There have been so many posts on this thread since I last looked I feel like I went on holiday...
Anyway, I was just going to say that, having read everybody's arguments, I do feel that my party got of rather lightly with their deed. Granted, the orc camp was right outside the elven gate, and they may well have been setting an ambush. Equally, the orcs may have merely been watching, so my players sneaking in and killing them all should probably have earned them a shadow point or two.

I would also just like to add something regarding the whole sword vs garrote thing. To me, and in most epic fantasy things, the hero often wields a sword, as it is generally seen as an 'honourable' weapon, what with them being used by knights and such. Equally, a sword gives your opponent equal opportunity to strike you. It relies more on your own skill than the element of surprise you have. It isn't exactly the same, but when I used to fence, I learned that just because I felt like I had the upper hand, didn't mean that I did. The thing about a sword is that it's even odds. Even something like a mace doesn't give that. You just bash the bloke's head in and move on. So I would have to agree that any form of attack involving surprise should at the very least be an opportunity for the player to gain shadow points. I have a feeling I'm going to be much harsher on my players from now on

Somehow I think you missed my point Halbarad. I was agreeing with you that deeds like strangling someone/thing to death in the dark should at the minimum have the potential for a Shadow Point.

My point about the test comparison was to counter the argument that the players intentions were good so no Shadow penalty should apply. I was comparing the fact that you can do completely non-evil things in the game and still have a chance of gaining shadow.

Possibly T72. Though, I'm still fairly much of the opinion that killing an Orc in that manner is technically murder and thus evil. Are we on the same page? I'm starting to get a little confused.

Sorry, it just made sense and I see what you mean. If characters can gain shadow from non evil sources, then of course that get it from doing misdeeds.

Wow, I stay offline for about a day and look what happens!

While no weapon and no spell is intrinsically good or evil, it's use tends to taint the perception of it. So a garrotte is in and of itself neutral, but as it is generally associated with a stealth attack, it is construed to be an ignoble weapon. Which is the perception, or opinion, of the player/character who encounters this situation.

With regards to the morality of the game, we've got Misdeeds which clearly define what is "evil". So very little guessing is necessary. It comes down, as suggested, to trying to determine where that line in the sand is drawn, specifically.

Actually, I believe it is just the opposite. Somebody (the Wise?) says that the Orcs should not be killed/destroyed without provocation. (Please note I cannot provide a citation as I don't really recall this 'quote', so I could be seriously mistaken here. It's just a "I remember it said something like..." situation.)

Remember, both of the greatest evils in Middle-earth, Morgoth and Sauron, are incapable of creating new life. They can alter existing creatures into more evil forms, mentally and physically, but that is the extent of their abilities. (Barring Ainur that took an "evil" physical form - such as the Balrogs.) So it is possible that without evil influence and motivation, over time these creatures might revert to something like their original source. For instance there is some conjecture that Orcs might have been derived from Elves.

It is possible once they've stopped being beaten, ridiculed, reviled, starved and worked like slaves every day of their lives, the Orcs might become less evil. Particularly if, like in PJ's movies, they stop knifing each other as a midnight snack! It would probably take about 2 millenia, but they might revert into something more like an elf than an orc at that point.

One of the things I thought interesting about the essay in HOME about the nature of Orcs -- the one in which the Wise rule against torture or killing Orcs that request mercy -- is that the author indicates redemption is impossible. Now, knowing Professor Tolkien, there's still a lot of wiggle room. After all, he writes almost everything as an historian or chronicler in Middle-earth. Perhaps the author was a hardened Man of Gondor who didn't believe redemption possible, but Professor Tolkien thought otherwise. I certainly don't know.

This.

It seems to me that the fellowship characters will never hear of, much less debate whether orcs were once elves. We're not talking about your favorite dog, Old Yeller. We're talking about centuries old dogma, about creatures feared for their indiscriminate slaughter and cruelty.


I would be more sympathetic to the Misdeeds argument if, instead of orcs, the captors were men. These men may have been pressed into service, tricked, coerced, or threatened with reprisal if they didn't capture the hobbit and bring him back alive (or whatever the OP's backstory involved).

With men we have reasonable doubt.

