Are Orcs That Bad?

[Stoatly Grimes]

If a race of beings is determined that they are going to kill you and eat your flesh, then I think it's reasonable to attempt to prevent them from doing so. Evil is always an arbitrary concept, but self-preservation is fairly black-and-white (at least in this case).

I imagine the thought-process goes something like this: "The angry orc coming towards me with a blood-stained scimitar does not want to chat; rather, he means to cause significant harm upon my person, because he hates me. Call me belligerent, but I reckon I'll kill him first, as I do not wish to be brutally hacked apart."

It doesn't really matter why or even if they are truly evil, beyond the philosophical interest. If you hesitate to kill them because they might not be evil, they will kill you, perhaps after sustained torture.

I can picture a group of "progressive" individuals picketing at the gate of Minas Tirith with placards reading "Orcs have feelings too!" and being promptly butchered after venturing into Mount Gundabad to discuss potential leaflet drives.

I suppose you could attempt to discuss morality and metaphysics with a gang of marauding orcs over a coffee, but I fear they are some way beyond reasoned discourse.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

It doesn't really matter why or even if they are truly evil, beyond the philosophical interest. If you hesitate to kill them because they might not be evil, they will kill you, perhaps after sustained torture.

I can picture a group of "progressive" individuals picketing at the gate of Minas Tirith with placards reading "Orcs have feelings too!" and being promptly butchered after venturing into Mount Gundabad to discuss potential leaflet drives.

I suppose you could attempt to discuss morality and metaphysics with a gang of marauding orcs

Shame on you! This is not the forum for right wing political posturing.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Stoatly Grimes

If a race of beings is determined that they are going to kill you and eat your flesh, then I think it's reasonable to attempt to prevent them from doing so. Evil is always an arbitrary concept, but self-preservation is fairly black-and-white (at least in this case).

I imagine the thought-process goes something like this: "The angry orc coming towards me with a blood-stained scimitar does not want to chat; rather, he means to cause significant harm upon my person, because he hates me. Call me belligerent, but I reckon I'll kill him first, as I do not wish to be brutally hacked apart."

It doesn't really matter why or even if they are truly evil, beyond the philosophical interest. If you hesitate to kill them because they might not be evil, they will kill you, perhaps after sustained torture.

Well, well, but that's what's been contested on threads like this or the one which had been here recently - I think it was called something like "Orcseys-always evil?" or something like that. But I think this, what you say, is the usual approach from an average Orc towards a human or elf, or (not to forget) also from an average Gondorian soldier towards an Orc. But I would like to point out that it's not necessarily like that. 90% of this approach (of this thinking "if I don't kill it, it kills me") is the chain of wrongdoings from Orcs to Men and from Men to Orcs in the past, which is passed down generations and taught to little Gondorian children or pressed into the heads of Orcs by Sauron. It is "reasonable", under these circumstances, but when you go back and come to the first, "Utumno generation", there was the first impulse - we are quite lucky that we can see to the beginning of the chain of events, and pretty clearly! - and that came from Morgoth, who said: "Now, go out and raid some Elven villages." The first Orcs, basically, had little other choice as slaves. The Elves, then, had little other choice than to defend themselves just the way like SG illustrated above - something they haven't ever seen before suddenly jumped out of the bushes and started to massacre them. Okay. And from that moment on, it was always like that - thanks to deathless guys like Morgoth who kept sending Orcs out, and thus the other races started to build the long-term experience: "Orcs always kill people". And also it was quite likely for some Orcs to actually start to enjoy these raids, killing and such. The Orcs also were not doing much else in their life than raiding Elven/human settlements, and so for them, this was also "normal". Maybe, at one point, one or two stopped to think like this, whether it is right to do it - however still the majority was used to it, the same as let's say humans were to cultivating crops, or it was still worth it more, or easier to leave things like they are than trying to raise a rebellion against Morgoths&Saurons up there, and such... I think it would take a long, long transformation with the condition of the Orcs being set free at first, until they could become at least somewhat "peaceful" race. But on the side of the Free Peoples, there was more of a chance to come up with a different approach to the other side (for example if such a tribe of "free Orcs" formed).

[Boromir88]

Well said Legate.

Besides the reasons mentioned by you, and others, I think you have to wonder about this:

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law.~HoME X; Morgoth's Ring

Tolkien hints that by the standards of Elves and Men, orcs might have become "irredeemable," yet the Valar (and Eru) may see it differently. But I think you have to ask, how can Orcs become "redeemed" in a society (of Elves and Men) that believe, by their own standards, are irredeemable?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Tolkien hints that by the standards of Elves and Men, orcs might have become "irredeemable," yet the Valar (and Eru) may see it differently. But I think you have to ask, how can Orcs become "redeemed" in a society (of Elves and Men) that believe, by their own standards, are irredeemable?

