Good Orcs?

Discussions in Middle-earth lore, languages and books.
Post Reply
Forester of Lothlorien
Points: 152 
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 8:37 am
I suppose i'm going with the whole nature nurture debate here, but can an orc be good? Are they ever able to take a redemptive path or are they inevitable evil? For example if baby orcs do exist if we stole one and planted the baby in say Rivendell would the orc grow up to be good? :smiley16:

Of course there is evidence across the books that suggest that Orcs are cross breeds/genetically engineered elves/men with animals, which does help explain why they come in different shapes and sizes. The majority of them are slaves to Sauron and do his bidding, with him gone would they continue to do evil acts or not?

Winddancer
Winddancer
Points: 1 956 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 11:22 am
I wouldn't think so, I think the evil was so inbred that they could never be good.

Wickedness and violence were their nature, and it was not uncommon for them to kill each other in petty quarrels - The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King, Book Six, Ch. II: "The Land of Shadow"

Istari Savant
Points: 195 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 10:45 pm
I don't think we know of any "good" Orcs. Tolkien does address this in two places that I know of - a Letter, and in HoMe X: Morgoth's Ring, Myths Transformed. In the letter he describes Orcs as naturally bad, but not irredeemably evil (which I interpret as talking more philosophically, not in that Orcs will become upstanding members of society).

In Morgoth's Ring, Tolkien describes Orcs as having a natural proclivity to infighting and cruelty. After Melkor fell and when Sauron wasn't around, the Orcs set up their own little domains (e.g., as we see in The Hobbit). Would we call them "evil"? I'm not sure that we see enough to really say (other than their use of poison, which at least the Elves saw as pretty vile). They had a functioning society, but I'd envision it as relatively more violent than any of us would be keen on being a part of, and they weren't exactly friendly neighbors.

Winddancer
Winddancer
Points: 1 956 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 11:22 am
You can have a functioning society of evil people though. They just have to fear the leader enough to comply. And that is how I see their societies running, on fear.

Istari Savant
Points: 195 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 10:45 pm
Yep, fully agree. I'm not saying that the Orcs aren't evil, just that I'm not sure we see enough of them to make a strong affirmative identification that they are. It depends on precisely what one wants to convey when they say "Evil." Tolkien calls them "naturally bad", but that may or may not be the same as "naturally evil."

Winddancer
Winddancer
Points: 1 956 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 11:22 am
But can a naturally bad orc be good? I still think it is something that is bred into them, rather than it being learned (which it of course is too)

Orc
Points: 158 
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed May 27, 2020 8:35 pm
Tolkien is pretty insistent on anything that is a rational, incarnate being being redeemable. If you're dealing with one of the proposed origins of Orcs where Orcs count as people, they have to be able to be redeemed, though Tolkien writes that they may be too far gone for that redemption to be facilitated by Men or Elves.

Istari Savant
Points: 195 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 10:45 pm
Ahh, we might be talking past each other. I'm also not suggesting the Orcs would be good. I'm allowing the possibility of three states: Good, Bad, Evil.

Istari Sage
Points: 1 886 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 3:10 pm
Definition of the terms under question would seem to be pretty important... :?

Might be easiest to use Tolkien's rather than our own, so that there's an agreed upon outside standard, instead of trying to reconcile everyone's personal ideas on the matter. If only for the sake of conversation.

Istari Savant
Points: 195 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 10:45 pm
Yeah, I flipped through Letters quick but didn't see anything that I thought quite fit the bill. Do you recall if there's somewhere Tolkien expands on that a bit more?

Winddancer
Winddancer
Points: 1 956 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 11:22 am
The letter #153 at the end seems to brooch the topic, though someone more learned than me should prolly surmise whether it is in favour of "good" rather than "evil" :P

Warden of Keys
Points: 1 519 
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 3:09 am
As mentioned, there are a few places where Tolkien brings up the topic of orcs and redemption. It is hard to see those statements about orcs being redeemable with what we "know" about them from books. As Turin says, we don't get an opportunity to see their society or culture outside being warm bodies to fill dark lords' armies.

As Tolkien writes in a letter about orc women though, believing that there has to be orc women, we just don't see any of them as this is a story set in war. If we believe there has to be orc women, then there has to be some sort of orc society with their own set of values. Perhaps twisted and evil values, but values that have a chance to progress into something better if given the chance to develop.

Tolkien also states that he doesn't believe in 'absolute evil' that even Sauron was capable of redemption for he still held some form of 'positive purposes.' Those 'positive' purposes were order and co-ordination.

Some things we do encounter with orcs is they understand parley:

'Get down or we will shoot you from the wall,' they cried. 'This is no parley. You have nothing to say.' The Two Towers: Helm's Deep

Although, those were Saruman's Uruk-hai and doubtful they were in anyway going to seriously parley. They do understand the idea and didn't just shoot down Aragorn on sight.

On the goblins in The Hobbit:

Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted. They make no beautiful things, but they do make many clever ones. They can tunnel and mine as well as any but the most skilled dwarves, when they take the trouble, though they are usually untidy and dirty. Hammers, axes, swords, daggers, pickaxes, tongs, and also instruments of torture, they make very well, or get other people to make to their design, prisoners and slaves that have to work till they die for want of air and light. It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them, and also not working with their their own hands more than they could help; but in those days and those wild parts they had not advanced (as it is called) so far. They did not hate dwarves especially, no more than they hated everybody and everything, and particularly the orderly and prosperous; in some parts wicked dwarves had even made alliances with them... Over Hill and Under Hill

A couple things here. Clearly they don't exhibit what we would define as good values. Cruel, wicked, bad-hearted, like torture and explosions. It is interesting that these goblins in the Misty Mountains is said do not like "the orderly and prosperous" because one of Sauron's best values is Order. (Although, if I recall, it may be in The Lord of the Rings, but mentions that Sauron had to keep his orcs in a near perpetual state of war or the orcs would start fighting each other).

