So, here's one that I am fairly sure has not been covered...

Say my elf archer is trying to sneak into an orc encampment to rescue his hobbit companion (who would rather not get eaten in the morning).

He removes the string from his bow, makes a fabulous stealth test, and sneaks up on the orc guard.

Now, he wants to strangle the guard with the bowstring.

How?

A dagger test seems called for, for the strike, but just doing a single attack/damage and hoping for a wound seems wrong.

I'm thinking a dagger test to get the string around his throat (at a TN 6, because he's already unaware). If it hits, it is an automatic piercing blow, requiring the orc to roll to resist a wound at no armor. If he goes down, well and good. If he doesn't, he has to make a dagger roll (TN 12, maybe? The elf is in a good position) to slip loose and is considered prone for a turn.

Thoughts?

I would say that your method works pretty well. I think I remember that in the rules any unarmed attack, or similar, uses the Dagger weapon skill. So using that skill makes sense.

If the Elf has made a very good stealth roll, then have the TN be really low, they are essentially getting The Drop on the Orc, and it wouldn't really be resisting. You could even give them the kill for doing so well and planning a good attack, plus Advancement Points! And if they did somehow fail, even after spending Hope, give them another attack at a higher TN as the Orc is now aware of the attack and would resist.

Or you could make it that the attack happens regardless, but a great or extraordinary success equals an instant and silent kill, a regular success means the Orc has to roll for a piercing attack, a failure could result in a quick contested roll almost a mini-combat, and a failure with an eye-of-Sauron would mean a standard combat would start up.

Of course you can just play it anyway you want, but of course if stealth is the aim of the rescue, then the quieter the Orc goes down the better, make some passive awareness tests for the other Orcs, even if you let your players away with it regardless, it always heightens the tension when the LM rolls dice!

Hope this helps,

Chris.

You could just handle the whole thing with stealth.

Fail, you try to kill the guard, but fail. Or, you kill the guard, but he calls out.
Success, you kill the guard without being caught but the nearby orcs are wary (they thought they heard something)
Great+ Success you kill the guard quietly.

Alternatively, you could just handle it with the initial stealth roll.

Success means you can sneak by, but don't have an opportunity to take the guard out quietly.
Great+ Success you sneak by and kill the guards in your way.

No direct comment on the combat situation.

Just wondering whether garroting someone might be a potential Shadow Point situation, if it occurs without sufficient provocation / concern, generally speaking?

I realize that in this instance the Elf has sufficient impetus to warrant caution (captured Hobbit) as well as a viable target (Orc) - both negating the need to apply a Shadow Point in this situation. However, as a successful tactic this might make the player think it is feasible in other situations. At which point its use may no longer be considered as particularly heroic activity, thus the potential for a Shadow Point.

That's exactly the same thing that I was thinking Garn.

I have a hard time imagining any TOR character garrotting someone. It's an assassins tool, not a heroes weapon.

I like Doc's idea. Suitably abstract, typically TOR, but I would reverse the results. A standard result means that you are forced to deal with the guard. A greater result means that you evade detection completely and are not forced to resort to murder.

Of course, you could sandbag or cosh the guard using the same rules for a non fatal result.

Quite agree with Garn.

During the first quest I set for my group that wasn't pre-made, they came across an orc encampment. It was guarded, and fairly large, but they wished to attack anyway. Seeing as orc's don't like sunlight, I decided that any orc not on guard would be asleep, so I gave them the option of picking off the guards as normal, and then if they succeeded in one turn, with stealth checks, I allowed them to deal with the remainder of orcs, bar the captain, as though they were all already helpless, and therefore they played out as coup de grace(s?). I understand it wasn't particularly heroic, but then again, they didn't really want to die against about 14 orcs during their first quest, and I was trying to show them not everything had to escalate into a full scale combat situation.

I'd make it a regular Stealth check; a normal success means you can make a Called Shot to gank him without incident using Dagger skill, a great or extraordinary success means you can Coup de Grace him without incident. Or use Doctheweasel's, it's good, too.