But with orcs.. no. There's no grey here, unless as forgottenking stated, they start making orc skin cloaks or cannibalizing the corpses or capturing them alive so they can shove their feet into a fire. You don't torture a rabid dog. You just put them down.

edit: I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I agree that sneaking up and garroting an orc is not morally very different from sneaking up and shooting him through the throat from behind a tree.

To which we can add:

And:

So to address this on a philosophy / ethics / purist level, the straightest path of moral behaviour that Eru wants his Children to walk -- in Estel faith -- would not allow the execution of surrendering orcs, or the use of torture even to save lives (or, according to Faramir, even lying to them!)... But "This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded." (MR ~p.419, cont'd.)

It's hard for anyone placed in a Jack Bauer '24' situation to have the Estel to let orcs 'probably' kill their family when information gained through torture might prevent it.
But the way the Design of Eru works, evil tends to lead to its own undoing, and good is rewarded -- like the ultimate example of Bilbo's pity staying his hand. It would be very Tolkienish of us Loremasters to have events turn out in a (eucatastrophic?) way that the Player-Heroes hadn't anticipated, such that doing the Right Thing really is often rewarded by events.
Or at least if the Player-Heroes refrain from killing surrendered orcs, slitting the throats of unconscious ones etc. we have to not let their doing the Right Thing actually cause them any disadvantage.

And it wasn't only in the War in the First Age (with Morgoth as a clear and present danger) that rarified moral philosophy would often go unheeded. Elladan and Elrohir were notoriously ruthless in their treatment of orcs in the latter years of the Third Age, owing to the "horror" of what was done to their mother, despite their own father being pretty much wisest of the Wise.
I'd say they were viewed with some moral concern, but their deeds didn't turn them to the Darkness... So they didn't rack up Shadow Points too badly. Or perhaps once you've sunk to a given point because of a certain moral behaviour, more of the same behaviour doesn't drop you any lower than that.
I don't think we're quite in Misdeeds territory here. And I would allow a Wisdom/Corruption Test to avoid incurring Shadow Points.

Cheers!
--Os.

P.S. Am I guilty of assimilating an ICE-ism that the Elves, viewing orcs as irredeemable, would kill them at any opportunity as an act of justice, or even mercy on their poor twisted (originally elven) souls? I've had quite a look, but couldn't find anything like that in Tolkien's own words.

- a very pertinent point Os.

Well put - I couldn't agree more. That really is the crux of the matter (or 'clutch' -Mordagnir ) - that we as LM ensure that our heroes' fates smile on them when they choose to do the harder, riskier 'Right Thing'.

Given that 0 endurance is unconscious I've been assuming that the pcs slit the throats of all the orcs once battle is over (and wargs, and spiders).

Otherwise, since one or two often flee they could return, revive them (orcs that is, not sure wargs could manage it...) and return to hunt the characters down again.

I certainly haven't been giving shadow points/corruption rolls for it.....

Not to mention spared and then revived orcs going on to slaughter more innocent people - surely then the deaths at the hands of the orc spared are the fault of the player - and cause shadow points!


I agree blatant torture is out...but I'm certainly not going to make them arrive in town with 23 orcs POWs in tow to avoid corruption....


Cue wounded and maimed orcs singing *Working on a chain gang*

Halbarad: if backstabbing is evil, does it mean that I should not attack someone from behind when I have the chance? That seems to go too far... What about strategy? An ambush from flanks or rear? If we go that far we have to say that every fight is bad - but that is not correct conclusion in ME.

The basis of fight is being not fair. If I am stronger I use it. If I am faster I use that. If I can trip the enemy I do that. I agree that there is a line somewhere, but I do not think it should be drawn that safely - in ME fighting evil is a moral obligation, that is very clear. Bad actions are corrupted in themselves and should not be used in ME because they do not bring greater good - that is clearly said about Ring and other things.

Why should be strangling wrong? Helm did that, and not only him. Turin defeated dragon by ambushing him. Bard didn't tell Smaug that he knows his secret. White Council mislead Sauron to believe they will use the Ring and not destroy it. I cannot bring myself to see this actions as wrong.

