Are Orcs Evil?

[Evie]

We see their armor in the films, picturing Peter Jackson's orcs. Not Tolkien's orcs. The text of The Hobbit is explicit that they are inventive in the creation of devices.

 

[Joij21]

The text of The Hobbit is explicit that they are inventive in the creation of devices.

Could they perhaps have a creativity algorithm? Or perhaps they are given only a slight amount of autonomy by their masters where it is deemed useful?

 

[Evie]

One, the Goblins of the Hobbit don't have a master at that point in time. They merely serve leaders from among their own. But this could be the "giving them a little autonomy" idea you suggest.

Two, the orcs of the two towers (Cirith Ungol) wants to leave the service of the Dark Tower to set up with a gang of their own in the mountain. Which does not seem productive in an algorithm designed to serve the Dark Tower. Nor a useful form of autonomy.

Orcs may be soulless. They certainy are, as portrayed by Tolkien, evil (though some of the texts in the Silm imply, likely unintentionally, that this may not be universal). But mindless is not a suitable book-based characterization. It's more the clichés post-Tolkien writers and fans created from a superficial reading of his work.

 

[Lexicus]

One, the Goblins of the Hobbit don't have a master at that point in time. They merely serve leaders from among their own. But this could be the "giving them a little autonomy" idea you suggest.

Two, the orcs of the two towers (Cirith Ungol) wants to leave the service of the Dark Tower to set up with a gang of their own in the mountain. Which does not seem productive in an algorithm designed to serve the Dark Tower. Nor a useful form of autonomy.

Orcs may be soulless. They certainy are, as portrayed by Tolkien, evil (though some of the texts in the Silm imply, likely unintentionally, that this may not be universal). But mindless is not a suitable book-based characterization. It's more the clichés post-Tolkien writers and fans created from a superficial reading of his work.

OTOH it's outright stated in the Silmarillion that Melkor's strength was dissipated in the governing of his servants and the various creatures he created in imitation of the children of Illuvatar, that because Melkor lacked the Sacred Fire his creations had no life of their own, and it's also implied that Sauron exerts a degree of remote control over some of his servants, insofar as when Frodo put on the ring at Mt. Doom and his attention was pulled there, a lot of his servants started running around like idiots at the Black Gate.

 

[Evie]

On the other other hand, the Simarillion tells us the orcs were not created by Morgoth but elves corrupted by torture. Which is only one of many explanations Tolkien considered, others being found in other texts.

The remote influence is definitely a thing; but the same sentence clarifies that ALL the hosts of Mordor feel the loss of that driving power. This would include assorted Easterlings and Southrons, which is to say, men. They were less affected than Orcs by the fall of Sauron a little later (which stands to reason: orcs have been under that powe muuuuuch longer), but even so many of them had the same reaction as many of the orcs, which is to say throw down their weapons and run.

 

[Joij21]

Two, the orcs of the two towers (Cirith Ungol) wants to leave the service of the Dark Tower to set up with a gang of their own in the mountain. Which does not seem productive in an algorithm designed to serve the Dark Tower. Nor a useful form of autonomy.

Yet that doesn't make them not evil or somehow redeemed. They were going to form a gang most likely so they could pillage, kill, etc. Just without Sauron of course. This programming might be something more akin to an instinct that causes one to always choose the morally incorrect thing in every decision.

Orcs may be soulless. They certainy are, as portrayed by Tolkien, evil

Soulless = Evil. Tolkien never wrote any story of an orc redemption arc like ever. They were always portrayed as evil, as though something within the moral faculties of their brains was clearly wrong and/or corrupted. If something is wrong with the brain of a being that causes them to ALWAYS commit evil acts, then that is essentially a form of mindlessness.

The remote influence is definitely a thing; but the same sentence clarifies that ALL the hosts of Mordor feel the loss of that driving power. This would include assorted Easterlings and Southrons, which is to say, men. They were less affected than Orcs by the fall of Sauron a little later (which stands to reason: orcs have been under that powe muuuuuch longer), but even so many of them had the same reaction as many of the orcs, which is to say throw down their weapons and run.