I'd definitely bring up the Shadow point, if this was used on an undeclared enemy (as in one which hadn't already made overt attempts on your life or your companions', like kidnapping your companion).

All,
I think the main issue with both situations is that the atmosphere of the game is altered. Tolkien's writing, just as in comics, has sharply marked good guys and bad guys. The events mentioned blur that line, moving from a Golden Age of Comics "Heroic Code" to an "The Ends Justify the Means" type of gaming tone.

None of us would like Superman, the Lone Ranger or any other hero, if they started pre-judging potential evil-doers and penalizing them based on the crimes they might attempt to commit. Particularly if stopping them means sneaking up on them and killing them. It's just not heroic.


Halbarad,
Yes, the use of the garrotte may very well change TOR's atmosphere from Epic / Faerie Tale to something grittier, maybe not as dark as Film Noire, but headed a bit toward that type of atmosphere. Hmm... what would we call that? Pulp Fiction?


Beleg,
I think if I were handling that situation I would have been tougher on the characters unless it occurred within the first four adventures (grand total) when everyone is still really trying to learn the game mechanics, atmosphere, etc.

Of course, it's your campaign, so feel free to play it however you like.

I had thought of the Misdeed angle, but I'm not sold on it in this case. Were the Orc sleeping, definitely a Misdeed. This one is a guard, who is awake, and would be hostile if alerted.

To me this fits under an Ambush (which is another way to mechanically handle it).

Strangely enough this reminds me of a scenario in Tales from the Wilderland:



SPOILERS
There is a part in Of Leaves & Stewed Hobbit where the party must handle the orc encampment. One of the options written up is poisoning their food. There is no mention of it being a Misdeed. That could just be the author, but it gives us some reference to this kind of situation.

It's strange to me that using a garotte is categorically different than sticking a sword in someone's belly. Heroes in Middle-earth are not medieval cavaliers competing with one another to be the most adherent to a very strict set of guidelines defined as "honourable."

Say we used the Bible to define Middle-earth morality, a solution that would appeal to me since Tolkien was a practising Christian who helped translate part of the Old Testament for the Jerusalem Bible. His religious beliefs certainly influenced his fiction. Nevertheless, we would find ourselves no nearer to an ethical standard by which we could discern a difference between the garotte and sword.

Christian moralists might well ask about factors like cruelty (unnecessary pain), the necessity of the killing, or the possibility of indiscriminate casualties. Once you've established that the killing is just, however, weapon choice is relevant only as it relates to minimising the risk of collateral damage and ensuring the swiftness of death.

In fact, the garotte, in many respects, produces a cleaner kill than a sword, with potentially less pain and quicker execution. Consider that in many cases, the garotte will cut off circulation of the victim, producing unconsciousness long before asphyxiation.

Doesn't strike me as too difficult to explain, Mordagnir. A character wears a sword or similar weapon to defend himself in event of the need to do so A garotte is not a weapon that can be used to defend ones person.

If a character's intent is simply to kill then, you are correct, there is little to choose between sword and garotte. If you wear a sword to keep you alive in case you happen to run afoul of some Orcs, then that's altogether a different thing.

IMO the use or possession of a garotte signals someone who sets out to kill. Possession of a sword or dagger indicates a person who is taking reasonable precautions to stay alive in a dangerous environment.

Fact: A garotte is not necessarily a lethal weapon. The modern assassin's weapon, made of wire, is intended solely to kill. However, one can just as easily strangle someone with a knotted scarf or leather thong. You merely choke them until they pass out, you need not keep it up for the several minutes necessary to kill.

Yes, you could choke someone until they pass out but in this scenario we are definitely referring to a lethal situation.

I don't disagree with your definition, per se, Halbarad, but I'm curious about some of the logical implications. Do you propose then that only weapons carried specifically for self-defence are moral? At what level -- man-to-man, the tactical battle, the campaign, a war, or national strategy -- does pre-emptive action become immoral? Was it a misdeed when Aragorn led a squadron of Gondorian ships to Harad in order to sink much of the Haradrim's naval strength by surprise?

