HOME | DD
Imperator-Zor β Orc Morality: or Why Pure Evil races don't work
#arda #armor #chainmail #discussion #dynamic #eye #gondor #helmet #lord #middlearth #morality #orcs #rings #sauron #scimitar #social #sword #tolkien #lordoftherings
Published: 2017-06-15 07:00:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 9219; Favourites: 28; Downloads: 13
Redirect to original
Description
Some thoughts on Tolkien and the matter of orcs.
"Look at them. Ranks, files, locked in everlasting conflict at the whim of the player. They fight, they fall, and they cannot turn back because the whips drive them on, and all they know is whips, kill or be killed. Darkness in front of them, darkness behind them, darkness and whips in their heads. But what if you could take one out of this game, get him before the whips do, take him to a place without whipsβ what might he become? One creature. One singular being. Would you deny them that chance?"
-Lord Havelock Vetinari, Unseen Academicals
Related content
Comments: 26
Oh, Vetinari, your job is just too damn good (and it's the namesake of my favourite game!)
Once thing though: even though in the movies they are pretty much non-human natives from Skull Island (Peter Jackson of course), in the books King Elessar gave them the Sea of RhΓΊn to live, and in ROTK 1980 they sing about being slaves and not wanting wars (just like Werchmacht; the Uruk-hai, which look like toads in here, are the SS, and the Men that serve Sauron are Japanase, thinking themselves superior when in fact they're not).
Also, all that "dwarves and elves are incorruptile" only works on Middle Earth people: the Thalmor are elven nazis, and the Dawi are so obsessed with grudges that they don't see slaughtering a city just to get a coin as a bad thing.
π: 0 β©: 0
The problem with this, is that lawful evil is a thing in fantasy and orcs in that setting operate as much out of fear as brutality.
Neo-nazis and various other highly vicious people can form organized bands to attack people, barbarians, Huns, or Mongols were somewhat organized, and so on.
If humans can get a working Penal Division, consisting mostly of prisoners as soldiers, I think a dark lord can press a bunch of psychopathic monsters to obey his commands.
Orcs don't need to have compassion for other orcs, they need only be scared of the warband leader, who is scared or loyal to The Dark Lord.
π: 0 β©: 1
The bad humans that you describe are still capable of some degree of (usually quite broken) moral behavior, at least internally.
Fear is a double edged sword. There is a story from china about some conscripts who were late to report to boot camp who decided to rebel since the punishment for both being late to arrive at boot camp and rebellion was death. Especially since it can motivate subordinates to lash out against those that threaten them. Given that Sauron is a super-powerful demigod that won't be a problem for him, but it will be a problem for chieftans, who can't be awake and scaring subordinates all the time. It also does not change the fact that putting a bunch of antisocial beings together will still result in them lashing out against each other.
π: 0 β©: 1
Serial killers are known to work in teams. Anti-social behavior bonds to anti-social people.
If every western nation could get people to die by the millions over a war that didn't make any sense for WW1, I think a dark lord can keep his orcs from killing each other.
π: 0 β©: 2
π: 0 β©: 0
How long will those teams last?
Think of it in terms of the Prisoners Dilemma: both parties have two options, they can cooperate or they can lash out at each other. Cooperation has it's rewards for both parties (accomplish a goal, sharing resources, etc), but so does lashing out (steal the meat that the other guy is eating or his items, neutralizing a threat and so forth) especially when one side is cooperating since this means the rewards are likely higher and the risks of dying is lower in cases where one side cooperates (as opposed to situations which they both lash out, in which case you have a fight which can go either way). Humans are social animals predisposed towards cooperation and averse to lashing out against each other. The orcs you describe do not have said inhibitions. Every interaction between said orcs runs the risks of one side lashing out, especially since the Amoral Orcs are smart enough to know that their fellow orcs will lash out against them. This is a simplification of course, but there are other factors (such as instances in which there is a disparity of power between Orc A and Or B or when Orc A can kill or Orc B when Orc B is vulnerable allowing him to reap the rewards of murder without the risks that would usually come along with this).
Besides, some level of social codes were indicated in the books as mentioned.
As for WW1 remember that said conflict involved people who were conditioned to think of the other side as being an enemy of all they loved and whatever they're feelings once they got in the trenches, the other side was trying to kill them. Even so they would often do things like deliberately miss enemy soldiers when they shot.
π: 0 β©: 1
Again, tell that to the Penal Divisions, where they knew the enemy was their friend and their officers were the enemy, but managed to follow orders anyways.
There is also the case where if you kill a fellow orc too many times, you will just be executed.