War and violence do influence you. Shock you at first, maybe disgust you - but every killing does that, and still we eat meat without considering that to be bad. Have you ever killed an animal or witnessed that? It can be a nasty business (I know that slaughtering a pig usually is ) but that does not mean that it is evil.

On the other hand it seems to me that shadow points do not just corrupt you because you do something wrong, they can also corrupt you because you witness something bad - be it oppressive country like Mordor, or action like war conflict. In this way seeing a massacre, or even killing for first time can bring possibility of corruption (but other events, like losing a loved one should do the same then). But attacking an enemy from behind would normally not be that different from killing an enemy in war.

i assume that an adversary with 0 endurance is not just knocked out, but dead or dieing for several reasons:

1 if you cut someone down with an axe, or sword or stab them with a spear or shoot them with arrows, they will be mortally injured,

2 I don't really want to tell a story abotu heroes who go around sliting people's throats do you? t doesn't seem in the spirit of tolkien's stories anyway...

also I don't see orcs as being good healers, I don't see the need to narrate the slitting of throats (or discussign what to do with large numbers of prisoners) after every encounter with minions of evil.

If heroes want to take an adversary alive I expect them to take specail actions like disarming them, intimiatading surrender, chasing routed ememies, grappling them to the ground or something like that.

i know it works differently for player heroes, but I think that is so you don't have to make a new character every 3 or 4 games.

On the contrary orcs are specifically mentioned as good healers - just not concerned with scarring or using painkillers.

I don't narrate the slit throats after every battle - I assume that they put the orcs out their misery.

In fact does legolas not shoot a wounded orc that gimli is sitting on in the movies? Take shadow points!

I think some of the forumites here are getting a little carried away in their terms of "good and evil" in Tolkien.

Yes there is a moral framework, and an excellent setting for protraying characters descent into darkness.

But Tolkien's heroes weren't some bunch of pacifist hippies! I don't recall much evidence of anyone attempting to take a prisoner, help the wounded enemy, try to parlay with the orcs.

The Shadow rules are there to help nurture some really interesting roleplaying and - agreed - prevent D+ D CE evil campaigns where you slaughter villages for xp.

But Chaotic Good seems perfectly valid as opposed to nothing but LG paladins.

So no torture, murder of innocents. Lots of "angst of war". But it's not there to recreate the adventures of Mother Theresa and Trippitaka......

This is a very interesting topic, the debate of what is morally correct in a RPG has raged since the genre' of RPG's existed.
My own two cents, and this is my opinion only.

It had its proper place in history. Before the days of modern medicine, It was employed in early chivalrous warfare to spare the mortally wounded unnecessary pain or the severely wounded a lifetime of misery.

But this does not apply to TOR because of the abstract system.
But if it were employed to a foe that were merely unconscious or fully capable of healing, depending on the circumstances it my be taken as a cruel or murderous act, depending on the scenario.

But there is another way to look at this dilemma. In some other cases, it may be looked on as a noble act, even though it were needless to kill.

As an example, our own well known history of the Crusades, Religious fanaticism urged on by the leaders of the day made extermination of "infidels" an act condoned by or even demanded by God. In that case the act was encouraged. In religious circles there would have been no shadow points doled out... But...
Even among the Crusaders there were those who objected, seeing it as a reprehensible, barbarous and cruel act against the teachings of the very Religion they were fighting for. These people would take shadow points if they committed this act.

But with Middle Earth you can't really draw apples-to-apples comparisons to the Crusades. So really the scenario needs to be taken into account.
There are some instances where as in the War of the Ring when the Westfold was being ravaged, I could not penalize player-heros for dispatching the marauders, as any survivors would only rise against them again.

But for a scenario where the companions fall upon a camp of bandits, even just a bunch of yub-yub orcs not affiliated with a shadow company, I may assign an kind of "temporary" shadow points with no chance of going into misery or madness if there was a wanton killing spree of average bad guys.

Perhaps this would make a good reason to go on a pilgrimage of atonement to relieve the character(s) of their temporary shadow...

And finally for extermination of truly evil or malign beings, I would not assign shadow and depending on the scenario, I may award hope in dispatching something as wretched as an undead being or something like a Nazgul... not that it would happen, just saying.. with the departure of such darkness, hope might be rekindled.