For Tolkien, were the Brits evil to initiate the Battle of the Somme? What about raids across the lines, in the middle of the night, with knives, trench guns (shotguns), pistols, and grenades?

Simply because a weapon is primarily offensive in nature does not, I do not believe, make it immoral. When you are at war, the goal is to win as cleanly and as quickly as possible. Sometimes, that involves offensive action. Sometimes that requires strangling someone (or some Orc) in the middle of the night. Within the context of a just war, I don't think many moralists throughout out history would have suggested that such a deed was evil.

I suppose that no weapon is, in itself, immoral. The person who uses it is either immoral or not.
A sword in the hands of a murdering psychopath is no different to the garotte. Your points are valid in the real world where shades of grey and necessity prevail.

As Garn pointed out though, things are generally black and white in this setting(regarding the moral compass). I think the point is that a good person could honestly say that they have a sword to protect themselves and those they hold dear against those who would seek to harm them.

The same really cannot be said for a garrotte. It is what it is, an assassins and executioners tool.

While both might be able to deal out retribution for the harm, only the sword could realistically have prevented it. A knotted handkerchief is not going to be of much use when the Orcs come calling at your farm in the wee small hours.

Regarding Aragorn and the burning of the corsair fleet at Umbar. His intention was to destroy their fleet to protect Gondor. His motive was to burn the ships, not murder the crews. There were, of course, fatalities but these were not the primary intent of the mission. I honestly believe that Aragorn would have regarded the corsairs a estranged kin that he would hope to have reunited someday and would have frowned upon any more deaths than were absolutely necessary.

Just because you take a corruption test doesn't make you evil. I would definitely call for the test if characters are garrotting guards, no matter what the reason. To me the Corruption test is to show the potential for the stain on characters fea/soul. Seeing a horrific murder or traveling through Shadow lands doesn't mean you are evil, but they call for Corruption tests.

Just my opinion.

Not sure that I agree Templar. There's a bit of a difference between the in game corruption tests that you describe and the act f deliberately taking the life of another being.

Orc or not, murder is murder and murder is evil. A character can pretend til the cows come home that it was justified but he's chosen to put himself on the path of corruption and evil as opposed to the whim of the dice.

I would probably set the TN bar higher than usual for Corruption tests regarding these sort of events.(there are, of course, always going to be exceptional circumstances and situations)

That's just me though and YMEMV.

Players don't make tests for Misdeeds. They get a warning that said action is bad, and if they go through with it anyway, they automatically get the Shadow points.

Would the people who are against garroting (with a bowstring) be ok with stabbing the Orc in the back? How is that different from an ambush?

Leaving the ambush aside for a moment, it appears to me that "strangling unwary things in the dark" is, in Tolkien's semantics, a rather Gollum-like move (and therefore invoking the aspect of shadow more than of stars and light).

Stabbing a guard in the back, slitting someone's throat, strangling other with your bare hands are actions associated with the agents of evil in Tolkien's books. They are considered (again in Tolkien work) despaired moves and suitably deserve a shadow point IMHO.

Why is an old fashion ambush considered more noble? I'm not quite sure and I don't think it can be rationalized. Perhaps the engagement is less personal? Morally speaking, all types of murders are equally evil. In the framework of a Middle Earth RPG, Tolkien sets a basic convention of what is acceptable through the action of the heroes and what is wrong through the actions of antagonists. I don't think it goes much deeper than that...

I'd be uncomfortable with heroes poisoning the orcs without a shadow point at any case, even in a "taste of your own medicine" perspective.

...but what are the opportunities of th party to free the poor hobbit?
Without being stealthy the orcs will kill him and it´s probably not possible to sneak into the encampment and to liberate the small one.
so i think, from a tactical view, it´s the best choice to kill the guards silently. so do i have to get the shadowpoint open-eyed or is it a situation that not inflicts a shadow point.

greets, Alex

I'm still not sure why killing a declared enemy through stealth is necessarily murder.

