Thoughts on the OOTS goblin predicament

[Jasdoif]

I can't recall a single instance of a goblin non-combattant appearing on page, to be honest.

But those burgers!

[Ruck]

Right, which is exactly the issue. It didn't happen on purpose, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Hmm, that sounds familiar.

[Ionathus]

Well, those cosmetic differences plus the fact that they were irrevocably corrupted and twisted into hateful and evil creatures by their creator.

Every orc encountered in the books is an adult male warrior in service to either Sauron, Sauruman, or the Great Goblin. That's why all the orcs they encounter are always bloodthirsty enemies. No non-combatant orc is ever encountered because the protagonists never go somewhere where they might have encountered one. There likely were female and child goblins somewhere in the goblin settlement in the Misty Mountains, but Thorin and Company never went into the living spaces of the goblins.
Aragorn did make an attempt to parlay with the Uruk-hai at Helm's Deep. It didn't get very far.

All the orcs in the Lord of the Rings are soldiers in a war, of course they're trying to attack the Fellowship, that's what they were ordered to do. Also Sauron is exerting some kind of mind control on his armies to make them more fighty. And finally Thorin actually attempts to parley with the Great Goblin, who in turn attempts to frame the dwarves as thieves and spies, implying that non-violent orc-dwarf relations happened in the past even if only rarely.

Don't get me wrong, the orcs' relationship with evil and the other people's treatment of them is hands down the most questionnable part of his mythos, but it's not as bad as other examples.

If only because the Professor himself recognized it was iffy (for the religious reasons, yes, but still) and tried to side-step the issue.

The in-story reasons don't really matter to my point. The orcs & goblins are universally evil because Tolkien wrote some lore and created a war narrative that made them universally evil. It was a storytelling choice he made, and I don't like it.

I know I talk about the Bechdel test all the time in these threads, but that's because it continues to be relevant. Some movies might have a good reason to not pass the Bechdel test, but at the end of the day they still don't. Tolkien is not a horrible person for writing Humans Who Look Different and ascribing a universal morality to them, but he is one of a large list of fantasy authors who did, and we need to be aware of that trend.

[Jason]

His ideas which we can't discuss on this board imply that , for him, "neutral" was not an alignment that can apply to intelligent creatures. Animals, yes. But at the end of the day you're either bending the knee to the Dark Lord or resisting him. Considering what was happening in the real world at the time the books were being written, it's easy to see why he would consider "neutrality" to be a cowardly cop-out when facing off with a near-omnipotent Dark Dictator supported by massive armies, out to destroy everything the protagonists know and love.

Ah, I see what you mean. You mean he would have not considered it a valid personal lifestyle choice, ultimately; not that he would not have thought people could not act as if they had a neutral alignment or that he never wrote about characters who acted more or less neutral.
Tom Bombadil is a good example of a character who won't directly help in the fight against Sauron and of whom Gandalf says, pretty much "he'll be able to do that only as long as others are willing to step forward and fight Sauron."

To get back to the topic, Tolkien's orcs are not "just like humans except for cosmetic features" and therefore it isn't racism to treat them as if they aren't humans. Plus the orcs he shows are always not just bad by reputation, they're all actively engaged in various nastiness, usually on behalf of the dark lord they owe service to, occasionally in service to themselves.
Admittedly not everyone who tried to follow Tolkien's footsteps was as careful as this. That still doesn't mean racism is widespread in fantasy fiction, especially not in what I would consider good fantasy fiction. And while racism may be widespread in actual RPGs played, I don't think it's very common in published RPG adventures or settings by the larger companies like WOTC. When TSR included non-combatant goblins or orcs it was to present a moral dilemma to the players, not to include extra targets.

[Fyraltari]

But those burgers!

?

To get back to the topic, Tolkien's orcs are not "just like humans except for cosmetic features"

Yes, they very much are.

[pendell]

Part of the reason for Tolkien's choices is the way he treats Evil in his works. Evil, unlike Good, enslaves its followers. It locks them out of any solutions save the evil path. Frodo, if he had been slain with a morgul-blade, would have become a slave of evil. The ringwraiths themselves were slaves to the Ring. Sauron was the slave of Morgoth's will and legacy. It's slaves all the way up and all the way down. While there are willing servants of evil, such as the Mouth of Sauron, there are far more slaves. And Sauron trusts slaves bound to his will far more than free servants. Which is why he sent the Nine out to pursue the Ring.