Just my take

Perhaps to lighten the tone a little here and make this less of a thorny subject it might be simpler to say "is it heroic?"

Again I know 'heroic actions' are subjective but I think most of us know what is considered heroic in this romantic fiction which is of almost contradictory morality at times.

The point has been already made that Tolkien tends to reward bravery and condemn cowardice and perhaps Loremasters might do the same to help promote that style of play?

Also while the sons of Elrond may have been racking up the Shadow Points, don't forget they could always come back to Rivendell and sing/craft them away.

Goodness me, I wasn't expecting this thread to appear again.

The long and the short of it, for me, is that if the Elf in the original post had a dagger then he should have used that instead of unstringing his bow to make a garrotte.

I believe that a garrotte is not a suitable weapon for TOR character and is the tool of an assassin or executioner. Secondly, it means that the Elf has probably divested himself of his chief weapon should everything go horribly wrong.

While I would discourage such events in my own game, I would not insist that my players follow my directive. I would let them know that they should expect some shadow points

In all the cases mentioned, where there have been ambushes or strangling, Shadow Points should have been awarded in a game situation.

The ambush by the Rangers of Ithilien was a necessary act of war. I would still have awarded Shadow Points though. YMEMV.

Helm Hammerhand went out alone,into the snow, to strangle Dunlendings with his bare hands. Let's face it, Helm was a violent man who became a murderous psychopath. This would probably have become apparent if had not frozen to death. Look at his history, he starts a war by insulting and then murdering a Dunlending...and all because this Freca dares to ask to marry his daughter(iirc?).

Bard knowing of Smaug's 'Achilles Heel' does not deserve a Shadow point though. The Dragon was burning his town and killing his folk. It was a direct battlefield situation. The Dragon was exploiting it's strengths by remaining airborne and Bard exploited his strength by knowing where to shoot it.


Anyhow, as I stated before guys YMEMV.

going back to using the bow string as a garrot, I thought that was rather creative. I'd not heard of a bow string used in that way!

As to shadow for stealthy attacks, it is really a matter of opinion, do you use moral stand points? do you consider how grisly the scene is or psychologiclly traumatizing? Do you consider matters of honour? do you consider the target, the means or the ends above all else? I think it's safe to agree that people will disagree.

In my opinon a character that carries around a wire garrot for silent assasinations might be acting questionably, but improving on the fly to kill an orc in order to save a companion is not quite the same as ownign a designated garrot. Dagger in the back to me is almost the same as make shift garrot, and almost the same as a direct assault, regardless of how you do it killing is a nasty ugly buisness, if by doing it silently the character might be able to save the life of one they love I don't think they are embracing the way of the shadow any more than the elf who steps into the orc camp and challenges them to battle.

Any historical archers out there that know if the string would be useable after garroting? I may be wrong but I think bow strings in the dark ages/medieval tradition would have been made of animal sinew correct? I know they should not be gotten wet.... I think they would be up to strngulation but if used I bet they would strech and therefore become useless.... then again an archer might carry spares.... I know some people that do historical archery i may ask them out of curiosity.

We'll all just have to agree to disagree on whether the garrotte is an appropriate weapon, morally, for a Tolkienesque Hero.

Interesting point about the bowstring though Cynan. My knowledge of the bowstring as a strangulation device comes from the Ottoman Turks. Garrotting with a bowstring was the traditional way that the Sultans disposed of their rivals to the throne of the Porte.

I agree with you and if we need to cite rules then there's this in the LM book:

Heroes mainly risk gaining Shadow points in four ways:

...

3. Committing despicable or dishonourable deeds, regardless of the end they sought to achieve (see Misdeeds);

...

I've posted about SPs and the like in the other thread, so I'll not bother repeating myself further in this one.

At the risk of bringing the discussion full circle, everything boils down to how one interprets "despicable" or "dishonourable." Japanese samurai have different definitions of honour than 19th century Southern "gentlemen," and so forth. Within medieval Europe, I challenge you to find a "best" form of "honour," since we are still presented with a variety of cultural norms, from Andalusia and Southern Italy to pseudo-Christian late Vikings. I am certainly not comfortable trying to discern Dunadan honour, for example, from the relatively limited sample provided by the Tolkien corpus, especially since much of the sample is coloured by Hobbit authors.