I go back to using Tolkien's personal experience as a lens. He was a veteran of trench warfare. Many friends and a great part of his generation participated in trench warfare. Trench warfare could be as "heroic" as a frontal charge into withering machinegun fire. It could also be bitter as raids in the middle of the night, bayonets in backs, and some hand grenades during exfil to let your enemies know you care. Generally, the combatants considered this all above-board. Get your licks in when you can and maybe you'll prevent the enemy from doing it to you.

It's dirty business, to be sure, but not immoral. Or, take a Biblical example that was almost certainly familiar to Tolkien. The two Books of Maccabees chronicle an insurgency by Jewish rebels. Guerrilla raids involve a lot of skullduggery and deception, yet there's no question that the Maccabees are good, righteous men.

I submit to you that parsing Aragorn's actions against the Haradrim is an exercise possible only in the abstract. When you're planning an attack, you know it's going to involve casualties, especially when you're burning ships where the crews won't be able to escape (and, incidentally, burning and drowning are both worse ways to go, I'd think, than being garrotted). Yet, we agree that it's not an evil act because Aragorn had to accomplish a great task to ensure Gondor's safety. The scale may be different for the hero who strangles an Orc guard by stealth to save a companion, but it's the same moral exercise.

There is also certainly some bias and prejudice at work in all cases. I am pretty sure killing someone with a chemical weapon is bad business. I'd argue that it's because it's a relatively slow and extremely painful way to go. On the other hand, I wouldn't think twice about prepping an enemy position with white phosphorus prior to an assault by my troopers. Better them than my boys. We both seem to agree that "it's okay to stab/shoot someone if they can shoot back," but I am in the minority when it comes to strangling someone by stealth. I daresay some of this contrast arises from differences in our backgrounds and experiences.

That all said, there is certainly a line past which a Corruption Test is appropriate. As pointed out quite appropriately already, Corruption Tests and Shadow Points do not necessarily indicate the commission of an evil act. There is almost always a darkening of the soul when you see someone get it.

The question, then, is where is the line? You could well argue that any time you're in battle in which life is lost -- or even a serious wounding -- that a Corruption Test is required. The rules suggest that combat shouldn't be TOO common. A few more Corruption Tests wouldn't be game-breaking, assuming they're properly managed by the Loremaster.

Perhaps, this is one of those arguments that should be discussed in World. Simply would any of Nine Walkers strangle?

I don't think so.

.

I think Sam would do, if Frodo is catched by a band of orcs.

Aragorn or Gimli would jump right into the Encampment and kill all orcs with three or four strikes-> very unrealistic for players.

Logolas would fire arrows with a rate of aproximated 40 per minute of the orcs

Doing horrible things for either the greater good or to save a loved one are worthy of gaing shadow points.

Soldiers have to do horrible things all the time and it makes them miserable (Unless they are unhinged).

I can imagine Aragorn or Turin or Thorin or whoever would have had to to do some terrible things during their respective conflicts.

I can imagine Sam stabbing an orc in the back to save Frodo. In fact Merry does stab someone from behind to save someone he cares about (granted that is on the battlefield).

Maybe instead of a shadow point maybe a character should be temporarily miserable after undertaking such an action.

I suppose in the end it is all about the tone that you want to have in your game.

Shadow points to me are like the erosion of your characters soul and can be gained from quite a few negative sources. Whenever I think of shadow points I'm put in mind of the line from the book - Worn with sorrow and toil.

Stabbing or garroting someone (even an orc) from behind should cause a character sorrow, it should chip away a little of their 'humanity'. It should also be able to be forgotten or faced during the fellowship phase. TOR has all these things built into the game and that to me is what helps it capture the spirit or Middle-Earth.

Or course all of this is just my opinion, yours may be different.

Mordagnir, I am taking your points on board, but it seems that you are applying an awful lot of real world logic where shades of grey are the norm and black and white don't really exist.

Black and White do exist in middle earth. I believe that one of the themes running through the stories is that you shouldn't use the ways or weapons of the enemy against them. No fire to fight fire in this setting as that leads to corruption.