Tolkien's societal norms are static, unchanging for ages (one of the few real dislikes I have for the overall tale); ergo, there is little chance for attitudinal changes within societies regarding those of another race (Elves of Lorien still holding a centuries-old grudge against the Dwarves, for instance). I guess what one would have to really ask is, given the static nature of societies (Orcs included), does it seem likely that such redemption could take place? The answer would be no, given the information we have.

Tolkien societies are not like those of the antebellum South and North United States, where negroes were considered chattel and not-human or subhuman in the South, but with a growing abolitionist movement in the North that fought against the inhumane and reactionary policies of slavery.

I don't see a Gondorion Orkish Abolition League (GOAL) for the better treatment of Orks being started up anytime soon.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Tolkien societies are not like those of the antebellum South and North United States, where negroes were considered chattel and not-human or subhuman in the South, but with a growing abolitionist movement in the North that fought against the inhumane and reactionary policies of slavery.

I don't see a Gondorion Orkish Abolition League (GOAL) for the better treatment of Orks being started up anytime soon.

That reminds me of one thing about the Uruk Hai I've never seen any artists or film-makers take up on: they are often described as being black.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Tolkien's societal norms are static, unchanging for ages (one of the few real dislikes I have for the overall tale); ergo, there is little chance for attitudinal changes within societies regarding those of another race (Elves of Lorien still holding a centuries-old grudge against the Dwarves, for instance). I guess what one would have to really ask is, given the static nature of societies (Orcs included), does it seem likely that such redemption could take place? The answer would be no, given the information we have.

Well... actually the thing you mentioned with the Lórien Elves made me think of a possible hope for the Orcs. The Elves held a grudge against the Dwarves, but when Gimli came with the Fellowship, and Galadriel approved letting him in, and later, it became kind of first spark of the friendship between the Elves of Lórien and the Dwarves. Maybe had something similar happened with an Orc...? I am inclined to think at least Galadriel would be able to think favourably about him. Had there been a company of Elf-friends who would happen to take an Orc with them - which is not that impossible to think, that there will be at least a few folks, for example including Gandalf, who would get friendly with some Orc, let's say a fostered one or whatever - and a similar situation occured, I think that would be a nice new beginning for inter-racial relationships.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Tolkien's societal norms are static, unchanging for ages (one of the few real dislikes I have for the overall tale); ergo, there is little chance for attitudinal changes within societies regarding those of another race (Elves of Lorien still holding a centuries-old grudge against the Dwarves, for instance). I guess what one would have to really ask is, given the static nature of societies (Orcs included), does it seem likely that such redemption could take place? The answer would be no, given the information we have.

But isn't the staticness partly because elves are immortal (Men change alliances at certain times). If everyone around you has lived through a war against the orcs, and tells you how disgusting and cruel they are (first hand account) and what the did to Jimbobaurë, etc, then you would have something aggainst them too. Things are much less easily forgotten by elves because of their immortality. Think about- Cirdan has lived through probably all the torments of the Elves and Men, and would have a good cause to oppose orcs. He can go on telling people about the evilness lf orcs for 3+ ages. That must have an effect (or rather, lower the likelihood of change). If you are brought up in an orc-hating society, with people that have actually seen their horrors, then there is not much chance of change.

Likewise Morgoth, then Sauron, constantly drive their orcs against the "goodies". The ircs don't stand a chance. They give in to what (by the marvels of genetic engineering) their impulses are, having no regard for social harmony, and are taught to enjoy torturing. It's quite hard to escape from such a totalitarian system, when your leader is a powerful god. Not to mention he can read your mind.

Dwarves are a mostly cut-off people from the outside world (they keep to themselves), so their thoughts stagnate within their tunnels. Not to mention the many attacks on them by "goblins".

Men, on the other hand, are different. Having a short lifespan compared to dwarves and elves, things are forgotten much more quickly. Their alliances do fluctuate.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Eönwë

Men, on the other hand, are different. Having a short lifespan compared to dwarves and elves, things are forgotten much more quickly. Their alliances do fluctuate.

These last sentences actually hold something in it. That's also what I thought, then, that after the Elves left Middle-Earth and the Dominion of Men came, it would be much more likely for the Men and Orcs to become friendly at some times, points, moments? And then also, another thought, it sure wasn't that bad with Man-Orc relationships - although they may not have been best friends, in many battles for example the Haradrim or Easterlings and the Orcs fought alongside each other, and in some places they lived next to each other. Their relationships probably were not ideal, of course, but it at least wasn't like that every Orc was an enemy on sight - and sure the long-time living together must have brought at least several good inter-racial friendships, if even to a limited number of people... so in a paradox, the grounds for better Orc-Man relationships were not actually in the "good post-Númenorean civilisation" but among the Men from the East and South... and now, when I think of the possible half-Orc crossbreeds... hmm... (ah yes, now I remember, I think I wrote something about Uglúkromeo&Juliet on that old thread about Orcs back then...)