π: 0 β©: 1
A gross simplification of matters in regards to penal units. Many penal units were volunteers (serve in the army or go/stay in jail) and view the enemy as being bad despite being criminals ("I may have stolen a car or two but I sure as hell would not want Nazis overrunning my hometown!"). The officers commanding them may bully them around, but the enemy soldiers are consistently trying to kill them, which will generate bad blood. You'd need to have really bad officers and NCOs to get penal soldiers to view them as foes more than the enemy. And even criminals still generally have human inclinations against violence.
As for executions, those would be ordered by officers who'd have the same problems. Having a petty bully as an officer who routinely abused his underlings to keep them in line is not going to engender loyalty, it's going to build resentment. It's also going to minimize the effectiveness of punishments at keeping order. If an orc who was doing his job gets randomly executed because his boss wanted to randomly kill a subordinate it tells other orcs "punishment can happen weather you behave or not".
π: 0 β©: 1
According to Soviet records, their only crime was liking democracy or being related to Stalin or some other thing along those lines.
They were issued handguns and grenades, then sent off to die, which many of them did.
The Chinese used the defeated nationalist forces, who were allies of the US, against the US during the Korean War.
They were issued whatever they had when they were captured, not much more, and many of them died.
During history, the vast majority of conflicts had officers who just beat their subordinates and used fear. In fact, it was so common that it was written doctrine for many nations.
You ever wonder why European pistols were small, only fitting for very close range? It's because their sole purpose was to shoot men who turned around, it's why they issued .32 rounds not suitable for even a woman's purse.
On top of that, it's the reason why when soldiers during the American Revolution asked for their wages which were long overdue, they were whipped.
They had many many reasons to desert or simply replace their officers but .... You know, they are poor people and you can't let poor people who know how to fight, decide how the fighting works.
π: 0 β©: 1
During the Great Patriotic War, the soviets were being invaded by the Nazis who saw Slavs as subhuman and wanted to exterminate more than half the population of Russia to make way for German Settlers. The soviet overseers of penal units were legitimately the lesser of two evils.
Beating one's subordinants as the sole means of control was inadvisable. At best it would get begrudging slack-ass compliance. At worst it would incite mutiny or "accidents".Β Rule through brutality can work, but its far from optimal.
Besides there is something you should know about officers, even in a volunteer army of well treated enlisted men in which officers are court marshaled if they strike there is a division of labor among soldiers. Officers plan, analyze, evaluate and direct. Enlisted soldiers know how to fight, hold the line and handle their little bit of the battle. That's how the chain of command works.
Finally European pistols had smaller rounds than American counterparts, but they also were more powerful (500 joules for 45 ACP and 600 Joules for 9mm Parabellum) and their bullets were faster and more accurate.
π: 0 β©: 1
There are entire governments run entirely out of fear, in fact, the vast majority of strong governments in history are run out of fear.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_pisβ¦
This is the Ruby Pistol, it was used by several nations in World War One, it has 9 rounds with a .32 caliber bullet. It's firepower is so limited, that it's not fit for a woman's purse and has an effective range that is too short for combat. It's mostly effective only if fired directly into the head or neck.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1879_Reβ¦
This is the Reichsrevolver, this was being removed from service just before WW1 and ended up being used quite a bit in the conflict. Single action only, rounds loaded in one by one with a gate, and ejected one by one from a gate. This weapon has a fire-rate so slow, it barely beats out just carrying several muzzle-loaded pistols. It's most effective if you are firing at a single target, who is not firing back at you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagant_Mβ¦
Nagant revolver. Under-powered, just as slow to reload as the revolver above, just barely faster to shoot. Not really a fitting weapon unless fired at extremely close quarters, again at the head or neck.
This trend didn't change till the Luger came out, and then half of Europe copied the M1911. The Polish, Spanish, Belgians, British, and so on all had handguns designed off an American design.
If you look at America, they never issued outdated or underpowered handguns for combat, they issued the most powerful and effective thing they could. Even when they couldn't make enough M1911s for WW1, they just made .45 ACP double action revolvers. This revolvers didn't have a loading gate, they just swung out and you put in a moon clip, six rounds in the gun instantly. To remove the rounds, you just pull the moon clip out.
π: 0 β©: 1
The only reason why you might find more governments that rule "through fear" is the inherent instability of such governments. After all one region could have 300 years of peaceful stability provided by one government and another could have 20 governments rule it who ruled through fear of violence which rise in bloody conflict, keep the populace in terror and then collapse into infighting. Fear is at best a single pillar on which a government can be built. Because they're will come a time when the individual of said fear has a moment of vulnerability and in that moment fear can crystallize into hatred and a desire to have the source of said fear eliminated among those kept in line by fear.