Sneaking into the camp to rescue the Hobbit is the way to go in the first scenario. 'If' the Orc guard spots you and you need to kill him you kill him with the normal weapon that you use. That, to me at least, suggests that killing Orc guards was not the players prime motive in agreeing to rescue his friend in the first place.
Arming himself with a garrotte suggests to me that murdering Orc guards for kicks was every bit as important to the infiltrator as the rescuing of his companion. YMEMV.

I was thinking about the ambush problem. The only one that comes to mind is the attack on the Southrons column in Ithilien.
This was done out of necessity and because there was no other possible course of action. Either they were stopped from joining Sauron's army or they would take part in the sack of Gondor. They provided a direct threat to the loved ones of the ambushers and thus the ambush was justified.

I'm not sure about you biblical example Mordagnir. Those who opposed the Maccabees probably didn't regard them as good or righteous and just thought of them as murderers. It's all about perspective.

So.. waiting and then ambushing (slaughtering) the orcs as they mosey on back to wherever they are going is ok , but strangling an orc, smuggling the hobbit out and leaving the other orcs alive calls for a corruption test?


That, to me at least, suggests that killing Orc guards was not the players prime motive in agreeing to rescue his friend in the first place.

Aren't all the free races under some sort of cultural imperative to kill (if able) all orcs/goblins they lay eyes on or hear about?


I was thinking about the ambush problem. The only one that comes to mind is the attack on the Southrons column in Ithilien.
This was done out of necessity and because there was no other possible course of action. Either they were stopped from joining Sauron's army or they would take part in the sack of Gondor. They provided a direct threat to the loved ones of the ambushers and thus the ambush was justified.

Doesn't the hobbit being held captive provide justification? I don't know the circumstances of why this hobbit is alive and unharmed, but normally those orcs would have cut his belly open, tied his intestines to a stick, then ran with it just to see how far they can get before their 'twine' snapped. With the hobbit still alive and screaming of course.

You don't think so because we don't see it in the book or because you don't want them to?

Again, this may well be a matter of perspective, but I have no difficulty imagining Aragorn killing an Orc with a garrotte.

Freeing the Hobbit using Stealth isn't the issue; assassinating the guard is.

Mechanically speaking, the system makes no difference between killing the unwary orc and knocking him out with the pommel of your sword, or tying and gag him then throw him in a ditch/tent/wherever. When killing isn't necessary, it becomes wrong enough to be a misdeed IMO (considering that we're playing The One Ring as opposed to another RPG).

What is the rational and moral difference between strangling the guard with your bowstring and loosing the first arrow in an ambush? There aren't: both are morally wrong. But putting yourself back in a Middle-Earth context, the ambush is deemed legitimate while the other is considered unnecessarily brutal (and IMO should be considered a misdeed). Why so? Probably because the style of life requires a certain amount of "necessary evil" and the line between acceptable wrong and unacceptable wrong has to be drawn somewhere.

I'm with Halbarad on this one; Middle Earth is painted on a canvas that emphasize contrast between the noble and the vile. One may choose to play by these moral rules or not, but Tolkien's description of what is light and shadow is relatively to extrapolate compared to other authors. A game playing more in "a multitude of shades of grey" is not less valid and fun, but it should be a conscious decision to move away from Tolkien's curriculum.

Well, that's where we differ Mordagnir. I believe that the game rules try to portray the spirit of the books, as written. I too would like to remain true to the spirit of what is actually written in the books.

I don't believe that any of the Nine Walkers would use a garrotte to murder an Orc. Sam might strangle one with his bare hands in absolute necessity(in the Frodo's capture scenario) but would be more likely to use his shortsword.

Murder is morally wrong and is rarely justifiable. In the scenario that Beleg described, I wonder why the party didn't simply avoid the camp altogether? Unless those Orcs were about to descend on some nearby loved ones, I would be awarding a single shadow point per murder to each character. Even if they did murder then to protect loved ones, murder is still murder and they would get a single shadow point from me.

I think that every member of the free folk is under a cultural imperative to oppose the Shadow and it's minions. I don't believe that means that they must resort to the methods of the enemy.

I find it interesting that this topic has evolved--or devolved--into a moral discussion.