[Thinlómien]

I'm glad I decided to read through this thread after all... very interesting and thought-provoking. I won't stay here to write a novel, though, because I have dozens of other things to do today, unfortunately. However, I will say one thing. Some people have complained that in the Silmarillion, Orcs are merely cannon fodder, while they are more like real enemy soldiers in LotR. I don't think the difference is in how Orcs were in different ages, or not that much even in how their opponents were in different ages, but rather, in the difference of the narrative of the two books. Silmarillion's style is far more epic and mythology-like, and in all old myths and tales we have the heroes defeating unnumbered hordes of enemies. I think it's as simple as that.

[Lalwendë]

I've just finished reading Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go and it has given me a dreadful thought about the Orcs...

Never Let Me Go deals with cloned people raised for the sole purpose of donating their organs (this won't spoil the plot for you, do not worry!). As you read the novel you notice that there are lots of cliches used in the voice of the narrator and as it moves on you realise why, and that is these people have been raised to have limited expectations, focussed on the job they are destined to do, to be harvested - the limited language reflects the limited expectations. Nobody rebels, though they have small hopes in their limited way, they even hurry more quickly along the path to being harvested. They have their purpose and (maddeningly to the reader) seem to accept it.

That we see no Orcs rebel and refuse to be the mere cannon fodder of Sauron and Morgoth suggests to me that they too have been raised to expect nothing else. Even the hopes of Shagrat and Gorbag are small ones, simply involving more of the same but without a master.

Orcs have had their 'humanity' stripped away and are utilitarian beings bred and raised for a purpose (I'm shuddering to think now of the millions of real children being 'educated' to become the obedient desk jockeys and consumers of the future....). I feel sorry for them at the same time as feeling a wee bit superior because I wasn't just bred to be some Dark Lord's slave.

I think this might be how Tolkien gets them to 'work' as an enemy force. Yes, they are a bit rubbish compared to ruthless hyper-intelligent enemies like Daleks and Ubermenschen like Cybermen, but they are almost shadow selves of humanity, what we can be if we allow our 'masters' to determine our fates. Maybe this is what makes them so scary - are they repulsive as they are almost-but-not-quite-human, and a reminder of what might be? And also repulsive because we cannot reconcile feeling sorry for their fates at the same time as not wanting them to exist?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Never Let Me Go deals with cloned people raised for the sole purpose of donating their organs (this won't spoil the plot for you, do not worry!). As you read the novel you notice that there are lots of cliches used in the voice of the narrator and as it moves on you realise why, and that is these people have been raised to have limited expectations, focussed on the job they are destined to do, to be harvested - the limited language reflects the limited expectations. Nobody rebels, though they have small hopes in their limited way, they even hurry more quickly along the path to being harvested. They have their purpose and (maddeningly to the reader) seem to accept it.

Although they are not harvested, this sounds a bit like the future humans trapped within the caste system of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (genetically bred and raised from birth to be in on one of three levels of workers).

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Orcs have had their 'humanity' stripped away and are utilitarian beings bred and raised for a purpose (I'm shuddering to think now of the millions of real children being 'educated' to become the obedient desk jockeys and consumers of the future....). I feel sorry for them at the same time as feeling a wee bit superior because I wasn't just bred to be some Dark Lord's slave.

I think this might be how Tolkien gets them to 'work' as an enemy force. Yes, they are a bit rubbish compared to ruthless hyper-intelligent enemies like Daleks and Ubermenschen like Cybermen, but they are almost shadow selves of humanity, what we can be if we allow our 'masters' to determine our fates. Maybe this is what makes them so scary - are they repulsive as they are almost-but-not-quite-human, and a reminder of what might be? And also repulsive because we cannot reconcile feeling sorry for their fates at the same time as not wanting them to exist?

The scenario is certainly possible within the framework of humanity, and without any exotic genetic manipulation. People generally have a flock or mob mentality in any case. How else could one explain how easily simple Nazi soldiers could so easily work within the framework of the Final Solution, day in and day out working among the incinerators? Or Japanese suicide bombers (or the Al Queda suicide bombers, or Republicans who still maintain that Bush is a good president, etc.).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Although they are not harvested, this sounds a bit like the future humans trapped within the caste system of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (genetically bred and raised from birth to be in on one of three levels of workers).

That's a huge favourite of mine. In contrast, the events in this novel seem to be set in near contemporary England. Little detail is given of how they come into being, except dark hints at things far more unpleasant than what we see in the novel. It's well worth reading - difficult to initially get into the rhythm of the narrator's voice though as she intentionally speaks in cliches. The banality of her tone is part of the horror of it...

