Orcs and the "gamefication" of Middle-earth

[Arthadan]

This is a post I have shamelessly stolen from the "Lead Adventures" miniatures forum, as I feel it will be interesting here as well. All credit to the user Hobgoblin of that forum.

A few thoughts occurred to me while assembling some Tolkien-appropriate orcish forces for SoBH and DR games. This very interesting blog post by Zhu Baijie catalysed them somewhat (I commented as JC). As many of us are keen on gaming in Middle Earth, I thought these might – perhaps – be of interest. On the other hand, it just might see like a completely insane post!

My main contention is that gamers have, over the decades, tended to distort the descriptions contained in Tolkien's writings and that these distortions have become quite deeply embedded in RPG and wargaming rules and publications. I think this "gamefication" also had an impact on Peter Jackson's films (I wouldn't be at all surprised if WETA had a hefty population of current or former gamers). Here are some examples:

Distortion 1. Goblins and orcs are different things This may first have been popularised by Gary Gygax, who needed no excuse to split off one humanoid tribe from another (originally, I think, to give progressively tougher opponents for player characters as they advanced in levels). In some of his earlier writings (unpublished in his lifetime), Tolkien did distinguish between goblins, orcs and "gongs", but the concept was streamlined, so that "goblin" in The Hobbit is described as a translation of "orc". The ghost of the idea survives, perhaps, in Gandalf's description of the slopes of the Grey Mountains as "stiff with goblins, hobgoblins and orcs of the worst description", but this may be just an example of Tolkien's use of the rhetorical technique synonymia (listing different names for the same thing), just as he might have said "bandits, brigands and footpads of the worst description". He certainly uses the technique elsewhere. In LotR, "goblin" is used to describe even the very biggest orcs (the Uruk-hai of Isengard) - just as it's used to describe the great soldiers of Bolg's bodyguard in The Hobbit. There are plenty of examples of individuals being called both orcs and goblins: Azog, Grishnakh, Ugluk (implicitly and, probably, explicitly) and the dead Uruk-hai at Amon Hen. One line from LotR that often causes confusion here is when Tolkien first describes Ugluk (“a large black orc”) and then Grishnakh (“a short crook-legged creature, very broad”) and then says “Round them were many smaller goblins”. This might imply that goblins are smaller than orcs – except that Ugluk’s kind have already been identified as “goblins” twice – and Grishnakh will be described as a “goblin” twice before the chapter is out. So the distinction is clearly between smaller goblins and bigger goblins – all of the creatures involved are called goblins in the text.In short, all orcs are goblins, and all goblins are orcs.

Distortion 2.There’s a distinction between uruks and orcs (rather than uruks being a kind of orc). This comes, I think, from the same "levelling up" tendency that D&D introduced. Tolkien never talks about "orcs and uruks". In the narrative voice, uruks are overwhelmingly described simply as "orcs". There are few exceptions: Pippin is depicting recalling "the clutches of the Uruk-hai"; and the narrator distinguishes between the "fierce uruks" that marshall the Durthang line of smaller orcs that Pippin and Frodo join in Mordor and their charges - as well as between the Durthang line and the uruks that crash into them. And uruks are described as such in the Appendices too – but, crucially, they are also described as orcs in the same passages. Also, in the Battle of the Fords of the Isen, in Unfinished Tales, we get a “close-up” of Saruman's "fierce uruks, specially trained". But for the most part, it's characters that talk about uruks, while the narrator just calls them "orcs". The Helm's Deep chapter provides a wealth of examples. In short, all uruks are orcs. And all uruks are goblin too!

Distortion 3. Uruks are man-height. I think this persistent distortion arose in some of the "secondary literature" that was published in the 70s and 80s, as people created bestiaries and encyclopaedias of Middle Earth. The infamously inaccurate (but wonderfully illustrated) Tolkien Bestiary describes Uruks as "as tall as Men". There is, of course, nothing to support this in the books. Quite the opposite: Gimli, despite facing the “hugest” of Saruman’s orcs at Helm’s Deep, comments that they are much easier for him to fight than the “over-large” Dunlendings. And Gollum says that the Hardrim are “almost as bad as orcs and much bigger” (as noted above, Uruks are orcs – and Gollum would have seen plenty of Uruks, both in the Misty Mountains and in Mordor). And, crucially, Saruman’s half-orcs have “goblin-faces” but are “man-high”. They remind the Hobbits of Bill Ferny’s friend, not the Uruk-hai. Uruks are significantly shorter than Men – enough to make a military difference