It's the same with the orcs. In Tolkien's world, the ancestors of the orcs were enslaved to evil, and that mark is still borne by their descendants centuries later, just as a legacy of child abuse can follow down family lines, turning the children of abusers into abusers themselves.

Looked at that way, it is both perfectly understandable why orcs should be viewed with pity (by those sufficiently distant to be afforded the luxury) and should also be treated with utmost caution. It's not their fault that they are slaves of evil, but slaves they are nevertheless, and they cannot safely be treated otherwise. The power to set them free from this curse of slavery to evil was apparently not available in the time of the War of the Ring, but one can hope for the future. After all, from Tolkien's view it is not only orcs bound to evil. And if the power that could free other creatures freed orcs as well, that would not be even slightly surprising.

I think that is why Gandalf counselled pity for Gollum, and would have counselled mercy for evil goblins as well; because though they be evil now, and their redemption is beyond his abilities, there is a Power who can. So he would spare them, hoping for the day when all things would be set aright.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Metastachydium]

Also as far as Thorin's party goes, there are only four characters: Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin and "the dwarves". Can anybody tell me something that differentiates Oin from Bofur at the top of their head?

I think Balin was slightly more knowledgeable than the rest? And Gloin is special by virtue of being Gimli's father?

No, they're not. Tolkien abandoned the idea of orcs as clay creatures animated by Morgoth's evil very soon. They explicitly reproduce in the same way as everybody else.

I know that. By „artificial” I meant 'designed for a specific purpose', even more so than other creatures of the 'verse.

[Ionathus]

To get back to the topic, Tolkien's orcs are not "just like humans except for cosmetic features" and therefore it isn't racism to treat them as if they aren't humans. Plus the orcs he shows are always not just bad by reputation, they're all actively engaged in various nastiness, usually on behalf of the dark lord they owe service to, occasionally in service to themselves.

Again, the fact that every orc was portrayed doing solely evil things is the point. Tolkien wrote them to be unredeemable (at least by the heroes), and therefore the only solution available was to kill them.

[Jason]

Part of the reason for Tolkien's choices is the way he treats Evil in his works. Evil, unlike Good, enslaves its followers. It locks them out of any solutions save the evil path. Frodo, if he had been slain with a morgul-blade, would have become a slave of evil. The ringwraiths themselves were slaves to the Ring. Sauron was the slave of Morgoth's will and legacy. It's slaves all the way up and all the way down. While there are willing servants of evil, such as the Mouth of Sauron, there are far more slaves. And Sauron trusts slaves bound to his will far more than free servants. Which is why he sent the Nine out to pursue the Ring.

It's the same with the orcs. In Tolkien's world, the ancestors of the orcs were enslaved to evil, and that mark is still borne by their descendants centuries later, just as a legacy of child abuse can follow down family lines, turning the children of abusers into abusers themselves.

Looked at that way, it is both perfectly understandable why orcs should be viewed with pity (by those sufficiently distant to be afforded the luxury) and should also be treated with utmost caution. It's not their fault that they are slaves of evil, but slaves they are nevertheless, and they cannot safely be treated otherwise. The power to set them free from this curse of slavery to evil was apparently not available in the time of the War of the Ring, but one can hope for the future. After all, from Tolkien's view it is not only orcs bound to evil. And if the power that could free other creatures freed orcs as well, that would not be even slightly surprising.

I think that is why Gandalf counselled pity for Gollum, and would have counselled mercy for evil goblins as well; because though they be evil now, and their redemption is beyond his abilities, there is a Power who can. So he would spare them, hoping for the day when all things would be set aright.

I agree on all points.

The orcs are irredeemable because it was a power beyond any other that ever entered Middle-earth, greater than Sauron, who corrupted them, and they would remain irredeemable until a greater power - Illuvitar - took direct action. But the essays in the later History of Middle-earth books do say that the corruption of the orcs doesn't mean the "good guys" have free reign to treat them like monsters. The elves still would not torture orcs or slaughter young orcs.