Feudalism in Europe arose because of the rise of a warrior class who could beat everyone else into line thanks to being heavy cavalry. Once they got into power they gave privileges to certain classes, hosted feasts and events and made deals with the church because it allowed them to stay in power without having to kill anyone who showed the slightest signs of rebelling (which is at best wasteful). In 1600 Tokugawa Ieyasu created another feudal state from the warring samurai clans run by Samurai, he did so by promoting an idea of Confucianism which said that the Samurai Class had a duty to treat their subordinates which respect and dignity. Organized crime groups often do things for the benefit of the often marginalized communities which are around their operations, if they are seen as a threat to locals they'll rat them out to the cops and if they're seen as a boon they'll keep mum around the cops (among other benefits).
As for the pistol argument there were high power European Pistols...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lefaucheβ¦
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaumontβ¦
...and low caliber American ones....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teat-firβ¦
Pistols were a secondary concern in warfare at this time. As for small caliber pistols those exist as small easy to carry fallback weapons.
π: 0 β©: 1
Feudalism has existed everywhere and it's never really went away. In the Modern Area the vast majority of governments are not free, they are based in fear, they have one to a dozen people at top, some elite below them, and it trails down to peasants and slaves.
The world is covered in war-lords, which is all a lord or lady is, a war lord. Africa, Asia, South America, Mexico. Gangs, Terrorists, Separatists, Paramilitaries. Each of them is a carbon copy of a band of Vikings, a group of rampaging Mongols, A Family of the Mafiya.
Volunteer militaries didn't exist for the vast majority of history and even now they are mostly a minority.
Civilization has been around since before 10,000 BC, it is now 2,017AD, and to this day after 12,000 years fear is still wildly effective in maintaining states.
π: 0 β©: 1
That is a grossly oversimplified idea of history ignoring a lot of nuance (like those examples I cited). Fear is a tool of someone wanting to build a state or keep order, but trying to use fear alone is like trying to build a house with nothing but hammers.
π: 0 β©: 1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_β¦
100% fear, almost all of the punishments are very harsh, losing hands or your life.
Oldest surviving set of laws.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
From the article you cited...
Nearly one-half of the code deals with matters of contract, establishing, for example, the wages to be paid to an ox driver or a surgeon. Other provisions set the terms of a transaction, establishing the liability of a builder for a house that collapses, for example, or property that is damaged while left in the care of another. A third of the code addresses issues concerning household and family relationships such as inheritance, divorce, paternity, and sexual behavior . Only one provision appears to impose obligations on an official; this provision establishes that a judge who reaches an incorrect decision is to be fined and removed from the bench permanently.[3] I could hardly say that clarifying what wages should be paid to specific professions as being 100% Fear.
The code is also one of the earliest examples of the idea of presumption of innocence , and it also suggests that both the accused and accuser have the opportunity to provide evidence .[16] The punishments were brutal by modern standards (after all inprisoning someone means giving them food and shelter in an era when people would gladly work forΒ room and board). The Code of Hammurabi is distinctly not "obey my every whim and please me or suffer a horrible fate". It is a consistent set of rules which applied to everyone (if not equally). The idea was that Hammurabi presented himself as the father of Babylon who cared for the entire kingdom as if it was his son and provided peace and fair judgement to the people.
π: 0 β©: 1
The Code of Hammurabi is "Do not do any of the exact things I spelled out not to do, or you will die."
If punishments listed in the bible, Egypt, or other cultures of the time are equally harsh. It was a time of rape, pillage, barbarism; with all exceptions being held down by strong armies which punished strict rules with death.
It was not a time of freedom, of choice, or mercy; you either did as you were told, or you were killed.
π: 0 β©: 1
You assert that it says "Do not do any of the exact things I spelled out not to do, or you will die" even though it says that the penalty for a lot of crimes is non lethal and most of it is about commercial transactions. Is it brutal by modern standards? Yes. Is it rule ONLY by brute force? No.
π: 0 β©: 1
It was an era where rape was very very common, and it was before the Bronze Age Collapse.
Which started when a series of states that were entirely top down systems of bureaucracy, were swallowed up by barbarism, disease, violence, famine, and madness.
Every single aspect of these societiets was designed around complex organizations that decided all choices made. The very day you planted your seeds, where you palnted, what you planted, and so on.
When that order, these complex top down societies died.....
It led to hundreds of years of civilization barely being a thing.
These grand civilizations,were not built out of love, because everyone turned on each other. They were not built on the vote. They weren't even built on reason, as almost no one could read and again everyone turned on each other.