All weapons are meant to kill.
You can argue that you can carry a sword in "self defense," but at some point, you are going to draw it, and your only choice is kill, or be killed.

In Tolkien's world, orcs are evil. They were created that way. There is not such thing as a "good" orc, they can't reform, like Chinese demons.

While I would not let someone skin an orc and make a cloak, without getting multiple shadow points, I have no trouble with a character killing an inherently evil opponent from ambush--or strangling it into unconsciousness.

Not disputing any of those points Forgotten King. So, the Orc was only strangled into unconsciousness and not to death? Is that right?

That works for me. No shadow points if no murder committed.

Actually, I think a moral discussion is completely relevant to any serious discussion of Middle-earth and Professor Tolkien's works. It's also a lot of fun!

In any case, I happily concede that this discussion, at the end of the day, must necessarily default to a personal interpretation of Middle-earth. As I stated earlier, my interpretation is derived from my background and experiences; I will not apologise for them nor will I expect another to apologise for their own philosophical meanderings.

In my case, I reject the idea that the modern world is full of shades of grey whilst Middle-earth as portrayed by TOR is conveniently black-and-white. I have found over three deployments to Afghanistan and one to Iraq as a cavalry officer that folks who describe the world as grey are the first ones to slide into the black. Moral relativism helps people justify doing all sorts of things that are reprehensible. At the end of the day, though, wrong is wrong and right is right. The challenge, as this discussion illustrates, is figuring out where the line is. I will never concede that the line does not exist in any age, whether it's the First Age or the Modern. The caveat, naturally, is that sometimes the line is hard to see and often we must discern it in an extraordinarily short time.

It's the age old morality debate about the whether the ends justify the means.
Crikey - how many times did this come up in Alignment-debates in the ol' D&D days of yore?!

Regarding the assigning of Corruption/Shadow to a backstabbing Hero, I'd base this on their motivation and how they came to the decision to sneak-up back-stab, ie- did they explore more Heroic options to resolve the dilemma? If not- then they probably deserve to be tainted.
I'm thinking that a Hero possessing an actual Garotte (not an improvised one from a bow-string, etc) indicates that they've premeditated the use of such .... and that's DARK in my opinion.

IMO Tolkien would not condone heroes using sneaky backstabs and assassinations. I too fail to see it as heroic derring-do.
However having said that - your TOR game is YOUR story not Tolkien's - you are free to develop & run your game-world as you wish.
Myself - I choose to honour Tolkien's sensibilities in my game, so I try to encourage a heroic ideal.

Moving forward - as far as combat mechanics go, I see the sneak-up backstab as a combo of Ambush & Called Shot (after all- the Hero is attempting to derive a very specific outcome from their strike). I think I'd run it like this:

The approach:
Adjudicate the sneak-up to striking distance as per Ambush rules (LM Book, p.43). It's generally a Stealth test involved. That said, I can imagine my players sometimes attempting devious ploys to approach a guard without alarm, eg- disguise/impersonation (a very difficult test of Persuade? Riddle? Craft? Or an extended challenge involving various skill elements?) I can even see a swashbuckling hero attempting to test their Athletics - "I'm gonna swing down from that tree on that rope and take the guards head off!"

A great success rolled for Ambush here, rather than gaining the usual effect (assisting companions to ambush), improves the Hero's position for their backstab strike - thus allowing the player to roll a second Feat die for their Called Shot Weapon test and take the best result.
This in effect increases the player's chances of reaching the strike TN and at least dealing normal damage to the victim.

An extraordinary success, in addition to the effect of the great success, also gives the hero an automatic tengwar icon on their Called Shot Weapon test - vastly improving the likelihood of success with the strike & obtaining the bonus Piercing blow. The Hero has struck their target at the best moment, or while they're vulnerable/distracted...

The strike:
I'd treat the strike as a Called Shot (Adv.Book, p.161) but make these adaptations

- during the assassination attempt the Hero does not get a Battle roll to gain Combat Advantages. (They will get an opportunity when entering open combat).

- the defender (being totally unaware if the Ambush test is successful) does not receive their Parry adjustment to the strike TN.