[Jasdoif]

I can't recall a single instance of a goblin non-combattant appearing on page, to be honest.

But those burgers!

?

Is this the part where I should mention not remembering goblins in Lord of the Rings so I thought that part of the post was about Order of the Stick, as though that would be sufficient reason not to bring up Goblin Dan and his staff as noncombatants?

[Metastachydium]

Is this the part where I should mention not remembering goblins in Lord of the Rings so I thought that part of the post was about Order of the Stick, as though that would be sufficient reason not to bring up Goblin Dan and his staff as noncombatants?

Tolkien's orcs are called goblins when they are not called orcs.

[brian 333]

Goblin Dan is not a good guy. He is a vivisectionist.

[Metastachydium]

Goblin Dan is not a good guy. He is a vivisectionist.

But he only vivisects monsters! That doen't count!
(Also, at any rate, he is a noncombatant.)

[pendell]

It occurs to me that Rich's vampires are equivalent to Tolkien's goblins. Durkula was not a free willed being following Hel's instructions of his own volition. The real Durkon was the captive of an evil spirit who wrenched the original Durkon's memories unwillingly from him in order to masquerade as the living soul. But , in fact, there was no good in him at all, nor any choice in the matter.

Like the vampires, Tolkien's orcs are bound to evil as captives. The major difference is that , unlike vampires and ringwraiths , they are still alive. Does that make them somewhat more redeemable than beings already dead? Probably. But how much so? The Darkness laid on them is deep.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Fyraltari]

Durkula was not a free willed being following Hel's instructions of his own volition.

Yes, he was. Durkon* had absolutely no obligation to do what Hel said. He very much could have sticked with Malack to eventually be number 2 of a continent-spanning empire. He went on with Hel's plan because he wanted to make the dwarves suffer.

Like the vampires, Tolkien's orcs are bound to evil as captives.

[Citation needed]

[Dion]

I agree on all points.

The orcs are irredeemable because it was a power beyond any other that ever entered Middle-earth, greater than Sauron, who corrupted them, and they would remain irredeemable until a greater power - Illuvitar - took direct action.

But remember. There was one who’s power exceeded Eru Ilúvatar, who held the power to redeem the orcs with but a thought.

Truly that being is ultimately responsible for the orcs, and we should be looking at his motivations, not at the inconsequential machinations of minions like Sauron.

[Fyraltari]

I think Balin was slightly more knowledgeable than the rest? And Gloin is special by virtue of being Gimli's father?

Honestly, all I can recall is: Balin is the kindest to Bilbo (and the one with the best eyesight), Bombur is the fat unlucky one, Kili and Fili are the young ones and, I want to say, Bofur? is the one who always end up carrying Bilbo.

I know that. By „artificial” I meant 'designed for a specific purpose', even more so than other creatures of the 'verse.

I'm not sure that's a relevant distinction to make. Yes, Morgoth and Sauron made the orcs because they needed an army but I doubt that reduced the orcs' ability to make choices for themselves. I don't know anything in text that says so.

But remember. There was one who’s power exceeded Eru Ilúvatar, who held the power to redeem the orcs with but a thought.

Truly that being is ultimately responsible for the orcs, and we should be looking at his motivations, not at the inconsequential machinations of minions like Sauron.

He even says so in the Ainulindale.

[arimareiji]

Yes, he was. Durkon* had absolutely no obligation to do what Hel said. He very much could have sticked with Malack to eventually be number 2 of a continent-spanning empire. He went on with Hel's plan because he wanted to make the dwarves suffer.

Indeed. I don't understand how Durkula/Durkon*/Greg could be anything but free-willed, unless he were somehow a projection of Hel's wishes in the same way that thrall-Durkon's behavior was a projection of Malack's wishes. Unlike Malack, I think Hel would have had the self-honesty/awareness to recognize she was controlling Greg and not play-act conversation with him.

