Kill that guard before he rises the alarm

[Earendil]

Thanks for that, Arthadan. I wanted to say something similar, as I remembered reading that quote, but I couldn't remember it in great detail, nor where it was from.

I'd add Faramir's line: "I would not ensnare even an orc with a falsehood". I think the principle here is that lying, torture, backstabbing etc. are inherently morally wrong, and doing it to an orc doesn't make it right.

I'd also add that orcs may be irredeemable by anyone in Middle-Earth, but there's no way the heroes can know that for certain (and I don't think Tolkien's statement says they definitely were, it says they "might have been", and he also doesn't rule out the Valar being able to do so). Knowing it's probably impossible, or believing it's actually impossible; that's fine. But no-one really knows.

The conversation Sam overhears between Gorbag and Shagrat seems to give the lie to the idea that orcs are mere puppets of the Dark Powers; they reminisce about the good old days, wish they didn't have to answer to anyone, and are concerned about their conversation being overheard and reported back to their bosses. They even criticise Elves for allegedly abandoning their comrades to die, while also laughing about leaving one of their own in Shelob's Lair (showing they have a sense of morals but are hypocritical about it).

It's probably justifiable to give fewer Shadow points for mistreating an orc than one of the free peoples, but if the heroes are saying "meh, it's just an orc, not a real person", I think they're definitely slipping into darkness.

[Earendil]

I should add: my post above is not intended to tell anyone how they should play or run their game. It's my take on things, how I would judge such situations and how I would justify my position. I think this is important to make the game world feel like Tolkien's, and that gaining Shadow points is not a punishment, but a demonstration of how hard it is to live in Middle-Earth without being touched by its corruption.

But of course if you disagree, you have every right to do as you see fit in your games.

[Angelalex242]

Well, treachery is not the same thing as ambush or good military tactics. There is no sin in attacking from stealth or surprise. Many peoples in middle earth are famous for it.

[Aeglosdir]

They are irredeemable at least by Men and Elves. Could the Valar or the Istari redeem some Orcs?

Possibly, but personally I think not. Melko was the most powerful Vala after all. IMO the other Valar were not able to do such a thing (or they would have done so) except perhaps at great cost. Or not without a special plea to Ilúvatar perhaps. Might make for an interesting campaign.

I think the rule here is "it's corrupting (in game terms) to deal with an Orc in the same way an Orc would do".

I agree. 'If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost.' What of PCs who do not even give the Orc a chance to surrender? Like I said upthread it would depend on why they did it (and what their options were -- in most cases people do have a choice).

The conversation Sam overhears between Gorbag and Shagrat seems to give the lie to the idea that orcs are mere puppets of the Dark Powers; they reminisce about the good old days, wish they didn't have to answer to anyone, and are concerned about their conversation being overheard and reported back to their bosses. They even criticise Elves for allegedly abandoning their comrades to die, while also laughing about leaving one of their own in Shelob's Lair (showing they have a sense of morals but are hypocritical about it).

Yes, and I alluded to Shippey's writings on that. Like I said, in my game my solution to the problem is that what we see in the tower of Cirith Ungol is mockery. A wooden puppet would not fool anyone, and no-one need feel bad about destroying it. A puppet that seems almost human, on the other hand... A clever Dark Lord would make his puppets seem human in order to instill doubt, and to push his puppets' enemies further down the slippery slope.

I'd also add that orcs may be irredeemable by anyone in Middle-Earth, but there's no way the heroes can know that for certain

I agree that this is an important point. That's why it matters what the PC's motivations and convictions are. Stabbing a guard in the back: in Middle-earth, that's what an Orc would do. I think it would be more in line with the books if the heroes tried to solve the problem in some other way. Sneaking up to a guard and cutting his throat from behind does not strike me as something the heroes would do in the books and hence preferrably the game mechanics should not encourage such behaviour either. IMO.

[Stormcrow]

If Bilbo had decided to cut Gollum's throat after he had snuck up on him, we'd have a very different story. Mind you, he did consider doing it.

[Glorelendil]

Bear in mind that Shadow isn't a punishment for doing evil. It represents the weakening of one's resolve against the temptations of the Shadow. So an act doesn't have to be demonstrably "evil" to warrant Shadow.

I sort of wish there were a rule in the game that granted 1 Shadow to every character upon their first kill of any adversary with a Personality rating of 1 or higher, to represent the horror of taking a life. I think it would fit in with the spirit of the rule, and would help illustrate its use.

[Majestic]

After reading through this thread, I was just going to say exactly what Glorelendil just did: that it's important to remember that Corruption isn't the exact same thing as awarding Dark side points in Star Wars. The PCs have the potential to get Corruption just by witnessing something horrible.

[Feanor]

The question of irredemable orcs, by elves men and dwarves ( free peoples ), is Probably a question that both a very wise AND humanistic individual would put forward ( in Middle Earth, i.e Gandalf... to Saruman however this is insignificant since he is not humanistic ). 95 to 99 % of the other regular people isnt even pondering this idea.
At least thats how i interpret the world of Middle Earth...So when it comes to playing out such in an interesting dilemma it brings a good twist to maybe an already complicated situation and the character might learn a thing or two in that instance. Thats ONE of many reasons i love to play RPGs more than board games. Character development isnt merely measured in experience and advancement points.

Inspite of my previous comment about the ambush and i still stand by it, BUT i would like to add that killing an orc who is a prisoner/unarmed/have given up... and maybe some other perspectives, would certainly grant a shadow point ( possibly more ). Thats my take on that situation and id agree with some of the posts previously made about this. Excellent discussion!

In Essence after all, Shadow points acquisitions means ones "humanity", "Dwarfavity", "Elvavity" etc is degrading. Many interesting RPGs have this as part of the concept.

[Otaku-sempai]

About the seeming irredeemability of Orcs in Middle-earth: I think it is important to remember that Morgoth is thought to have made Orcs from corrupted Elves and/or Men as he would have been unable to create new life on his own. Therefore, Orcs are more than just meat-puppets of Sauron's will, if perhaps not very much more than that. That said, and using an (admittedly) extreme example, If a Hero found himself facing a young, orphaned Orc-child then it might conceivably be possible to raise that foundling to become at least a half-way decent person, much like the hypothetical giant that Gandalf hoped to find to help him block-up the Goblin-cave in the Misty Mountains.

[Aeglosdir]

Otaku-sempai: At the risk of going in circles: you are aware that Tolkien's statement quoted by Arthadan above was made in this very context? "...the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men)..." So, the point still stands: no matter their origin (human, Elven or something else), they have become irredeemable. So a hero in Middle-earth might well hope to achieve what you describe, but it appears that his hopes would be misguided.

Glorelendil: I agree that it's not a 'punishment'. Also I think it matters if the deed is dishonourable. '[T]hough of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity...' -- that's kind of how Orcs are treated in the books, isn't it, and it fits the view that they are irredeemable by Elves and Men -- but still: '...they must not be dealt with in their own terms', because doing so would be dishonourable.

In my view, awarding Shadow points for destroying a creature of shadow may seem a bit contradictory and hard to justify. The solution (IMO) is that it matters if you lived up the the high moral standards asked of you. Did you give the Orc a chance to surrender? Did you fight fair? Did you give in to temptation and take the easy way out? Stuff like that.

Edit: I'm doubtful about the 'first kill' rule. It's not really the trauma, I think. But that was an aside, rest of paragraph deleted.