- if the Hero fails to obtain a tengwar icon on their Called Shot Weapon test, and yet successfully rolls the strike TN - they still deal normal weapon damage, as per a normal combat strike BUT they do not get the bonus Called Shot Piercing blow.
(This differs from a typical Called Shot against an aware target - where lack of a tengwar icon results in a complete miss).

- see above for effects of great/extraordinary successes.

So in brief it's an Ambush check, then an adapted Called Shot.
I think I got everything down that I wanted .... let me know if I screwed-up, or just make no sense.

I think this is clutch:

"However having said that - your TOR game is YOUR story not Tolkien's - you are free to develop & run your game-world as you wish."

I am amused, though, how we all -- myself included -- conflate our notions of honour with ethics. In philosophical terms, they are quite distinct. I was drawn to the stories of Barahir's and Turin's outlaws in the SILMARILLION from the get-go as a young teen. I saw no difference between their actions and those of various WWII heroes, like the Resistance in Europe, the OSS, Merrill's Marauders, and the like (note that my father was a member of the Danish Resistance before he came to the US, hence my fascination with WWII). Man, I'd be hard-pressed to think of guys I'd rather emulate. Folks throw around the word "murder" like it's cool, but were I to be so casual with the word, I'd have to mark myself a murderer.

In any case, it's interesting to me to see how something like a hero strangling an Orc through stealth to save a companion can spark such a lively philosophical debate. For my own part, I think I'll require Corruption Tests after every combat with a fatality thanks to this discussion. Cheers for that.

Finally, I apologise if my tendency to think of the debate in real, modern terms bothers the sensibilities of some. Whilst I must acknowledge that the moral compass has shifted over the centuries -- for example, Christianity now universally condemns slavery -- I don't subscribe to the idea that ethics are situational or period-specific. As you might imagine, this makes me very conservative!

For those who think that the Orc should be knocked out rather than killed, is there any evidence from any of the work of this happening? I can't remember any Orcs spared or captured. Every one is either killed or escapes.

For me the line is whether they are combatants or not. If you cut down "women and children" orcs who just want to run away and not fight, then that is wrong. If they surrender, then killing them is wrong. Getting an otherwise hostile Orc before they know what hits them, though, is fair game, and in my view falls in line with Tolkien's stories.

Sadly, I just packed up the HOME series (we're moving). However, there's a great essay in one of the last books about the nature of Orcs. Tolkien vicariously discusses two moral debates in relation to Orc-kind. First, the Wise agreed that Orcs must be granted mercy should they ask for it (though this is rare for various reasons). Second, Orcs must not be tortured, even to save the lives of Free Peoples.

Water boarding Orcs, thank God, is certifiably a misdeed.

One problem we have is the literary world vs the rpg world. In the book the characters can accomplish great feats that may be beyond what the pc can do. The characters kill with one blow. The PCs not so much. Mechanically, an arrow in the back or being strangled may not be very different. However, to my perception of the morality as written in the books and not the real world, I believe that one is the tool of the enemy while one is not.

I don't see strangulation as part of the in book morality of the characters even though an ambush could be. I am not attempting to argue why it is such, but just how I see the books as written.

I would probably give a shadow point to the garrote because of how I perceive it in the view of LOTR morality.


Now to do what I said we shouldn't. It is like the stereotypical cinematic morality of Ninja's vs Samurai. Both kill but Ninja's use dishonorable means. Please let us not get into a long discussion about real world samurai and ninjas. That is why I qualified my statement above.

I see that Mordagnir responded while I was typing. I just wanted to comment on our different experiences as I have found those who see the world in only black and white easily justify their not so pure actions as being the right way. Maybe we are all tainted with Melkor "stuff".


HN

PS I see several have responded before I posted.

If I'm understanding him correctly, I think I agree with Mordagnir; just because something is necessary doesn't mean you're necessarily absolved. Sometimes when it comes down to "Kill or be killed," be killed is the more correct action, even though it obviously can't be the answer for protagonists, or those who are fighting an enemy who intends to destroy more lives.