Yet the fact that they were more severely impacted by this remote influence proves that something is different about the orcs. Humans can also commit evil, just not everyone, and usually not all the time. But personally to me, the only reason the orcs are so susceptible (more so than the humans) to this is that they ONLY know evil and cannot do anything else. Hence why they're so susceptible to the possession and corrupting influence of a literal demon lord.

 

[Evie]

I never said they weren't evil, in fact I explicitly said the opposite.

It's "mindless" I questioned. And I utterly disagree with our definition of mindlessness that sas anthing so evil it can only do evil is mindless. Morality and Intelligence are separate concept, and we gsin nothing by gauging one on the basis of the other.

 

[Patine]

Huffpost today has an article on racism in high fantasy, esp. Dungeons & Dragons.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dungeons-and-dragons-diversity-evil-races_n_5ef3b7cac5b643f5b22eb22a

Exerpt:
Being brought up in a world of white privilege, I blithely skipped over all of this. I accepted that in fantasies elves are good, and orcs are bad. My first two novels are a bit better, being set in a multi-racial city. Still my craftsmen are gnomes, my elves are musical & beautiful, my orcs are irritable, etc.

It wasn't until I introduced my drows that I realized something was terribly wrong. Drows are black skinned, evil, subterranean elves. In real life, black skins are because of melanin which protects skin against the sun's rays. Subterranean creatures should be white, not black. Making drows black is racist, no doubt about it. Thus my evil elves are albinos.

The Huffpost article and the planned direction of D&D contends that someone's morals and abilities should not be based upon the race into which they are born. If so, how will this change fantasies?

Tolkien and Gygax's view of Orcs definitely saw them as evil and irredeemable, one and all, but World of Warcaft, though being on the opposite "side" of an on-again-off military conflict (sometimes even allying against extestential threats to the whole fantasy world) from Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, etc. are portrayed as sympathetic, if having a cultural lean to a brutish, clannish, and violent culture, and can be played by players. They're role is in the world and storylines is closer to Star Trek Klingons.

 

[Joij21]

Morality and Intelligence are separate concept, and we gsin nothing by gauging one on the basis of the other.

I disagree. There are times were being evil for the sake of evil leads to a loss of strategy. Especially so concerning politics or the wellbeing of one's clan. It's not very intelligent to deliberately do evil things only to piss off your neighbors and have everyone up in arms against you. With that many enemies you could not possibly defeat them all and soon you'll be facing extinction. Hence natural selection's way of eliminating hyperaggression.

That's not to say evil is not useful, but often times good can make a better strategy (even if only feigning good) when dealing with your neighbors. Which is why humans are a little of both, for the sake of adaptability. As a matter of fact, this probably explains why orcs go into a literal decline after the third age, and possible extinction. The fourth age (called the age of man) basically happens because the humans are far more adaptable, and everyone probably just killed off what remained of the orcs for being evil all the time.

 

[Evie]

Ah, yes, because what story isn't improved by throwing in heroes committing genocide?

Beyond that, one can be evil yet pragmatic - committing evil because it serves your long-term ends, not for the heck of it - , and we have very little evidence that orcs are incapable of this. They're cruel and violent, but that doesn't mean they're going to chose to harm others at the expanse of their own interests. In fact, we have some evidence that they will put their own interests ahead of harming others just for the sake of harming others, and even their own interest ahead of those of their Evil Overlords.

