Was it out of character?

[the phantom]

The scene would have been so much more powerful (in my view) if, after saying his piece, the Mouth had simply turned round and ridden back to Mordor. Aragorn could then have done his "I will not believe it" bit and ridden back to give his inspiring speech. It should be "Hope against all odds", not "Silly old Mouth - I'll just chop off his head and that's that".

Yes, I totally agree with that.

when the good guys start playing by the rules of the bad guys, then they are no better than them

I've always disliked this notion. I'm sorry, but when you're dealing with someone who is without a doubt evil and horrible and has acted so in the past and will continue to act so- they have forfeited all rights to be treated like a human being.

Now, in the real world it is difficult to define someone as the embodiment of evil, but in Middle Earth there was no doubt about Sauron, the Nazgul, and tMoS. They were sub-human.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I've always disliked this notion. I'm sorry, but when you're dealing with someone who is without a doubt evil and horrible and has acted so in the past and will continue to act so- they have forfeited all rights to be treated like a human being.

Now, in the real world it is difficult to define someone as the embodiment of evil, but in Middle Earth there was no doubt about Sauron, the Nazgul, and tMoS. They were sub-human.

Tolkien would disagree with you.

[the phantom]

Tolkien would disagree with you.

I'm not a clone of Tolkien, so that's bound to happen occasionally. I'm fine with that.

But Tolkien might not disagree with me as much as you think. In Telchar's thread, How do you kill Wyatt Earp?, Telchar shows that the way Sauron was defeated was definitely not proper.

He likens it to challenging an enemy to a gunfight and when he shows up and you're about to start the duel your friend, who's been hiding in a building, shoots your opponent in the back with a rifle.

Tolkien certainly didn't see a problem with defeating Sauron by those means.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I'm not a clone of Tolkien, so that's bound to happen occasionally. I'm fine with that.

I'm not quite sure what profit you hope to gain by making statements that are fundamentally absurd.

Originally Posted by the phantom

But Tolkien might not disagree with me as much as you think. In Telchar's thread, How do you kill Wyatt Earp?, Telchar shows that the way Sauron was defeated was definitely not proper.

He likens it to challenging an enemy to a gunfight and when he shows up and you're about to start the duel your friend, who's been hiding in a building, shoots your opponent in the back with a rifle.

How about challenging to a gunfight a guy who's ten feet tall and can only be killed with a shot from a rifle from a window in a certain part of his back?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

I'm not a clone of Tolkien, so that's bound to happen occasionally. I'm fine with that.

But, when you are discussing Tolkien's works, you ought really accept the context within which they are set. Of course, we are discussing the film here, so it is a different context.

Looking back at that Wyatt Earp thread (which I was reminded of too), I ought really to qualify my comment that, in Tolkien's world, the end does not justify the means. It depends what the "means" is. If it involves doing what (only) the evil characters would do, then I would say that it cannot justify the end. Hence the number of well-argued and (to my mind) reasonable responses to the question that Telchar posed.

The strategy of distracting the Enemy (and exploiting his weakness in doing so) so as to allow Frodo and Sam a better chance of destroying the Ring is not such a means. It is a perfectly acceptable tactic in my view. The Wyatt Earp anaolgy is off in any event, since it involves shooting someone in the back, whereas Frodo and Sam went right up to Sauron's doorstep (behind enemy lines) and, in any event, had very little chance of success.

And it is entirely different from killing a non-combatant in cold blood. Although, as I have said, we are discussing the film here, so perhaps the standard is different.

[the phantom]

I'm not a clone of Tolkien, so that's bound to happen occasionally. I'm fine with that.

I'm not quite sure what profit you hope to gain by making statements that are fundamentally absurd.

Hmm... I don't understand the reasoning behind that retort.

Now, if we were discussing who Aragorn's father was, my statement would indeed be absurd, since Tolkien has clearly stated who Aragorn's father was and Tolkien is the creator and ultimate authority when it comes to Middle Earth.

But I was expressing a real life opinion on warfare and fighting evil. Tolkien did not create the world's rules of warfare and is not the ultimate authority on matters of diplomacy, evil, and parley practices. They are not under the jurisdiction of Middle Earth- they merely play a role in Middle Earth (in other words, it's okay to disagree with him).

But if you still aren't satisfied, just look at what The Saucepan Man said...

Of course, we are discussing the film here, so it is a different context... as I have said, we are discussing the film here, so perhaps the standard is different

Bingo! The Aragorn we are discussing isn't even Tolkien's Aragorn.

How about challenging to a gunfight a guy who's ten feet tall and can only be killed with a shot from a rifle from a window in a certain part of his back?

Well, yes, that's the situation with Sauron. But if, like some have said, you must always play honorably and never stoop to your opponent's level, then shooting the guy in the back is still wrong no matter what the situation, so the proper thing to do would be fight fair and lose (which is pretty silly if you ask me).

The Wyatt Earp anaolgy is off in any event, since it involves shooting someone in the back, whereas Frodo and Sam went right up to Sauron's doorstep

I don't agree with that. Interpret your opponent's "front" and "back" as meaning "where he's looking and where his attention is focused" and "where he's not looking and where his attention is not focused". The analogy is perfectly acceptable.

[Lyta_Underhill]

But if, like some have said, you must always play honorably and never stoop to your opponent's level, then shooting the guy in the back is still wrong no matter what the situation, so the proper thing to do would be fight fair and lose (which is pretty silly if you ask me).

With references to the "Wyatt Earp" thread and this one... What if the guy behind "Wyatt Earp" simply nodded while the man in front direct Earp's attention to the fact that he is surrounded and had better leave town before he "gets it." Then our hypothetical bad guy might either a) be smart and leave or b) show his arrogance and attempt to kill the one in front and thus become a legitimate target for the one in back (provocation to typical behavior). I think this method of dealing with Sauron is more like unto the strategy of both book and movie Aragorn, as he is using the innate evil tendency of his great opponent Sauron to drive the conflict, drawing him into the behavior he already knows to be native to the Dark Lord. If he "shoots Wyatt Earp in the back" or in our case "cuts off the head of the messenger," he, in a sense, becomes like the Dark Lord, using his own tactics and thus becomes a bit frightening and suspect.

This is not to say Frodo should stand up and wave and say "I've got your Ring, now stand down!" to Sauron, but that is in effect what he ends up doing when he puts on the Ring at Mount Doom and draws Sauron's attention to the fact that he is beaten. (Of course the analogy is not perfect and no one in his right mind would let Sauron just walk out of this one...) I hope I'm making sense!

Cheers!
Lyta