Orcs

[Wayfarer]

Something else I should add:

I believe tolkien does mention in the hobbit how orcs, or at least strong orcish traits, are still among us. In the absence of a polorizing evil force, they revert to a more neutral and benign form.
Certainly the orcish traits never completely dissapear, but I think that the orcs eventually simply reintegrated into human society.

[Strongbow]

Orcs are inherently evil.

One might say, "But they were turned evil!" My responce to that is simply that the orcs were not turned evil. Morgoth took elves before even the Valar knew they had wakened and took them to his dungeons and there he created the Orcs who are corrupted elves. Hence the Elves were forced(corrupted) to be evil. The resulting creature, the orc, is evil to begin with.

also, even if you still believe that since they are of the same origin they are both one and the same. then think of this. When a fruit becomes rotted or poisoned do you take pity on it and say "I will keep it because it was once a good fruit" ? No, you would throw it away and lament the waste of a good fruit. Im sure we all lament the fact that the elves, so fair, were corrupted by Melkor Morgoth, but their is no hope for them as Melkors evil is now at the center of their very being and has taken hold through many generations.

[Wayfarer]

You make a ridiculous argument.

First of all, you weaken your case significantly when you let out that you don't know enough about what tolkien said to know that the final word is that orcs=corrupted men, not elves.

And again, by your assumption that evil cannot be cured. It is an essential part of the mythology that everything will be set right, and the Arda Remade will be better than Arda Unmarred. If there is hope for Frodo's healing, and even some hope for Gollum, both of whom were corrupted by Melkor's power via his proxy Sauron via the Ring, why is there less hope for others who have been corrupted?

Again, you mistake as intrisic that which is simply ingrained. The fact is that Melkor could not create life, he had no power or understanding at the most basic level. He could corrupt, but he could not change the inherent qualities of Eru's children.

And yet again, if beings may be corrupted so that evil becomes embedded in their lives, why could they not be healed and that evil removed? No doubt it would take as much effort as was put into corrupting them, but there is no reason why orcs could not slowly be made whole.

[Strongbow]

I concede to your argument : )

[barrelrider110]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
And yet again, if beings may be corrupted so that evil becomes embedded in their lives, why could they not be healed and that evil removed? No doubt it would take as much effort as was put into corrupting them, but there is no reason why orcs could not slowly be made whole.

This is a very interesting argument, and Iwish I had come upon this thread sooner. The idea that Orcs could be healed is the very Christian belief that sins can be forgiven, indeed healing is the very foundation of Christian ethic, not surprising coming from a writer who was himself a devout Catholic.

In the Hobbit and FoTR, ORcs seemed more like the boogeyman--dwelling in dark places, coming out at night. From the dialogue between Orcs in TT and RoTK, we see out that Orcs are not so different than men, a bit fouler to the senses maybe, but that's judgemental.

Orcs were a people that were used for evil purposes. They could lead away from evil too.

[markedel]

I think orcs are evil because they are incarnated evil-much as Morgoth and Sauron are. One of the hallmarks of the first three age is that evil incarnated physically in certain beings-orcs among them. Today orcishness is spread around, buried inside people, and more dangerous-but also harder to get rid of.

[Anglorfin]

Allow me to quote myself from another topic . . .

I always looked at it that Orcs were unredeemable. After all that is what separates them from say, the barbaric Men that fought for Saruman against Rohan. They repented, while the Orcs were so vile that all must be destroyed. They were beyond redemption unless someone in Arda could undo the effects of Mogoth, and to my knowledge while many of his acts have been amended over time none have been completely undone.

I think I am about to contradict myself now though by bringing up a point that I first read about in one of Shakespeare's plays, Henry V.

