We explore the duality of orcs in the Lord of the Rings universe between natural evil, opportunity for redemption, and victimization of circumstance.

The Orcs of The Lord of the Rings and other works of JRR Tolkien are often depicted as the face of evil. Led by powerful villains such as Sharon or Morgoth, these beings are not only executors of diabolical orders, but also enemies of the free peoples of Middle-earth. However, one question remains in the minds of fans and the author: are orcs inherently evil or simply victims of their circumstances?

In Tolkien’s narratives, each orc appears as an antagonist, acting under the orders of some dark lord or acting as brigands and innocent hunters. Despite opposing actors, not all of them choose their path from pure evil. Some believed they were doing the right thing, while others saw themselves as having no choice. For example, the Dunlendings fought to reclaim the lands that had been taken by Sauron.

The personality of the orcs

The orcs in Tolkien’s works were not simply mindless drones. They had distinct personalities and sometimes showed freedom of choice. In “The Decisions of Sam Gammy” in The Two Towers, the orcs Gorbag ​​and Shagrat even fantasized about the idea of ​​freedom after the war, which shows that they have their own desires and ambitions. While their loyalty to Sharon is almost guaranteed, the history of Middle-earth shows that rule is based on fear, and the orcs are aware of this fact and resent it. This ability to act independently, though rarely practiced, suggests that orcs were not entirely devoid of agency or morality.

However, in The Lord of the Rings, these creatures often enjoy violence, complicating any argument for their potential for good. Tolkien describes these characters as cruel and tormenting beings who act evil even without the orders of their dark masters. This behavior is embedded in a context of constant conflict, suggesting that violence is a natural part of them beyond their environment or education.

In contrast, in The Silmarillion and other works, Tolkien suggests that they are victims of Morgoth’s corruption, leading to a dissonance between theoretical and practical representation. Although Morgoth was originally regarded as the self, Tolkien adapted the concept to his theological belief that no one is unsalvageable, revising the concept of corruptible beings but their potential for redemption.

Ethical Conclusions in Middle Earth

The problem with determining whether these characters are inherently evil lies in Tolkien’s revision of their nature. Although they function as evil elements in the narrative of The Lord of the Rings, allowing heroic actions outside of moral question, the complexity of their creation and development provides fertile ground for exploring the chinks in the shield of perfect evil. In Tolkien’s tradition, even in the midst of war and horror, the hope of redemption is never attainable, suggesting that they can ultimately be a good part of the world.

In this approach, Tolkien’s treatment of orcs forces us to question our ideas about evil and redemption and how fantasy literature reflects and forces us to examine our own views of good and evil, prompting us to examine the depth of the characters at first glance. , seems irretrievably lost.