War, in both Tolkien's experience and in Middle-earth, is a horrible, wretched experience, and it twists your soul, whether you're the "good guys" or not. Faramir is an exceedingly good guy, and he does not like what he has to do in the War. Which means that yes, all combatants in war are walking around with some Shadow, and they have to constantly fight it off to not become what they are fighting against, and that is a really interesting dynamic to explore.

Mechanically speaking, though, the game is typically not that harsh. Especially in a world where most everyone you're going to encounter is on the same side, you will rarely, if ever, have to lie to anyone except maybe Orcs, if you get captured. I think it's up to the group just which aspects of Middle-earth they want to emphasize; if they really want to focus on the morality play, then any ambush should probably result in a Shadow point, no matter who or what they are directly rescuing/protecting.

In a less "serious business" game, however, the Loremaster will err on the forgiving side; if the characters in the books do it, it must be completely OK. Aragorn tricked Sauron into moving the host of Mordor to the Black Gate so that Frodo could sneak in and seal his fate. That's a very common and very simple tactic, but it was deception, even of a foe. Faramir famously claims that he would not ensnare even an Orc with a falsehood; what would he say about Aragorn's distraction? If Sauron had done the same thing, drawing out the garrison of Minas Tirith to Osgiliath, while slipping an assassin to kill Denethor, Faramir, and Mithrandir, effectively leaving the Gondorians leaderless, would it have been considered underhanded? The room for debate is endless.

EDIT: The problem is that the professor applied a Christian morality to a tale that looks like a Norse epic; the heroes are big, bold warriors who slay dozens of their enemies, but killing is still bad. That doesn't work because a devout Christian can choose to be killed Obi-Wan style and go to heaven, that's not a tragedy, but in a world where there is no strong hope of an after-life, then self-preservation becomes the bottom line, every time.

Here's an example from a radically different genre; super hero comics. Recently, Peter Parker's Aunt May was dying of shrapnel injuries, I believe it was. Peter Parker (Spider-Man) and his wife, Mary-Jane, who have been married for a long time, are very sad. Mephisto, the Marvel-verse's incarnation of the devil, shows up and offers a deal; he will save Aunt May's life if Peter and Mary-Jane agree to erase their marriage from ever happening. For reasons related to Executive Meddling, they decide to go for it; Aunt May is saved, and Peter and Mary-Jane were never married. The validity of this decision depends on your opinion of the after-life; if Aunt May had a positive after-life waiting for her (for instance, one where she could be reunited with Uncle Ben), then this was a horrible, horrible move, utterly selfish on Peter's part and completely indefensible. If, however, preservation of mortal life is the ultimate good, then a life for a marriage might actually be a deal worth considering (though, frankly, it was probably Aunt May's time to go, and regardless of the after-life situation, she'd probably want to take the selfless course of action and let Peter and MJ stay happily married, but the life for love is conceivably an enticing deal in some situation somewhere).

Now I'm completely off on a tangent about how notions of the after-life define a setting's moral compass, and I apologize. In conclusion, I'll just repeat my opinion that I think winning wars against even irredeemably evil enemies requires a moral risk, and you just hope that there's enough humanity left in you after you've won that it was worth something. I think that's the view that Faramir has, and I identify with him most strongly. Game-wise, it's up to the group to decide how 'grim' they want their flavor of Middle-earth to be.

Mordagnir,

Murder is far from cool and I, for one, am certainly not throwing it about like it is. Stabbing or garrotting someone to death from behind is murder and it is not cool.That is why I am so set on discouraging it in TOR.

My life experience has shown me that people who think in shades of grey are more likely to accept and tolerate diversity. Those who see the(real) world in black and white are those who eventually slip into the black and do reprehensible things.

I have lived most of my forty six years in Northern Ireland among idiots who see things in black and white. In that time there have been thousands murdered (often hideously),tens of thousands maimed in body, mind and spirit. All because people couldn't see beyond the black and white of their own self righteousness.

So, while i respect you for the job you do and for the tough decisions you have to make, it doesn't change my opinion.

One thing we do agree on is that no one has anything to apologise for.