Across the length and breadth of the saga, when do we see orcs acting for themselves commit acts of reckless, gratuitous evil? Most of their actions (chasing intruders within their own realms, chasing the people who just murdered their king or their comrades, attempting to discourage humans and dwarven settlement in what they consider their territory, laying claim to a strategic stronghold and its immence stores in the wake of a power vacuum) are pragmatic moves, and there's little or no gratuitous evil. Sure, they engage in all the usual fun associated with pillaging, but so did historical humans until very recent times (and unofficially, it still happens), and they engage in banditry and raiding (which is usually a pretty pragmatic form of evil: the point is to get the things you don't have and need), but they don't do much that warrant being called gratuitous.There's nothing stupid or gratuitous about their evil. It's quite pragmatic.

The partial exception is the evil acts they commit upon the orders of assorted evil overlords. But we just establishd they did so under magical influence if not control.

 

[Joij21]

Across the length and breadth of the saga, when do we see orcs acting for themselves commit acts of reckless, gratuitous evil?

I mean they could have just had the moldy bread. It's not like they're pure carnivores because clearly it was sustaining them for the majority of the march. Yet the orc who chose to fight the orc commander just proves their mindless need to commit violence when it's totally disadvantageous. Just look at what happened to him!

Again he didn't have to kill himself. Also the debris from the explosion killed many of his own comrades. Now sure humans have done this before, but surely this doesn't look promising.

 

[Evie]

Again: These are Peter Jackson's orcs, not Tolkien's orcs. Not a diss against Jacksonks, whose movie adaptation I love, but it is a different version of the story, and universe, as told by a different creator with his own vision. It is not a valid source in discussions of the nature of Tolkien's vision.

Refer to what Tolkien wrote, or don't pretend you're discussing Tolkien's orcs.

(Tolkien's orcs aren't cannibals, for one thing - they canonicaly view it badly enough to use it as a slur against their enemies. And for another, sacrificing some troops to undermine the enemy fortifications is...hell-o, have you ever read anything at all on the history of warfare?)

 

[Patine]

I mean they could have just had the moldy bread. It's not like they're pure carnivores because clearly it was sustaining them for the majority of the march. Yet the orc who chose to fight the orc commander just proves their mindless need to commit violence when it's totally disadvantageous. Just look at what happened to him!

Again he didn't have to kill himself. Also the debris from the explosion killed many of his own comrades. Now sure humans have done this before, but surely this doesn't look promising.

Again: These are Peter Jackson's orcs, not Tolkien's orcs. Not a diss against Jacksonks, whose movie adaptation I love, but it is a different version of the story, and universe, as told by a different creator with his own vision. It is not a valid source in discussions of the nature of Tolkien's vision.

Refer to what Tolkien wrote, or don't pretend you're discussing Tolkien's orcs.

(Tolkien's orcs aren't cannibals, for one thing - they canonicaly view it badly enough to use it as a slur against their enemies. And for another, sacrificing some troops to undermine the enemy fortifications is...hell-o, have you ever read anything at all on the history of warfare?)

Christopher Tolkien, the son (and, until his very recent death, the holder of the intellectual property of) J.R.R. Tolkien said specifically that only the WRITTEN works of his FATHER in his father's WORDS (or approved translations into other languages) are CANON. Everything else (except outright pladgerism) is "pandering to the raucus masses of fans," or something to that extent.

 

[Evie]

Yes, well, Christopher Tolkien...I shan't speak ill of the dead, and I certainly agree with him that only his father's words are representative of his father's views (so the movies are not a valid source on the nature of Tolkien's orcs...)

But CT's dismissive attitude toward the very notion ofadaptations as a thing with value in its own right (though separate from the canon) is at once intelectually indefensible, at at odds with the views expressed by his father (who had a grasp of how legends form snd grow through retelling) himself.

 

[Joij21]

The question that this thread asks is "are orcs evil?". According to the vast majority of their portrayal in popular media (with a few notable exceptions) they are indeed evil. I would even go further as to say the vast majority of how they are portrayed from other sources makes them out to be mindless as well. Now since the question is generic and vague, I come to these conclusions based on what is the most popular depiction of them within popular fantasy. This depiction therefore allows me to conclude that yes they are evil, but also mindless.