The scenario is certainly possible within the framework of humanity, and without any exotic genetic manipulation. People generally have a flock or mob mentality in any case. How else could one explain how easily simple Nazi soldiers could so easily work within the framework of the Final Solution, day in and day out working among the incinerators? Or Japanese suicide bombers (or the Al Queda suicide bombers, or Republicans who still maintain that Bush is a good president, etc.).

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?

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.

[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.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Yep, that's how I see the Orcs as well and I believe I expressed that (or perhaps only implied it) earlier on this thread. As for 'humanity's dark side' I certainly assign the flock mentality you've talked about to it, at least the dark aspects that so often come to light; the few examples that have been mentioned here are just page one of a long. long book or horrors. The bright side of humanity is that once in a while we manage to rise above it, despite overwhelming odds. I'd like to think that eventually even the Orcs did. But then they are no longer Orcs, as I believe Orcness is mainly a state of mind for Tolkien, given his talk about modern day Orcs. An Orc reformed is no longer an Orc.

[Lalwendë]

You know what? I'm sure that the plug-ugly Orcs we saw in the films have made us all think that Orcs resembled re-animated corpses or something, when they were probably just a bit ugly. I must look this up and see what I think...

Because it's something on the inside of an Orc that makes them nasty.

Originally Posted by Skip

The bright side of humanity is that once in a while we manage to rise above it, despite overwhelming odds. I'd like to think that eventually even the Orcs did. But then they are no longer Orcs, as I believe Orcness is mainly a state of mind for Tolkien, given his talk about modern day Orcs. An Orc reformed is no longer an Orc.

And they must have been able to do this or otherwise Tolkien would not have mentioned the possibility of redemption for them. So they had the chance of free will. The question is how much of the urge to seek freedom had been bred out of them in their raising and in their culture.

I also wonder whether a redeemed Orc might look quite so ugly? It's not easy to imagine one of PJ's re-animated corpse zombie Orcs being redeemed and sitting in Ithilien pressing flowers but it might not be so unimaginable if that Orc wasn't such a pig, eh?

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).

Wasn't much of that period a time when Sauron had lost much of his power? He only came to Dol Guldur 1,000 years into the third age, and back to Mordor much later than that. I think maybe that the loss of Sauron's Ring meant he had to spend much longer in marshalling his forces and extending his influence before he could once more assault the West. Contrast that with the speed with which he must have acted to marshall his troops between the fall of Numenor and the Last Alliance, a time when he was in possession of the Ring.

I reckon Orcs would have taken the chance to run amok (as it might have seen from Sauron's point of view) during that period, be independent, even form an Orcish monarchy in Moria.

A people who had been born and brought up to act in a certain way might find it very hard or even impossible to shake off the yoke that Morgoth had placed on them. Odd cultural traditions persist in the real world for years after they have ceased to serve any useful purpose, such as foot binding, or even the wearing of ties.

I'd like to explore more of these ideas about a 'Cult of Morgoth' though, might be a good thread at some time soon...

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

You know what? I'm sure that the plug-ugly Orcs we saw in the films have made us all think that Orcs resembled re-animated corpses or something, when they were probably just a bit ugly. I must look this up and see what I think...

Because it's something on the inside of an Orc that makes them nasty.

I think you're right. Although the Orcs were no George Clooneys or Brad Pitts they weren't Frankenstein's monster either. As I said earlier, "half-orcs" and similar could infiltrate human societies so the real deal couldn't have looked that monstrous. Actually I remember reading somewhere a more direct description of how they looked like. Gonna try to Google it...

Ok, here goes, it's apparently from the letters:

Originally Posted by Letter #210

: "Orcs are squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."

Oh dear. Well, I suppose they did look like ugly humans after all. Poor sods.

There's also this phrase from the Silmarillion:

Whence they came, or what they were, the Elves knew not then, thinking them perhaps to be Avari who had become evil and savage in the wild; in which they guessed all too near, it is said

If the Elves thought them to be Avari gone evil and savage in the wild the Orcs can't have looked or behaved all that different to themselves, I reckon.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

I also wonder whether a redeemed Orc might look quite so ugly? It's not easy to imagine one of PJ's re-animated corpse zombie Orcs being redeemed and sitting in Ithilien pressing flowers but it might not be so unimaginable if that Orc wasn't such a pig, eh?

That's quite a picture you're painting and yes, it's very hard to imagine that Lurtz fella picking flowers and reciting poems haha.

And yeah, it's easier picturing a redeemed Orc if he or she mind you looked less monstrous. But that says more about us then them I suppose.

[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.

[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.