Distortion 4. “The Uruk-hai are half-orcs.” This is one where it’s easy to see why the confusion arose. Although Aragorn is puzzled by the Isengard Uruks’ equipment, he doesn’t seem surprised by their physiology. They’re large orcs, but he’s seen lots of those (not least recently in Moria, where there were “large and evil” orcs – “black Uruks of Mordor”). But Treebeard starts to speculate about Saruman’s orcs: “He has been doing something to them.” And, at Helm’s Deep, Gamling says “these creatures of Saruman, these half-orcs and goblin-men, they will not quail at the sun”. It’s only later (in Flotsam and Jetsam) that we learn that there were many creatures like Bill Ferny’s friend in the armies of Isengard – and that there were “many” of them at Helm’s Deep. These are the same type of creatures that show up in The Scouring of the Shire – and they are clearly not the Uruk-hai. Most obviously, they are described as “Men”, whereas the Uruk-hai are “Orcs” passim. That said, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to argue that when Gamling says “half-orcs and goblin-men”, he means Saruman’s unusual orcs and his somewhat orcish men (echoed in “Man-Orcs large and cunning and Orc-Men treacherous and vile” in Morgoth’s Ring). “Half-orc” is clearly not a taxonomic term at this stage, and Gamling may be using it differently from Aragorn. Or Tolkien may just be indulging in synonymia again. In any case, it’s clear that Saruman has two distinct type of (possible) hybrid: large goblin-soldiers and horrible Men with goblin-faces. And they’re not the same thing (The Battle of the Fords of the Isen distinguishes between them too: the Men-orcs are ferocious, mail-clad axemen who aren’t disadvantaged by height against the Rohirric shieldwall as Saruman’s orcs are). The Uruk-hai are different from the Men-orcs/goblin-men/half-orcs of the armies of Isengard and the Scouring of the Shire.

Distortion 5 Uruks are much, much bigger than other orcs. We know that some of the smaller orcs are Hobbit-sized: Sam and Frodo can pass themselves off as small orcs in Mordor. And we know that the “hugest” Uruks mustered by the Hornburg Gate are sufficiently shorter than Men for Gimli to find them easier to fight. And we know that the Haradrim are “much bigger” than orcs. The implication, surely, is that Uruks are roughly the height of dwarves. Even the huge orc-chieftain is only “almost man-high” (and thus clearly shorter than even a short Man). Again, an equivalence with dwarves suggests itself. Yes, Uruks are bigger than other orcs – by definition. But they don’t seem to be that much bigger: there’s not that much room between Hobbit-sized and “significantly shorter than Man-height”.

Distortion 6 Uruks are too big to ride wolves. This is something that is frequently asserted by gamers, the assumption being that wolfriders must be small orcs. But we don’t get any indication in Tolkien. A straight reading of LotR suggests that Saruman’s orcs are big uruks, and that some of those orcs are mounted on wolves. If a wolf can big enough to carry a Hobbit-sized rider, it’s surely not much of a stretch to imagine a wolf that can carry a dwarf-sized rider. Both would have to be fantastical wolves – which is exactly what Tolkien’s wargs are. Tolkien gives no indication that Uruks are too big to ride wolves

Distortion 7 Uruks are a rarity in Middle Earth. In typical army list for wargaming in Middle Earth, Uruks are presumed to be a relative rarity in the armies of Mordor – and even, sometimes, of those of Isengard. But Tolkien’s texts suggest that this was not his intention. Again, read LotR carefully straight through, and you get the impression that all (or at least the overwhelming majority) of the orcs of Isengard were uruks. Yes, there’s a reference to no “orc-folk of any size” escaping the Ents at Orthanc, but in context, that’s very clearly a reference to the Man-high, goblin-faced half-orcs (like Bill Ferny’s Southron friend) – which again underscores the size difference between Uruks and Orc-Men/half-orcs/goblin-men. And when it comes to Mordor, the narrative makes no distinction between sizes of orcs at the Pelennor or the Morannon. But we can say that most of the orcs that Sam and Frodo encounter in Mordor are Uruks: Shagrat and Gorbag (who self-identify as Uruks) and their companies, plus the Uruks that charge into the Durthang line versus the Durthang line and Snaga. We also get a nice definition of an Uruk: “a big fighting orc” (echoed in the appendices’ “great soldier-orcs”). And then we get this gem from the tracker: “If that’s the way you fighters go on, small wonder there’s bad news from the battles”. That suggests – very strongly – that it’s the big orcs (the Uruks) that do the fighting in the battles. So expecting the Orcish armies of Mordor to be largely composed of Uruks seems not unreasonable. On top of that, we get the appendices, which tell us that the uruks sacked Osgiliath and made Ithilien uninhabitable with their depredations. That is, there were whole armies of Uruks more than 500 years before the events of the book began. That’s a lot of time to breed a lot of Uruks. It’s more than reasonable to suppose that most of the Orcs fighting at the Hornburg, the Pelennor and the Morannon were Uruks.