Since Tolkien is the father of the modern orc, and by making them evil, the very human nature of later authors, developers, screen writers, etc. put very little effort in equating such evil with mindlessness. It is human nature after all to associate beings who constantly commit evil acts to pure mindlessness, especially when little thought is concerned between the two.

 

[Evie]

That's a fairly uncritical answer, making generic assumption with very little effort that combine and confuse a wide variety of extremely different portrayals and lob them under the same label, despite the obvious differences between them (even Lord of the Rings Book Orcs and Lord of the Rings Movies Orcs are noticeably different, for crying out loud).

One might also point out that it seems that your answer is deeply stuck in the past, attached to older representation and ignoring countless more recent representation such as are found in the Warcraft (ever-so-slightly noticeable) or Elder Scrolls Universe. Even Dungeons and Dragons is showing signs of evolving away from the Always Chaotic Evil Orcs and developing a rational culture that, while it prizes aggression and strength, cannot be fairly described as evil (at least no more than a vast array of human cultures). And literature has long since questioned the notion of orcs (or ANY race) as the evil race.

As I noted in my first post in this thread - the very first one! - we stand on the shoulders of giant so we can reach higher than them. Not so we can mindlessly copy their work. Tolkien's orcs are Tolkien's orcs, and not binding on the rest of us.

Ultimately, orcs are imaginary beings. What they are, or are not, is left to the imagination of the individual creators. How they chose to imagine orcs, and whether they remember to be aware of the implications of the things they imagine (Tolkien certainly spent years agonizing over the question of orcs, evil and free will because of the implications), says more about them than about the orcs.

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

But CT's dismissive attitude toward the very notion ofadaptations as a thing with value in its own right (though separate from the canon) is at once intelectually indefensible, at at odds with the views expressed by his father (who had a grasp of how legends form snd grow through retelling) himself.

Let's not forget, this was endorsed by the Tolkien estate.

That's a fairly uncritical answer, making generic assumption with very little effort that combine and confuse a wide variety of extremely different portrayals and lob them under the same label, despite the obvious differences between them (even Lord of the Rings Book Orcs and Lord of the Rings Movies Orcs are noticeably different, for crying out loud).

One might also point out that it seems that your answer is deeply stuck in the past, attached to older representation and ignoring countless more recent representation such as are found in the Warcraft (ever-so-slightly noticeable) or Elder Scrolls Universe. ...

Honestly, I've seen Joij21 in OT and you're not gonna get much more out of this conversation. He's one of the "Decide, Announce, Defend" types, and given he's basing his argument in rigid moral determinism, I doubt he's here to change his mind.

 

[Patine]

Let's not forget, this was endorsed by the Tolkien estate.

I am interested to know what, "this," is, but, as I've said before, unless it's an official music video, I don't click video links on the Internet. Do you have a text analog?

 

[Joij21]

Honestly, I've seen Joij21 in OT and you're not gonna get much more out of this conversation. He's one of the "Decide, Announce, Defend" types, and given he's basing his argument in rigid moral determinism, I doubt he's here to change his mind.

Dude, fantasy literally allows for moral determinism to be an actual thing. There's gods and magic, and the rules of physics and basic psychology don't have to exist. If someone writes a god into a story and that god makes claims to what's absolutely right and wrong, then it is so (if the author wishes). If they don't then they don't, such is the power of fiction.

 

[Evie]

I mean, that's a bit of lazy writing, and a blatant violation of show, don't tell. If you can't convey to your readers that someone is evil through their actions on the page, then having a superior moral authority show up and say it is that way is a feeble cop-out, and a failure on your part.

Which incidentally Tolkien did not do. Most of the observations we have on evil in the book comes from Elves, who are notoriously (by their own admission) failible. Still, it's interesting to note that just about the most direct quote we have on the topic of evil (from Elrond) goes like this:

"For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so."

(Emphasis mine. Sounds like Tolkien disliked moral determinism about as much as anyone in this thread who isn't you.).