However here, Goblins have slaves and take prisoners, and make alliances with "wicked dwarves.' So, I think where Turin was going in his posts, is these are in no way "good orcs," but they do exhibit the slightest bit of having certain societal values. They don't kill indiscriminately. They'll capture priosoners and take slaves, and even make alliances with other races.

Winddancer
Winddancer
Points: 1 956 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 11:22 am
Btw, Rochindil.. I am watching you.. no stealing baby orcs!

Warden of Keys
Points: 1 519 
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 3:09 am
Windancer:

The letter #153 at the end seems to brooch the topic, though someone more learned than me should prolly surmise whether it is in favour of "good" rather than "evil"

The Letter itself I think would favor the "good" in terms of orcs redemption. I think it's the one place where Tolkien does leave open a possibility of redemption:

They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.) But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodellings and corrupting them, not making them.

The snag with this letter is Tolkien never sends it. At the end of the Letter is the note "Not sent. It seemed to be taking myself too importantly.'

The letter was meant for his friend, and manager of a Catholic book-store, Peter Hastings. Mr. Hastings wrote wondering if Tolkien overstepped, because he believed evil was incapable of creating anything. And argued that if evil could create, then their creations 'could not have a tendency to do good.' He mentioned Treebeard's statements about Dark Lord creating orcs and trolls. And said that William seemed to have pity towards Bilbo as examples towards his point.

It's a little tricky to use this letter, because Tolkien never sends it. So what does that reveal when trying to apply Tolkien's intentions with orcs in his canon? His reflections in letters afterwards are interesting, but can confuse things. Just my opinion on this topic, but Tolkien specifically writes he "nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad,' but that would be going too far.". To me, even if he did not send it, I accept his intentions. At least, I haven't found anything to suggest in The Silmarillion/Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit where Tolkien called the Orcs "irredeemably bad." So, I accept the statement in the letter at face value, when he says he nearly did/could have, but did not for a reason.

On the other hand, without this letter, I'm not sure there would be anyone questioning/asking if orcs could become good.

Winddancer
Winddancer
Points: 1 956 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 11:22 am
Well one thing we do know, is that no orc ever was good in any of the books. And no human, elf, or dwarf tried to sway them towards the good rather than evil.

So it never happened, but could "possibly" happen, I can live with, as there are SO many things that could "possibly" happen in ME as Tolkien did not set up rules and regulations for every single thing he wrote :P

Warden of Keys
Points: 1 519 
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri May 29, 2020 3:09 am
Winddancer: And no human, elf, or dwarf tried to sway them towards the good rather than evil.

True, but don't you question why they weren't even given the chance? I mean the human, elf, and dwarf response to any orc is pretty much wipe them out. It's an immediate, hateful, no quarter response. I know Elladan and Elrohir have justified reasons for hating orcs, but their mission after Celebrian's torture is to travel with the Dunedain and Aragorn, hone their orc-killing skills and find the best methods. It's inhumane! :smiley9:

Then after Sauron's destruction. The orcs under his power, all mindlessly flee and run away like ants losing their queen. Of course the wicked men are given surrender and offered terms, but not the orcs. :smiley13:

Weathered Ent
Points: 359 
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 8:51 pm
Orcs seems exhibit things that Tolkien himself despised also. Explosions, machinery, polluting of the earth, instruments meant to kill and torture and things that kill people in large numbers. I generally except after reading the books that Orcs are just bad.

Istari Sage
Points: 1 886 
Posts: 1046
Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 3:10 pm
I know Tolkien did not think of his stories as fables, but this has a very Aesop-fable-esque feel about it. What I mean is that in fables you can infer a great deal about a character solely by the type of animal they are, things like:

Sheep = naive, helpless
fox = deceiver
lion = proud, royal
etc etc.

I think the same can be said for many of Tolkien's races. While there are exceptions, generally you can make some broad statements about Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits, etc. Orcs you can generally stereotype by the Hobbit quotation given above. It would be dangerous to your own health to do otherwise. :)

Winddancer
Winddancer
Points: 1 956 
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 11:22 am
Boromir88 wrote: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:39 am Winddancer: And no human, elf, or dwarf tried to sway them towards the good rather than evil.

True, but don't you question why they weren't even given the chance? I mean the human, elf, and dwarf response to any orc is pretty much wipe them out. It's an immediate, hateful, no quarter response. I know Elladan and Elrohir have justified reasons for hating orcs, but their mission after Celebrian's torture is to travel with the Dunedain and Aragorn, hone their orc-killing skills and find the best methods. It's inhumane! :smiley9:

Then after Sauron's destruction. The orcs under his power, all mindlessly flee and run away like ants losing their queen. Of course the wicked men are given surrender and offered terms, but not the orcs. :smiley13:
I think that they never tried, says it was something that even they thought was impossible. That the orcs were inherently evil and it served no purpose to try and negotiate with them. Afterall they have the evil of Melkor flowing in their veins! :D

Post Reply