Distortion 8 Orcs come in small, medium and large. Or at least Merp would have us believe so. Tolkien’s text suggests that though there are doubtless many breeds of Orc, the main division is between the big ones – the soldier-orcs of Mordor and Isengard, some of whom are also to be found in the Misty Mountains – and the small ones (slaves and levies in Mordor and living free, though generally under the rule of Uruks in the Misty Mountains). Now, as I’ve argued above, the gap doesn’t seem to be that big, but the Merp-style distinction of “snaga, soldier-orc, Uruk” doesn’t get support from the text. The soldier-orcs are the Uruks. Orcs come in many sizes, but are best thought of as “big” (fighters = Uruks) and small (slaves = Snaga)

Distortion 9 The Isengarders are more upright in posture than other Orcs. This is a gaming commonplace, but doesn’t appear to have any foundation in the text. The Isengarders certainly have thick legs, and Grishnakh’s soldier-orcs (almost certainly Uruks of Mordor) have crooked legs, but there’s nothing to suggest that one lot are more upright in stance than the others (or that those crooked legs aren’t thick too). And there’s clear evidence that the Isengarders aren’t particularly upright: “Immediately in front were bowed backs and tough thick legs going up and down”. Emphasis mine. This comes at a point when the Isengarders are carrying Pippin and Grishnakh’s troop have dropped behind them. Also, earlier the whole company (Isengarders and Northeners at this point) “run with the long loping strides of Orcs”. The physiology seems similar. Isengard Uruks do not appear to be more upright in posture than other Orcs.

Distortion 10. Orcs are primitive and stupid. This is perhaps the most pernicious of all. Although Tolkien’s orcs are articulate and cunning (albeit debased and vile), the RPG and Warhammer notion that they are dim, inarticulate and predisposed to shamanism is often reflected back on to the orcs of Middle Earth in gaming. In fact, Tolkien sets out orcs’ technological sophistication in The Hobbit: they are inventive, good at tunnelling and making weapons, interested in explosions and engines, and quite possible responsible for inventing various weapons of mass destruction. In the forces of Saruman, the orcs have mail but most of the Dunlendings do not – because the orcs can make it themselves. And, in The Two Towers, we learn that Orcs use medicine, including healing balms for wounds and revitalising draughts. On top of that, at least some of them can write in dwarf-runes (even if it’s only four letters). In short, Orcs are clever and technologically sophisticated.

Quite enough for now (or for ever!), I’d have thought. Does any of this matter? Not really, of course. But the fun of gaming in Middle Earth is that you can actually do a bit of in-depth research in a way that you can’t with most other fictional settings. So I hope all this might be of some interest or use to others who are assembling Orcish forces for gaming.

Rigth! Back to my wolfriders!

Oh, and the orcs of Middle Earth aren’t green. But we all knew that – didn’t we?

[Stormcrow]

Distortion: Dwarves speak with Scottish accents and act like uncouth barbarian alcoholics.

[Falenthal]

Quite a post!

Thanks, Arthadan, for sharing.
My scholar knowledge goes not so deep as to discuss the points presented there, but the argumentes do -at least- to look convincing.

I'm eager to read what Tolwen has to see about it...

[Finrod Felagund]

I'd also argue that there is an 11th distortion: "Orcs are cannon fodder put in games simply for the heroic PC's to merrily despatch en masse. Actually they are strong, fast, cunning and no doubt deadly and cruel warriors. It would be terrifying to really face one, and a PC who is captured could look forward to a) torture, b) a life of harsh slavery, or c) worse things if they are female."

The only one in the above list that I slightly struggled with is distortion 8 and the lack of medium sized Orcs - I doubt if there is enough evidence to argue to case one way or the other.

[Falenthal]

As a sumary, from what I understand, there's just one race that we can call Orcs or Goblins, however we like.
An Uruk is just a bigger, better fighting orc/goblin. It is a class or culture within the orcs, but not a different race.
When we say "bigger", even that's below an average man's height.
All orcs/goblins, even those considered of the Uruk class, can ride wolves/wargs.