[hroþila]

For a race of sentient beings that couldn't be reasoned with, Tolkien showed quite a bit of reasoning going on. Aragorn offered the Uruk-hai to withdraw undisturbed from the Hornburg, an offer they turned down seemingly more out of para-nationalistic pride than out of any other consideration. Why would Aragorn waste his time like that if he didn't believe it was only proper, and how could it be proper instead of plain silly if it wasn't at least conceivable that the Uruk-hai would accept terms? The dwarves in The Hobbit tried to negotiate with the Great Goblin, and the negotiations only broke down when their orc-killing swords proved a faux pas. The glimpses of diplomacy we see with Mordor (the way their emissary is treated at Erebor, the rumour that the Eorlingas are paying horses as tribute) also paint a picture of a country that can be engaged diplomatically, and thus reasoned with (and if Sauron could be reasoned with to an extent, I see no reason why orcs couldn't, especially when not magically monitored by Sauron).

(Is the conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat one of my favourite parts of LotR? I think it might be)

[Mechalich]

It occurs to me that Rich's vampires are equivalent to Tolkien's goblins. Durkula was not a free willed being following Hel's instructions of his own volition. The real Durkon was the captive of an evil spirit who wrenched the original Durkon's memories unwillingly from him in order to masquerade as the living soul. But , in fact, there was no good in him at all, nor any choice in the matter.

Like the vampires, Tolkien's orcs are bound to evil as captives. The major difference is that , unlike vampires and ringwraiths , they are still alive. Does that make them somewhat more redeemable than beings already dead? Probably. But how much so? The Darkness laid on them is deep.

This sort of thing gets into complex questions about free will, specifically the existence of beings that are fully sapient but do not possess free will. This is hardly unique to fantasy settings - science fiction has struggled with the issue regarding robots or genetically engineered biots for basically as long as it has existed. Asimov's Three-Law robots, for instance, are in many cases fully sapient but they completely lack the ability to violate the Three Laws. And, as xkcd noted, if you structure the Three Laws differently you can easily get a killbot hellscape.

In fantasy, the author has the power to essentially define the nature of evil and the nature of good. Some authors are very explicit about using their worlds for the purposes of moral debate, such as the various Thomas Covenant stories by Stephen R. Donaldson, while others just sort of stumble around. However, if one is not careful and don't watch out for fridge logic you end up with the fantasy equivalent of a killbot hellscape: a grimdark hellscape.

D&D, as a system, was never good at watching the Fridge Logic. It shamelessly mashed together material taken from inspirations with diametrically opposed views on morality and the nature of evil - such as the almost completely amoral stories of Conan with the deeply religiously moral LotR. The result tended to be a lot of grimdark hellscapes.

I suppose really the problem with the goblin plot - and the earlier paladins-doing-evil plot in the supplementary materials that leads to it in the first place - is that it emphasizes the actual grimdark hellscape nature of the OOTS world (the Godsmoot plotline also did this) rather than the amusing parody comedy angle that the comic usually relies upon.

[Lemarc]

For a race of sentient beings that couldn't be reasoned with, LotR showed quite a bit of reasoning going on. Aragorn offered the Uruk-hai to withdraw undisturbed from the Hornburg, an offer they turned down seemingly more out of para-nationalistic pride than out of any other consideration. Why would Aragorn waste his time like that if he didn't believe it was only proper, and how could it be proper instead of plain silly if it wasn't at least conceivable that the Uruk-hai would accept terms? The dwarves in The Hobbit tried to negotiate with the Great Goblin, and the negotiations only broke down when their orc-killing swords proved a faux pas. The glimpses of diplomacy we see with Mordor (the way their emissary is treated at Erebor, the rumour that the Eorlingas are paying horses as tribute) also paint a picture of a country that can be engaged diplomatically, and thus reasoned with (and if Sauron could be reasoned with to an extent, I see no reason why orcs couldn't, especially when not magically monitored by Sauron).

(Is the conversation between Gorbag and Shagrat one of my favourite parts of LotR? I think it might be)

Gorbag expressed moral disapproval of Sam supposedly abandoning Frodo.

[Jason]

Gorbag expressed moral disapproval of Sam supposedly abandoning Frodo.

That would be the same conversation where Shagrat says his men found an orc named Ufthak who had been missing for days hanging upside down alive in Shelob's tunnel, and left him there. After they had a good laugh at his predicament, that is.

[hroþila]

Gorbag expressed moral disapproval of Sam supposedly abandoning Frodo.