There was three all powerful leaders, they died and their charriots were swept away, and then suddenly all of these nations went from having dozens of large cities to having not a single city.
There was order, there was fear, and the instant that went away, everything was laid to ruin
π: 0 β©: 1
The reason why said bronze civilizations had the obedience of their populace was the fact that because they were theocracies. The monarch was seen as being linked to the gods and the priesthoods handled administration and since religious figures taught that if you obeyed their masters and that it was a good thing that their society worked together.
What undermined the Bronze Age civilizations of the Middle East was a cascade of several factors, from soil erosion to hordes of displaced peoples to the north to foreign invaders such as the sea people, the disruption of trade routes (most notably for tin, a key component in bronze used in weapons and warfare) to destruction of irrigation systems and the loss of important bureaucrats and charioteers to train up replacements to riots by desperate peasants who just want to eat. For all their shortcomings the societies that the Bronze Age collapse were far more developed than their counterparts which could basically be described as small towns of agricultural and pastoral illiterate savages. In contrast the civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia had survived for more than 3,000 years at the time of the collapse and had large cities, monumental architecture, writing, mathmatics and so forth.
It's also hard to teach more than a few people how to read when writing tools were limited to clay tablets, styluses and literacy was mostly used for governmental purposes.
Your argument seems to boil down to "LOOK! THIS CIVILIZATION USED FEAR! YOU CAN BUILD A CIVILIZATION ENTIRELY ON FEAR!" and ignore all the non-fear elements they used to keep people in line.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not an argument, the majority of governments were and have been based on fear.
If this wasn't the case, the modern western world wouldn't lose a city to fires and looters every time the police got distracted.
Canada has a major city that sets itself on fire when it loses a hockey game....or wins a hockey game.....
The whole reason people accept governments is because of fear. The first governments were setup by people who had armies, which could be used to protect or hurt people as they saw fit.
Most of the Europe's existence consisted of a series of warlords battling each other or making alliances, that's the whole reason why peasants agreed to be property and pay taxes.
Why did the USSR dump so much money in its military, fear of another invasion.
Why does the leadership of China censor its media and clamp down on any signs of unrest, why do they try so hard to keep the economy good? Fear, because a lot of their friends were killed in revolutions or uprisings.
The Patriot Act, fear.
NATO, fear.
Brexit, fear of immigrants.
Why does the EPA exist, fear of the rivers catching on fire again.
Why does the police exist, fear of crime.
Why do people spend billions and billions on weight loss, fear of being fat.
Listerine, became a thing, because it made people scared that their breath was so bad no one would love them.
Even if you love someone, you still spend a lot of time scared about them. Scared about their health, scared they will leave, scared they will die, scared someone will take advantage of them.
Society is not built upon religion, it's not built on democracy, it's built on fear.
Dictators, which most of the world is ruled by, came to power primarily during times of fear. There is anarchy and people feel unsafe, then the dictator or a group of powerful people show up to restore order, and then after they start shooting people who disagree with them.
Most governments are devoid of love, a lot are atheist, but almost all have a strong component of fear involved.
π: 0 β©: 1
Funny how a city burns it down so repeatedly. You'd think that their would be nothing left?
The only way you could argue that the majority of governments were based on fear was if you counted every band of warriors or tinpot dictator which installed is that they are like mayflied, rising and collapsing in onthemselves so another group can arise.
Most of your examples are a stretch in relation with to fear. Mostly they are in place because people, in a sober mindset understand the value of cooperation with friends or superiors who were in a good bargaining position on what terms they can set.
And again you ignore the various ways governments make themselves out as valuable assets rather than burdens. Shooting 1 person to keep 9 others in line is inefficient. It means that said group is now at best working at 90% effciency for the time being. Better to provide from them.
Religion and in general terms morality are good ways of keeping people doing what they should without the omnipresent threat of punishment. If a citizen gets in his head that stealing and casual violence should not be done things go smoothly. You don't need constant brute force to keep order, with enforcers which A: don't care about what they're enforcing or the well being of those who they are enforcing, B: have no bonds to their fellows or their masters, C: will use said position of power to get away with more of the same such crimes, D: will be resisted by those under them every step of the way and E: will seek to gain more power by killing their fellows.
π: 0 β©: 0
Great images, great ideas, great quote from Pterry! Β One supposes the nastiest insult you could throw at an Orc is "Kin-eater"...
π: 0 β©: 0
Great write-up, but.... *assume. Asusme isn't a real word. Last sentence of the whole thing.
π: 0 β©: 0
Really interesting. Can I post a link to this in Reddit?
π: 0 β©: 1