In this regard, I think TOR does a perfect job: goblins, uruks, orcs and hobgoblins are all considered the same race, "Orc". Even in the Bane's list for Magical Weapons, there's no difference between Goblins and Orcs, for example. All those creatures are included in the Orc Bane.

What makes me wonder is what is intended by "breeding Uruks". Probably is a way of saying that a master (Saruman, Sauron or some other evil twisted mind) controlled the interbreeding artificially. So, the strongest males breed only with the strongest females, looking for the best progeny. Also, those with a better sunlight resistance might come in the mix, too. A sort of genetic control, without the scientific knowledge of genes and DNA.
Those children are probably tested against other orcs, to prove and develop their fighting abilities and endurance. Those who pass the tests, are maybe even given the best share of meat and such, to ensure their physical developement. And also they're given the best equipement available. This makes them orcs, nonetheless, but better developed and trained for fighting.

If that would be so, those orc not fit enough to become Uruks would have even a smaller and worse share that their Uruk comrades. That could lead to no middle term in an orc's developement: you're either victorius in your raising, and become an Uruk, or you are considered cannon fodder and become a small Snaga, drooling everytime you see the fighting orcs take the best meat and plunder.

[Rocmistro]

I'd also argue that there is an 11th distortion: "Orcs are cannon fodder put in games simply for the heroic PC's to merrily despatch en masse. Actually they are strong, fast, cunning and no doubt deadly and cruel warriors. It would be terrifying to really face one, and a PC who is captured could look forward to a) torture, b) a life of harsh slavery, or c) worse things if they are female."

I think there's actually ample evidence in LotR to use them as cannon fodder.

-Boromir's heroic death saving Merry and Pippin from capture; I believe the text reference a score of bodies that lay dead at his feet.

-Legolas and Gimli's contest of who can kill the most Orcs. Again, a rather grisly portrayal of the value of their life and how easily they fall in battle.

I'm sure there are others.

[Finrod Felagund]

I'd also argue that there is an 11th distortion: "Orcs are cannon fodder put in games simply for the heroic PC's to merrily despatch en masse. Actually they are strong, fast, cunning and no doubt deadly and cruel warriors. It would be terrifying to really face one, and a PC who is captured could look forward to a) torture, b) a life of harsh slavery, or c) worse things if they are female."

I think there's actually ample evidence in LotR to use them as cannon fodder.

-Boromir's heroic death saving Merry and Pippin from capture; I believe the text reference a score of bodies that lay dead at his feet.

-Legolas and Gimli's contest of who can kill the most Orcs. Again, a rather grisly portrayal of the value of their life and how easily they fall in battle.

I'm sure there are others.

Yes, OK, I take your point, much as I hate to lose an internet debate!

I could argue that Merry/Pippin's perspective was different, but in all fairness Eomer's troops killed over 300 of Ugluk's Orcs for the loss of 15 or so men. I suppose that if indeed the PCs are combat trained then Orcs will struggle.

FF

[Terisonen]

I'd also argue that there is an 11th distortion: "Orcs are cannon fodder put in games simply for the heroic PC's to merrily despatch en masse. Actually they are strong, fast, cunning and no doubt deadly and cruel warriors. It would be terrifying to really face one, and a PC who is captured could look forward to a) torture, b) a life of harsh slavery, or c) worse things if they are female."

I think there's actually ample evidence in LotR to use them as cannon fodder.

-Boromir's heroic death saving Merry and Pippin from capture; I believe the text reference a score of bodies that lay dead at his feet.

-Legolas and Gimli's contest of who can kill the most Orcs. Again, a rather grisly portrayal of the value of their life and how easily they fall in battle.

I'm sure there are others.

Yes, OK, I take your point, much as I hate to lose an internet debate!

I could argue that Merry/Pippin's perspective was different, but in all fairness Eomer's troops killed over 300 of Ugluk's Orcs for the loss of 15 or so men. I suppose that if indeed the PCs are combat trained then Orcs will struggle.

FF

Considering orcs were by foot and Rohirrim by horse, that's not bad a ratio...

[Glorelendil]

Interesting post. 95% of it could be summarized as, "orcs, even uruks, are smaller than men, and 'goblin' is a synonym not a sub-type."

The point about "there are only small and large not small, medium, and large" is not really defensible. Substitute "humans" for "orcs" in that claim and you'll see how silly it is. Unless he's claiming that there are literally zero orcs in the middle, just large ones and small ones. If that were the case you'd expect to find an explicit caste system.

[Majestic]

Great article. And I chuckled at Glorelendil's summary (though I'd add that "all of them can ride wolves" to make it complete).