Maybe that shows something!

For me, it isn't about what characters in the game deem dishonourable. Citing the rules in the LM:

The Loremaster should usually warn the players when they are about to carry out a Misdeed. This can sometimes be a judgement call, but the Misdeed table below can be used as the basis of the Loremaster’s decision.

I interpret that as being about what the LM quantifies as a misdeed and I would suggest this decision should be supported by the themes he is building in his game based on what he takes from the source material. Francesco provides some guidelines based on the most important themes, etc. So, yes, it is somewhat of a personal interpretation but not about guessing attitudes/values of others, its about the themes and stories the LM wants to build in his campaign.

Culture relativism is not the answer I am afraid But it really seems that this debate won't go much farther.

I've been following this thread pretty intently; as others have said it's very interesting. I'd just like to chime in that I think you can split the difference here.

One of the things I’m challenging my group to realize is that awarding a Shadow point is not necessarily a punitive action and it doesn’t necessarily mean I think there was a way to accomplish what they needed to accomplish without getting one.

Shadow represent the spiritual burden of adventuring over time. That’s why the game awards them even when the group does nothing as a misdeed to earn them. Generally speaking, they just get more when they conduct misdeeds. I think garroting an Orc is worthy of a shadow point. Stuff like that takes it’s toll on the spirit. Ask just about any combat veteran; regardless of how jingoistic, patriotic or morally convicted they might have been, I can pretty much guarantee you that they will have a dark stain on their heart from the time they spent at war.

So, is garroting the Orc “wrong” per se? Maybe, maybe not. But even if it’s not wrong, it still might leave a burden on the heart of the one who did it. Just as witnessing the blown apart guts of Iraqi children or the after-effects of Sandy Hook might leave you with a heavy conscience and deep seated sorrow, even if you weren’t the one to pull the trigger. Will anyone be trying the heroes for war crimes? Nope. I seriously doubt Elrond will spring out of the bushes and say “YOU MUST NOT DO THAT!” More likely, I could see a member of the wise admonishing the heroes with wisdom such as “beware slaying monsters, lest you become one”.

Here’s a personal example I can remember; something far less grievous than garroting an Orc. I was riding in my dad’s car one day as a child, and my dog had put her snout out the window. I was in the passenger seat and she was sitting behind me in the back, so I couldn’t see her snout as it was beyond my peripheral vision. I decided I had to much wind and started to roll up the window (the roller kind of window, before they had electric) and I could feel the window not going up; I thought it was jammed on something. So I gave it a couple of hard pulls, not realizing my dog’s muzzle was in the window. The sound I heard of her squealing in pain broke my heart. Completely not-intentional. Thankfully, she was ok, no broken nasal bones or bleeding or anything, but even to this day that memory bothers me.

I think what we have here is mostly just a difference in playstyle preference. I don't believe anyone is inherently wrong with what they've felt on the matter.

Me, personally, I believe the notion of sneaking in with the mindset that you are going to garrotte the guard, it's murder in one form or another (as opposed to mutual combat), and is a cowardly act as well. Style, tactics, strategy, ambush - whatever you wish to use on your side during combat has it advantages; but many also come with moral baggage.

Did the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima accomplish its goal of dissuading the Japanese to remain in the fight of global war? Yes. Did it result in the saving of many American (and probably British and French lives) instead of a long drawn out war with a very well-armed and trained military? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that people involved in the decision never lived to regret or felt horrible about being a party to it. On another matter - the gentleman who helped finance the Titanic and urged it to go faster and saved his own life during the emergency - wound up shooting himself in the head over his cowardice behaviors in saving his own life before assuring the safety of other less-fortunate (most of whom later died).

These are examples of people who saw grey.