Since Orcs have been reduced to nothing more than the thralls of evil masters, who is held responsible for their actions? Would the masters pay for all the losses at the hand of the Orcs on the assumption that the Orcs have lost some capacity to reason? Or would the Orcs also suffer equally with their masters because of the belief that each Orc, while being bound to the master by duty and even willpower, does not absolve the creature of the acts that itself has committed.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I believe that Tolkien himself debated to the end on whether or not Orcs were ultimately redeemable. Of couse, an Orc just going against the grain and being Good "just because" would be completely out of the question. Not that that's the topic, just wanted to say that.

[Lenya]

I do not like orcs 'cause I think they are rather braindead. They simply obey the orders of their master, nothing more and nothing less. To me, they are a very black and white race.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Lenya

I do not like orcs 'cause I think they are rather braindead. They simply obey the orders of their master, nothing more and nothing less. To me, they are a very black and white race.

Orks are a bit more complicated than that. They show clear examples of political machinations, they have different factions, and they CLEARLY have agendas of their own, which would in turn imply that there's a bit more to them than being "braindead".

[Lenya]

But they don't act on these agendas. I have never read of any orc that actually went against his master's bidding.

[BeardofPants]

Yeah? You wanna re-read LOTR again? Something about a ring? Something about stealing a certain hobbits stuff? Contrary to orders?

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Yeah? You wanna re-read LOTR again? Something about a ring? Something about stealing a certain hobbits stuff? Contrary to orders?

BoP's right. There's Cirith Ungol, and then there's that section in TTT where Grishnákh believes that Merry or Pippin has the Ring, and wants to take it...

The orcs clearly don't have much respect for their masters either.

On a somewhat more contraversial note, I've agreed with Wayfarer throughout this thread.

[Manveru]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Let's look at a few examples, here.

At the battle of the Morannon, the armies of the midwest. were faced with a large force of Orcs and men. More than enough to destroy them completely.

When the ring was destroyed, the forces of mordor were released from Sauron's power. They did two things.
The orcs did one thing: They ran! They /threw down their weapons/ and /ran away/. As far as I'm aware, throwing down your weapon is generally considered a sign of surrender.
What did the humans do? They looked around, and decided that they were a great army still, and attacked! All on their own!

What does this tell me? This tells me that the vast majority of orcs only fought becuase they were forced to. They were slaves! While many humans willingly served the dark lords. And the moment they were freed, they stopped fighting. and ran. and got slaughtered.

While we're at it, let's think about something. Does chasing after and killing enemies who have thrown down their weapons strike you as a particularly noble thing to do? Does that somehow not violate the rules of decent behavior? As far as I'm concerned, it does. And so here you have Aragorn leading the noble Gondolindrim and Rohirrim in the mass murder of people who no longer pose any threat. That's the kind of thing that you would expect orcs to do, isn't it?

i think you should re-read that chapter Wayfarer. when the orcs fled the army of the west just stood there, they only fought the southrons and easterlings that still attacked.

But Gandalf lifted up his arms and called once more in a clear voice: 'Stand, Men of the West! Stand and wait! This is the hour of doom.' ... The Captains bowed their heads; and when they looked up again, behold! their enemies were flying and the power of Mordor was scattering like dust in the wind.... the creatures of Sauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope. But the Men of Rhun and of Harad, Easterling and Southron, saw the ruin of their war and the great majesty and glory of the Captains of the West. And those that were deepest and longest in evil servitude, hating the West, and yet were men proud and bold, in their turn now gathered themselves for a last stand of desperate battle. But the most part fled eastward as they could and some cast their weapons down and sued for mercy.

cleary the orcs did not throw down their weapons and surrender, they killed themselves or ran for it. Aragorn's army only fought the men that still continued to fight them, he pardoned the ones that surrendered:

And the King pardoned the Easterlings that had given themselves up, and sent them away free, and he made peace with the peoples of Harad; and the slaves of Mordor he released and gave to them all the lands about Lake Nurnen to be their own.

