Kill that guard before he rises the alarm

[Angelalex242]

Well, Saruman is theoretically redeemable. He's a corrupted good guy, not an irredeemable bad guy. Saruman's corruption is so much worse because he HAD a choice. He didn't have to end the way he did. He could've repented and probably rode the boat back to Valinor.

The problem with orcs is...they can't repent.

[Glorelendil]

The problem with orcs is...they can't repent.

How would your character know that?

How would even Elrond know that?

You can't use information that your character wouldn't have to argue that he/she wouldn't have a moment of moral doubt. Shadow is not something granted by an omniscient & impartial arbiter after a careful consideration of the evidence. It's something one invites onto oneself through doubt and fear.

Anyway....

I'm surprised nobody has asked what how it is different if you ambush orcs with a volley of arrows and get a one-shot kill during the ambush. Isn't that still "assassination"?

I think there is a difference, though. To me clamping your hand over a victim's mouth while you slit their throat and then feel them thrash in their death throws is just going to be more...disturbing...than shooting them from a distance. It's the up-close-and-personal nature that makes the throat-slitting a sketchy proposition.

[Angelalex242]

Presumably, knowing that is...I dunno, TN 20 Lore only for those with Elven Lore to remember the 1st age? Or maybe Enemy of Sauron? I dunno. There's a way to know, though. It's not necessarily a big secret when nobody has ever heard of an orc repenting. Ever.

[Glorelendil]

Presumably, knowing that is...I dunno, TN 20 Lore only for those with Elven Lore to remember the 1st age? Or maybe Enemy of Sauron? I dunno. There's a way to know, though. It's not necessarily a big secret when nobody has ever heard of an orc repenting. Ever.

But it's not even a First Age thing. Unless I'm mistaken, the only official writing on the topic was not "in story" but commentary about the stories. The topic literally does not exist in canon.

[Falenthal]

I'm surprised nobody has asked what how it is different if you ambush orcs with a volley of arrows and get a one-shot kill during the ambush. Isn't that still "assassination"?

I think there is a difference, though. To me clamping your hand over a victim's mouth while you slit their throat and then feel them thrash in their death throws is just going to be more...disturbing...than shooting them from a distance. It's the up-close-and-personal nature that makes the throat-slitting a sketchy proposition.

That's interesting, and I agree with the difference made. Rangers (both northern and Ithilien ones) and elves, specially, are known for their ambush tactics. Why don't they -in game terms- fall prey to the Shadow?
I'd also defend that there's a difference between Faramir's ambush at the Easterners, and what could have been if Bilbo had stabbed Gollum in the back while unseen.

[Glorelendil]

Not to mention the fact that stealthy killing has GOT to be much trickier than it looks in the movies. Unless you've been trained to do it (e.g. special forces) you're probably more likely to botch it than not. You might still kill your target, but maybe not as silently as you hoped.

Which means that if your LM let's you have an autosuccess just because you passed your stealth roll, it's basically saying that you've been taught and have practiced doing so.

In other words, you're a murderhobo.

Not very Tolkien-esque.

P.S. I'm about to go revive the Deadly Archery thread with a new idea...

[Aeglosdir]

A possible problem with 'Shadow through doubt' is that the genuinely stupid would be immune to Shadow...

"Here we were, making our way through Anórien, when we caught this guy near our hidden camp. Clearly he was up to no good, all alone in the wild like that. We couldn't have him reveal our presence to Saruman or whoever his lord was, so obviously we snuck up on him from behind and cut his throat. And here, look at this red arrow he was carrying! Is this evidence he was some kind of spy or what?"

Next, replace Hirgon with an orc. Glorfindel catches scent of the orc and silently approaches in the dark. He could simply shoot it in the back and be done with it. Orcs are irredeemable, after all.

In my game, Glorfindel would actually know that Orcs are irredeemable. He would have no qualms about killing an orc. But he would not violate his own moral code and act like an orc himself. So, he would not shoot the orc in the back from a distance (to avoid getting his clothes messy) or sneak up and slit its throat. He would suddenly appear before the orc, arrow at the ready, with a "not a sound or you're dead". An orc probably would never surrender to an Elf, so that would be the last we heard of that orc. But, if the orc did in fact surrender, then Glorfindel would not kill him. He would act according to his own moral code, not the orc's -- even at a cost. And later the orc might laugh to himself at the stupid Elf for missing out on sound military tactics -- he knows what he himself would have done!

[Glorelendil]

A possible problem with 'Shadow through doubt' is that the genuinely stupid would be immune to Shadow...

Not quite sure how you get to that conclusion, but it's the rest of the post that I want to agree with/respond to...

"Here we were, making our way through Anórien, when we caught this guy near our hidden camp. Clearly he was up to no good, all alone in the wild like that. We couldn't have him reveal our presence to Saruman or whoever his lord was, so obviously we snuck up on him from behind and cut his throat. And here, look at this red arrow he was carrying! Is this evidence he was some kind of spy or what?"

Next, replace Hirgon with an orc. Glorfindel catches scent of the orc and silently approaches in the dark. He could simply shoot it in the back and be done with it. Orcs are irredeemable, after all.

In my game, Glorfindel would actually know that Orcs are irredeemable. He would have no qualms about killing an orc. But he would not violate his own moral code and act like an orc himself. So, he would not shoot the orc in the back from a distance (to avoid getting his clothes messy) or sneak up and slit its throat. He would suddenly appear before the orc, arrow at the ready, with a "not a sound or you're dead". An orc probably would never surrender to an Elf, so that would be the last we heard of that orc. But, if the orc did in fact surrender, then Glorfindel would not kill him. He would act according to his own moral code, not the orc's -- even at a cost. And later the orc might laugh to himself at the stupid Elf for missing out on sound military tactics -- he knows what he himself would have done!

What I like about your scenario is that it speaks to the moral complexity and even messiness of Tolkien's world. What makes Tolkien richly different from, say, Game of Thrones is that making the right decision, even if it's a hard and painful one, is a necessary part of the story. The problem I have with rationalizing why it's ok to assassinate the orc is that it reduces this world to one of expediency. Kill the monster, take the treasure. The lone orc guard, and how the heroes deal with the temptations of dealing with him, could be the (or at least 'a') centerpiece of the narrative, not just an obstacle to the loot.

[Angelalex242]

I call it a first age thing because people like Galadriel have met the Valar. And when there's enough people around who've met the Valar, eventually, somebody's going to know, or figure it out, or the Valar themselves will say 'they're a lost cause.' Particularly during the war of wrath...the Valar led assault will make it quite clear they weren't taking orc prisoners.

"Well, if Manwe himself wasn't taking orc prisoners during the War of Wrath, how arrogant do I have to be to think I know better then he does?"

This figures, of course, that Manwe is essentially the controlling moral authority for any elves who actually remember his actions.

[Aeglosdir]

Not quite sure how you get to that conclusion

Right, that was just an aside. It meant no more than this though: if a PC was too stupid to ever reflect on or query his own actions, then doubt would never touch him and he would be free from Shadow. Sancta simplicitas.

The problem I have with rationalizing why it's ok to assassinate the orc is that it reduces this world to one of expediency. Kill the monster, take the treasure. The lone orc guard, and how the heroes deal with the temptations of dealing with him, could be the (or at least 'a') centerpiece of the narrative, not just an obstacle to the loot.

This. Plus, it's fun to role-play a not-quite-modern world view.