Middle-earth, and TOR as an extension is written for many folks as a fairy tale of hope etc. It possesses a plethora of naive charm - the likes of which are rarely seen in most other RPGs, or comic books, or TV shows of today. I had a very similar conversation of late on the messageboard for my guild of an MMO I'm a part of. The notion of a paladin as it relates to D&D has waned significantly and is no where near the idealistic righteous iconic hero it once was - in 4th edition D&D they don't even have to be Lawful-Good anymore. Personally I miss what they once meant. However, modern media tends to rely heavily on the "Fallen hero" or "Ends justify the means" type of anti-hero. Marvel super heroes are notorious for this, while the DC hero: Superman is suppose to be above all of that - like a paladin once was. Sadly few people can identify with this - and thus both paladins and superman are completely unbelievable and thus discarded by many. It's easier to relate to the fallen-heroes of pulp fiction - because realistically - there are no cases in my mind where a human in today's world could live to exhibit the non-flinching morals and ethics that Superman and paladins were written to exude. Just trying to survive today's legal system or system of employment and/or education makes it impossible to survive successfully being that truly wholesomely naive. The Jedi for instance was suppose to embrace this goodness as well - going so far that Lucas changed the title from Revenge of the Jedi to Return - because Jedi should not dwell on the notions of "revenge".

So it brings me back to what Middle-earth means to me, and many others, is a chance to be above the norm, above the easier route of lesser of two evils, as a way to see heroes rise above the status quo of today's champions like Rambo, or Jack Bauer. Using a cowardly item as a garrotte surely does not fit that wholesomely good naive flavor. Yes it's painful to use a sword, yes it's still killing even in mutual combat; but the it's notion in the heart -- that says I wanted to do this without killing anyone vs "I intend to kill this orc"; and in a cowardly way such as that would be done by one such as Gollum.

In TOR - I feel the game would be better served to reward a player for using creative solutions to avoid the killing and combat at all. Anything else would result in a player inappropriately learning that killing his way in would have been the better idea.

Now - using a object such as a garrotte or something else - with the intent to incapacitate - I would as Loremaster be okay with. And someone quoted the adventure in the Tales of the Wild in which you poison the orcs......it didn't say that the poison was lethal. Who is to say that it was not a sleeping, or short-lived paralytic, or just make on very lethargic, drowsy, hung-over. This is no different than Bilbo getting the elves drunk to free the dwarves in The Hobbit. When I read this adventure, this is what I took from that - but as I said, I view Middle-earth and the game/writing of it, with that glass half-full naive charm that I want it to be - an escape from the usual less-than-idealistic world we face.


Finally - the quoted text I used was for a reason - this spoke the loudest to me out of the whole 5 page thread: why? Black and White being evil or good is a given - easy to understand and hold to it. If you're on the persuasion of black-evil dastardly deeds, then it's a basic easy to identify evil. If you're the opposite and do such deeds, there's no question either. The GREY however that is mentioned IS what this thread is all about. The garrotting of the orc for the purpose of freeing the hobbit and saving the lives of others.....is grey. It's not wholesomely evil. It's certainly not wholesomely good. It's the grey then that has a CHANCE to slip one to black. It's the grey that is not yet fully grasped that could potentially rest horribly on ones soul.

And thus - a shadow point for a CHANCE of corruption is quite appropriate. It doesn't make the person evil. It just has a chance of corrupting someone. That's the reason for the shadow point. Nothing that some time in Rivendell couldn't cure - but still - acts like that - GREY acts that aren't wholesome or good.....can lead to one's own moral decline. They can weigh on one's soul, their heart, their hope etc.

And for everyone who said Aragorn must have done his share of questionable deeds....absolutely. But Aragorn also battled with his own inner demons at times, as well. That's the grey. That's the shadow point that MAY corrupt. He resisted of course because his spirit and hope were strong. But these things still weighed heavily on his heart and soul - no doubt about it.

Don't know how I missed this topic when it was first around, but I was thinking the same thing as I was reading this thread.

Exactly. And for those characters with high Wisdom - that are wise, calm, have high self-understanding, and capability for good judgment, etc then they won't accrue any SPs (or at least extremely rarely) through these kinds of Corruption Tests.