Does that strike you as a noble thing to do? As far as I'm concerned it is. It doesn't sound like Gondor is trying to conquer all these lands when they are giving large tracts of lands away free. Especially when in the appendices almost every war Gondor was involved in was for defence.

Also just one more little thing: Aragorn wasn't leading any Gondolindrim, there were no Gondolindrim in the battle.

Anyway I suggest next time you are going to make accusations like that, you have some textual references.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Elemmire

On a somewhat more contraversial note, I've agreed with Wayfarer throughout this thread.

No you haven't!

Originally Posted by Manveru

i think you should re-read that chapter Wayfarer. when the orcs fled the army of the west just stood there, they only fought the southrons and easterlings that still attacked.

*peers* That's what I said. The orcs ran away while the Men of Darkness pushed the attack - who's more evil, then? Psshh.

Originally Posted by Manveru

Cleary the orcs did not throw down their weapons and surrender, they killed themselves or ran for it. Aragorn's army only fought the men that still continued to fight them, he pardoned the ones that surrendered.

And why would the Orcs ever be expected to surrender? The chances of them getting a pardon is pretty slim.

Originally Posted by Manveru

Does that strike you as a noble thing to do? As far as I'm concerned it is. It doesn't sound like Gondor is trying to conquer all these lands when they are giving large tracts of lands away free. Especially when in the appendices almost every war Gondor was involved in was for defence.

Somebody doesn't know much about how Feudalism works. What Aragorn did was conquest. The freed slaves in Mordor (The human slaves, mind you, the demihumans got no such consideration) became the subjects of Gondor. Aragorn the spent the rest of his reign 'quelling unrest' in the east and south - which is really just political jargon for killing anyone who opposes you.

Why is it that when Orcs do something, it's unforgivable, but when humans do the same thing, it's considered noble (or 'Tragic)? One word: Prejudice.

[Manveru]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

No you haven't!

*peers* That's what I said. The orcs ran away while the Men of Darkness pushed the attack - who's more evil, then? Psshh.

And why would the Orcs ever be expected to surrender? The chances of them getting a pardon is pretty slim.

Somebody doesn't know much about how Feudalism works. What Aragorn did was conquest. The freed slaves in Mordor (The human slaves, mind you, the demihumans got no such consideration) became the subjects of Gondor. Aragorn the spent the rest of his reign 'quelling unrest' in the east and south - which is really just political jargon for killing anyone who opposes you.

Why is it that when Orcs do something, it's unforgivable, but when humans do the same thing, it's considered noble (or 'Tragic)? One word: Prejudice.

Aragorn was defending Gondor from the conquest of Sauron. He didn't even kill Sauron. All he did was defend a great city from a large attack and then go ask for the lands Sauron stole from Gondor back. It was Gollum that caused the end of Sauron. Then Aragorn found himself in a position where he had to decide what to do with all of the land and slaves etc. And did he claim it all as Gondorian land and make himself their dictator? No, he gave the slaves of Mordor the land of their master to rule themselves. The demi-humans got no such consideration because they all killed themselves or ran away. Name one example of when some orcs surrendered in a battle and were killed. There is no way we could know if they would be pardoned because they never tried. when did orcs ever let anyone go who surrendered? when did they ever show mercy? even among eachother? when sam is listening in on the conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat we learn a little bit about how 'noble' orcs really are

'Garn!' said Shagrat. 'She's got more than one poison. When she's hunting, she just gives 'em a dab in the neck and they go as limp as a boned fish, and then she has her way with them. D'you remember old Ufthak? We lost him for days. Then we found him in a corner; hanging up he was, but he was wide awake and glaring. How we laughed! She'd forgotten him, maybe, but we didn't touch him."

as you can see when their comrade was in trouble and they were easily capable of saving his life, not only did the orcs not help him, they laughed, and they show no remorse about it. Gorbag, who probably knew Ufthak, doesn't even show any signs of being sad that he's dead. I'm not saying that every orc is fully evil or that all men are good but generally the orcs are inherently evil. they were made to be evil. if they werent evil neither Sauron nor Morgoth would've used them as their main source of infantry, they would've found/made something else

[Forkbeard]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Yeah? You wanna re-read LOTR again? Something about a ring? Something about stealing a certain hobbits stuff? Contrary to orders?

