-Smeagol side.

Look carefully, and you'll see lots of shades of gray in Tolkien's works.

And personally, I prefer "old 1950's stuff", as you put it, to modern fiction.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Maybe they can only do evil because they only know evil? They have no experience of ever doing anything good.

Yet, if we accept that they were originally Children of Ilúvatar, they they do retain in their hearts the ability to abjure evil deeds. In that case, the standard of judgement would be the same for them as the other Children. Bad environments can only take so much of the blame. Túrin was raised in Doriath with the most noble and wise foster-parents he could have had, and still committed an unforgivable act of murder against Brandir. Tuor grew up in slavery and still managed to keep on the "good" path. The choice for good might be harder for some than for others, but ultimately the individual is responsible. I think the true measure of any one Orc could only be seen after the downfall of Sauron. Some would keep to evil, but I feel sure some could be taught how to live in peace.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

And "freedom to do evil" also has choices: to do it, or to do nothing (ie not good and not evil). I'm not really sure where I'm leading with this, but I think it's a valuable point.

Intentions come into play also. An Orc who took genuine delight in torture and murder would, in my mind, be more "evil" than one of the smaller breeds who might well have an affinity for cruelty, but who mainly acted in Sauron's service out of fear. Committing evil to avoid personal harm is ultimately not an excuse though.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

If you think that Tolkien's characters are black and white, then you are greatly mistaken. There isn't one that is either.

I think I would certainly put Morgoth in the "black" category. He had so much knowledge of Ilúvatar's plans and deliberately set out to thwart them.
I would also put Gandalf in the "white" category, and probably Aragorn and Faramir also. All three are given clear choices to embrace evil, and choose good instead.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I think I would certainly put Morgoth in the "black" category. He had so much knowledge of Ilúvatar's plans and deliberately set out to thwart them.
I would also put Gandalf in the "white" category, and probably Aragorn and Faramir also. All three are given clear choices to embrace evil, and choose good instead.

They all come close, but I can't say that they are pure black/white, even if they come very close. I don't want to go deeply into this, because this could turn into a separate discussion, but all the "white" characters had some flaw, as puny as it can be, that makes them very-very-very-very light grey. As for Morgoth, he wasn't evil originally. Before he "became evil", he sang in the Ainulindale in harmony with the others.

But, he comes so close to "black" that it's really undistinguishable. I'd like to say that his evil deeds turned to good in the end, but, as Mandos notes...

Originally Posted by The Sil, Of the Sun and Moon

[Manwe said:] "Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before concieved be brought into Ea, and evil yet be good to have been." But Mandos said, "And yet remain evil."

Even Eru cannot be said to be truly white - just look at the number of times this topic has been debated lately in various threads!

However, this is a side discussion, and I will refrain from debating this further.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

But, he comes so close to "black" that it's really undistinguishable.

Actually, having looked through Letters, it looks to me as if Morgoth was not thought by Tolkien to be completely evil.

In my story I do not deal in absolute evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil.

Letter #183

And regarding the Orcs, he says:

....the Orcs-- who are fundamentally a race of 'rational incarnate' creatures, though horribly corrupted, if no more so than many Men to be met today.

Letter #153

If the Orcs are 'rational' creatures, it follows they must be capable of free will. And if Morgoth himself was not totally evil, the Orcs as a race could not be so either.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Even Eru cannot be said to be truly white - just look at the number of times this topic has been debated lately in various threads!

Ah, but it's Ilúvatar's world, isn't it? He made it. Good and evil are his to define.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Actually, having looked through Letters, it looks to me as if Morgoth was not thought by Tolkien to be completely evil.

Letter #183

And regarding the Orcs, he says:

Letter #153.

From a logical point of view, he really can't be anmore than a being can be pure good. Such extremes are not merely unattainable, they are logically impossible, for the simple reason that many vices and virtues are ultimatley mutually contradictory with each other. To give an example it is impossible to be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful, in thier pure form the two become mutually contradictory. Likewise, a purely evil character would not make a compelling villian. He or she would, in fact be at best pathetic and more likey non-viable. A wholly evil being would, by defintion be incapable of doing anything that was not evil and most of theactions that keep an organism (and for the purposes of this argument characters like Melkor can be considered organism) going are morally neutral. If orcs were wholly evil, they could not eat drink or breathe, since these acts of self perservation are usually considered good (unless you want to make the argument that once you have become evil enough the moral imperatives sort of flip and suddenly keeping yourself alive becomes the evil act and destroying yourself the good one.).

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Ah, but it's Ilúvatar's world, isn't it? He made it. Good and evil are his to define.

And that's a crux point, if a being is omnipotent and a universal creator, then terms like "good" and "evil" become functionally meaningless. The ominipotent creator makes the defintions and being the omnipotent creator, he can chage those defintions at any time, even retroactively if he/she so chooses. Indeed in that circumstance "good" basically ends up being defined for the being as "whatever I do". Actually that is probably the only way a purely good or evil character could exist, if you do the creator definiton concept of "Good is defined as whatever I do, Evil is defined as whatever you do i.e, the "I can do no wrong, you can do no right" concept."

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

If you think that Tolkien's characters are black and white, then you are greatly mistaken. There isn't one that is either. You list three examples of what Tolkien doesn't have, but I can provide examples of such characters (off the top of my head), because he does have them:

flawed heroes=Thorin, Turin
selfish manipulative damsel=Lobelia S-B. I haven't read UT yet, so I'm not sure if Erendis fits under this category
sympathetic villains with believable motivations=Maedhros, Maglor, Caranthir (they aren't exactly villains, but they are during the kinslaying, and they all show their good side at one point or another). Gollum, who battles with his good-Smeagol side.

Look carefully, and you'll see lots of shades of gray in Tolkien's works.

And personally, I prefer "old 1950's stuff", as you put it, to modern fiction.

I've played a number of role playing games that feature a 'corruption' game mechanic, includeing Call of Cuthulu, Dark Heresy and Ambarquenta. A character starts out pure. Contact with evil or performing evil actions corrupts a character. If one accumulates enough corruption points, one starts having to roll dice in order to do the right thing. The rules start forcing characters to act selfishly or violently. It is broadly much harder to get rid of corruption points than acquire them. If one gets enough corruption points, the character is taken over by the game master as a non player villian.

I am not a huge fan of corruption point game mechanics, but when one looks at Boromir, Saruman and Wormtongue, I can understand how the author of Ambarquenta included it in a Tolkien game. There is a distinct differentiation between good and evil. Many characters are one or the other. Yet, a lot of the most interesting bits of the story center on those who have gone to some degree astray.

That being said, in a conversation about Tolkien's orks, at least before the destruction of the Ring, they are pretty much pure black. After the destruction of the Ring, we don't know. We don't see them after the destruction of the Ring.

[Galadriel55]

First of all, Tolkien didn't write an RPG. I don't think it's really an appropriate comparisson. Especially about the points system. It's just not applicable to Tolkien's books.

Originally Posted by blantyr

There is a distinct differentiation between good and evil. Many characters are one or the other.

Like who? I've said this before, and Zil found a good quote written by JRRT himself - that no one is completely evil (and therefore it would make sense that no one is completely good).

That being said, in a conversation about Tolkien's orks, at least before the destruction of the Ring, they are pretty much pure black.

Even Morgoth isn't pure black. Orcs are "lesser evils", IMO.

I'm not saying that they aren't evil; they just aren't pure black. Plus, according to them, the Free Peoples are the evil ones.

[Ariel]

I think they can choose between good and evil, but because of peer pressure and the enviroment in which they are spawned virtually all become evil.