So in the end it might be better to not kill if I am valorous but less important if I am wise... Well, allright, we will not agree on this

See the other thread. Both Valour and Wisdom work together in lots of ways and support the style of play. Both are extremely important traits for facing servants of the Shadow, I'd say in equal measure to be honest if one considers all that entails. Again, I think that supports the literature. Maybe you seem to see this as a problem whereas others see it as a strong dynamic of the game's design. But, yes, you probably won't get agreement from people making remarks like the above as I think you know it's an over-simplification/trivialising things which is why you put a at the end of your post!

Okay so here is my take as a LM on this I would give the garroting the shadow points for cowardice no questions asked and it would be cowardice not murder because technically this is a raid on the camp.Also I would not give points just for ambushing orcs on a march since the Free Peoples and Orcs are in a semi permanent state of war.Even using the Ithilien ambush as an example the Haradrim know that they are passing through lands controlled by Gondor so there is a reasonable expectation that they might be attacked by Gondorians, also after the first round of fire from the ambushers the fight is going to be a bit more fair if not in the orcs favor since a fellowship of four can not wipe out an orc patrol in the first round of the ambush.

Yes and no. De iure yes, since Ithilien is claimed by Gondor as part of its territory and the Haradrim can expect at least minimal Gondorian military activity here. De facto no, since Gondor lost control of this area many years ago, and Faramir's group is a guerrilla company in enemy-occupied territory and not a garrison defending its area of responsibility.

Cheers
Tolwen

No, he pretty much nailed it. It's as you said, "Exactly. And for those characters with high Wisdom - that are wise, calm, have high self-understanding, and capability for good judgment, etc then they won't accrue any SPs through these kinds of Corruption Tests.

Therefore a wise man will be able to rationalize and live with the memories of all those he killed, while the valourous will inevitably slip into madness, haunted by the dead faces.

Thats a very succinct way to put it. The wise/philosophical one can learn to come to terms with the atrocities of war that had to be committed.

Not unlike Mel Gibson's character's in When We Were Soldiers, The Patriot, and Braveheart.


While both heroes of high Wisdom or Valour both suffer from doing misdeeds, the one with Wisdom is better able to deal with the consequences; theoretically, and statistically in the game.

Well put.

Again, I agree with this sentiment as long as it is man/dwarf/elf/hobbit being killed. IMO the 'good' cultures, with the possible exception of elves, view orcs as nothing more than vicious animals that just happen to be able to talk.

These are the same 'good' cultures that think nothing of going out back and hoisting up a sow or pig they've been raising, cutting its throat and collecting the blood for black puddings, slicing it belly open and pulling out all the steaming offal, etc etc.

There is no crisis of morals found in husbandry or hunting, other than letting a suffering animal live.

<Double post. Again! ... Oh for the joys of when I get proper internet access back. >

Not exactly... I was referring to the way he presented it/made the remark when I posted that - ie, seemed to be a degree of sarcasm or dismissiveness to what was said. Hence the in both his and my replies. We had a joke about our discussion here and in the other thread over PM though so we're good.

And the valourous will have the initial courage to face the enemy, leading back to the part of my post, in my reply to Faire from earlier, where I stated:

... It's a very well put together and elegant relationship between the two traits.

Yes that is my argument legally the land belongs to Gondor,but the part you erred is by calling the Ithilien guerilla's is untrue since they are led by Faramir the son of Denethor the steward who is the defacto leader of Gondor and thus they are a part of the Gondorian military and are thus a garrison for Gondor in Ithilien.

De iure that is true (Faramir's company being part of Gondor's military), but my point about the de facto situation was that in reality they were confined to a guerrilla-style warfare, since they lacked the means to really control the land. Thus they can - IMHO - not be seen as a garrison defending its land, since they use hit-and-run tactics rather than holding a line of defence or territory.
Perhaps our understandings of a garrison vary. For me it is a military force openly stationed in a territory with the task of securing it and its inhabitants gainst outer enemies. Here it is vice-versa - especially there are no inhabitants left they might defend. The territory is already lost, and the gondorian military maintains secret outposts as bases for his guerrilla campaign against the enemy. The presence of these guerrillas makes it clear that Gondor still holds to his claims, but it also shows that it lacks the means to really exert control over that land.

Cheers
Tolwen