Which they consider typical elf behaviour. I love that.

[pendell]

Indeed. I don't understand how Durkula/Durkon*/Greg could be anything but free-willed, unless he were somehow a projection of Hel's wishes in the same way that thrall-Durkon's behavior was a projection of Malack's wishes. Unlike Malack, I think Hel would have had the self-honesty/awareness to recognize she was controlling Greg and not play-act conversation with him.

Being bound to evil is not the same thing as being a robot or a zombie. Think of it more like being an alcoholic or a drug addict. A human in that predicament isn't a programmed life form able to make no choices, but they aren't fully free-willed either. There's something that binds their will, prevents them from becoming sober without help.

Fyaltari says "citation needed". I can only point to our earlier discussions on the matter. Orcs are free willed creatures in the sense that they are not robots, but they are corrupted. That corruption will invariably pull them back to evil just as an alcoholic will be pulled invariably back to drink.

The analogy I was drawing with Durkula is that Durkon's original soul is totally captive to the vampire spirit. He is not aiding the vampire-spirit of his own free will, but he is not master of his body nor of his mind. Durkon, as a vampire, is not free-willed. He is a slave of Hel and the vampire-spirit is his overseer.

I suppose it's reasonable that the vampire spirit is free willed, although how much "free will" a being composed of pure negative energy has to choose the good seems very debatable.

So I guess the analogy fails to some extent. But free will is a continuum, not a binary switch. Few humans are so totally free-willed that they can literally choose anything without being compelled by something in their external or internal environment. Society's constraints, the body's physical needs, our own mental conditioning , all serve to limit our "free" choices. Orcs have less choice than humans, since Morgoth put in a great deal of power and energy into binding them , but they have more free will than robots or Nazgul do.

The fact that Gorbag knows what morality is doesn't mean he isn't evil. A serial sexual offender may darn well know what celibacy is ; it's just something that's not an option for them.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Fyraltari]

Which they consider typical elf behaviour. I love that.

They also think Men eat Orc-flesh.

The lack of self-awareness is great.

[Lemarc]

That would be the same conversation where Shagrat says his men found an orc named Ufthak who had been missing for days hanging upside down alive in Shelob's tunnel, and left him there. After they had a good laugh at his predicament, that is.

Hypocrisy is common in humans, too. To be fair to Shagrat it sounded like he would have cut him free if not for fear of crossing Shelob.

[Fyraltari]

Fyaltari says "citation needed". I can only point to our earlier discussions on the matter.

Yeah, that's my point, this whole post is basically your headcannon, it's not supported by anything in text. It's not contradicted either, mind but still. There's no reason to assume being made of negative energy or having had your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents tortured by Sauron & Morgoth mean you are somehow less able to make choices than everybody else.

[Lemarc]

great-grandparents tortured by Sauron & Morgoth mean you are somehow less able to make choices than everybody else.

Maybe not, but the orcs are explicitly mind-controlled, at least some of the time.

From all his policies and webs of fear and treachery, from all his stratagems and wars his mind shook free; and throughout his realm a tremor ran, his slaves quailed, and his armies halted, and his captains suddenly steerless, bereft of will, wavered and despaired. For they were forgotten. The whole mind and purpose of the Power that wielded them was now bent with overwhelming force upon the Mountain.

[Fyraltari]

Maybe not, but the orcs are explicitly mind-controlled, at least some of the time.

Right but that's hardly limited to Orcs, plenty of Men in Sauron's armies.

[Shadowknight12]

One of Tolkien's big themes is "will" and how you can exert your will on others and basically force them to do your bidding. That's the temptation of Galadriel when she is presented with the One Ring, and why Gandalf says "do not offer it to me." They understand that with the right artifact (like the One Ring) they could boost their already high willpower and begin to exert their will on others, like Sauron does. But they also understand that doing this is evil.

So yes, the orcs are being mind-controlled, but there are places that are specifically said to be "beyond Sauron's reach" where presumably his will cannot extend to (like Rivendell and Lothlorien), so while I'm sure the elves would find harboring orcs distasteful (especially from the way they treat dwarves, who aren't even corrupted by Sauron), it could be a way to free them from the Dark Lord's will.