Huh? Where are you getting this stuff from? The only one who attempted to take hobbits' stuff is Grishnakh, and his superior is the Nazgul on the River--so there were no orders there about not taking hobbit's stuff.

The only other instance I can think of is Shagrat and Gorbag....Gorbag tried to "pinch" the mail shirt and Shagrat had his orders that all the hobbits stuff was to go to Lugburz. But those were Shagrat's orders, not Gorbag's. I realize that that is a technicality, but surely this is just how Gorbag justified his actions.

This isn't to say that the orcs are just brain dead automatons obeying their masters' every whim, they aren't. But....

[Elemmírë]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

No you haven't!

Last time this thread has been touched until now was over a year ago. I can say now that your arguments have been perfectly plausable, IMO.

I'm very sorry, but your not on your own against the world today. If you'd prefer, I'll consider taking myself back to the MotS thread and leave you to fight this alone...

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

And why would the Orcs ever be expected to surrender? The chances of them getting a pardon is pretty slim.

Originally Posted by Manveru

There is no way we could know if they would be pardoned because they never tried. when did orcs ever let anyone go who surrendered? when did they ever show mercy?

Anyone have Unfinished Tales or some of the HoME volumes on them? I don't at the moment, but I remember something pertaining to this being in one of them. A section discussing the possibilities of redemption among orcs, and the order (I'm assuming it was from the Valar) that orcs were not to be slain by the Elves if they surrendered. Not that the Noldor have much experience with obeying the orders of the Valar or anything...

I'll have to look for this over Winter Break, if someone can't find it first.

But why would the Orcs expect pardon? This I can quote:

Something nearly slipped, you say. I say, something has slipped. And we've got to look out. Always the poor Uruks to put slips right, and small thanks. But don't forget: the enemies don't love us any more than they love Him, and if they get topsides on Him, we're done too.

You try surrendering to your mortal enemy with that type of mindset.

Originally Posted by Forkbeard

Huh? Where are you getting this stuff from? The only one who attempted to take hobbits' stuff is Grishnakh, and his superior is the Nazgul on the River--so there were no orders there about not taking hobbit's stuff.

I'm pretty certain that Grishnákh was interested in taking it for himself, not handing it over to the Nazgul.

Why is it that when Orcs do something, it's unforgivable, but when humans do the same thing, it's considered noble (or 'Tragic)? One word: Prejudice.

It's point of view too. It sure isn't the orcs writing these histories... now that could be an interesting book.

And... dare I say it , propaganda.

[Attalus]

Wayfarer is right; orcs are not irredeemable. That is not to say that they were not guilty of crimes individual and collective and were not supposed to be punished. I will not go so far as to fault the Men of the West who continuied to kill Orcs and Trolls after Sauron shook his will loose from them. It was a battle. How did they (the Men of the West) know that the Orcs and Trolls were not just retreating to attack again? How about Celebrian's "torment in the dens of the orcs," Wayfarer? Not that humans are incapable of that kind of behavior. I feel like that the Orcs should have been treated like the SS troops were at the end of WWII, but there was nowhere near the court and justice system available to do that kind of thing. I beleive that the orcs, being more or less incapable of peaceful behavior like farming, took to banditry and were eventually either suppressed or, as Wayfarer suggested, gradually melted back into the general human population. As to JRRT's attitude toward the Orcs, he was all over the map, and I am far from accepting his last assessment as the conclusive one. He might have changed his mind again, had he lived longer.

[Blackheart]

The only thing of interest I have to add to this thread is:

What's wrong with a little cannibalism now and then?