Hi All,

while thinking over the Hope and Shadow rules (IMO the best representation of a major theme in Tolkien's books so far) I questioned myself whether this is a special rule only for select "heroes" or whether everyone of Eru's Children (Elves, Men and Dwarves) is theoretically entitled to a Hope/Shadow score (of whatever value). Whether a score is actually given or waived for simplicity - e.g. for the majority of LM characters - is another matter of course.

Does anyone has ideas about this?

Cheers
Tolwen

Given that all adversaries have a Hate score, I would say that yes, in theory all of the Free Peoples should have a Hope score as well. For simplicity I wouldn't actually apply it in-game (not that there are any rules for assigning Hope in the LM characters section), but as a narrative device I wouldn't be opposed to occasionally "invoking" it to speed play. I think I had Heva, the Woodmen warrior from Words of the Wise, auto-kill one of her opponents to reduce how much rolling I was doing that didn't affect the heroes directly.

Actually, I just remembered (and confirmed) that Beorn's stat block lists a Hope score, and though he has special abilities that can be used by spending it at least it sets a precedent that LM characters do, in fact, have Hope.

I see. I was asking with the more abstract thought about the general population in mind. Normal people will probably have no problem (in almost all cases) of balancing their Hope and Shadow scores successfully, thus being able to live their lives more or less peacefully.
But what about the more shadier parts of society? Criminals (from petty thieves to real gangsters) are present as well, and with the normal Hope/Shadow rules they are likely to accumulate a lot of Shadow Points very quickly: Their "businesses" like pick-pocketing, lying, cheating, armed robbery, extortion, racketeering, smuggling, murder etc. all definitely fall in the "Misdeeds" category and will bring them a lot of Shadow Points extremely quickly.
Of course such people are morally extremely questionable, but they exist nonetheless, often for years or even decades going about their "business" more or less successfully (sometimes unnoticed by society), which would hardly be possible per the regular Shadow rules.

These people have often nothing to do with the Enemy (e.g. working for Sauron or his henchmen), but exist as a type of people trying to get a good standard of living by such activities. Many will fail or die a violent death sooner or later, but some (especially the most clever and ruthless) may enjoy a long and very "successful" career in crime, enjoying material wealth and a "happy" life.

Cheers
Tolwen

I think your ultimate answer will depend on the tone of the campaign.

It seems to me that Tolkien generally uses Heroic Epic and Fairy (Faerie) Tale story elements. Both of these types of stories are sharply delineated as black or white, good or evil. In either case the standard Hope/Shadow game mechanic operates perfectly fine for campaigns that maintain this distinction.

However what you are suggesting is a campaign that has a different tone. Almost anything that is more gritty (Film Noire, Political Intrigue, Life on the Streets, etc) will reveal, as you are noticing, that this game mechanic will present serious problems. Assuming children become working assistants around 16 years of age, within these campaign types, the children will be Greater Servants of Evil by the time they're 21. They might not be Nazgul, but Bill Ferny will cower in fear as these kids walk by.

In my version of Middle-earth, I think Tharbad would probably represent a perfect example of a darker, more gritty campaign. Lots of folks living on the edge of civilization, therefore harder and harsher. More likely to condone an 'evil' act in order to survive. Lots of political maneuvering, dark streets, the odd assassin, dubious travelers, etc.

And, just as you're inquiring, such a setting would present a problem. Without trying to graft a new mechanism onto the existing rules, or trying to replace it outright, I would have to take into consideration the intent or emotional state of the wrong-doer in a grittier campaign.

The pick-pocket, street-walker, smuggler, etc who is performing their profession as a means of surviving, obtaining monies to eat and retain lodging, suffers no Shadow. Provided that they indicate remorse, a willingness to accept an opportunity for personal growth and betterment (assuming one is ever offered), and not just a motive based upon greed or usury, I would ignore applying the accumulation of Shadow. But notice that there is still some distinction in the seriousness of the crime - my examples do not include murder or treason. While some consideration to motive might exist, for the most part these situations will accrue Shadow as the NPC cannot reasonably argue personal growth for their actions. Self-defense is an exception, of course.

Increased Treasure Ratings not withstanding.

Thanks Garn for the input. It hits right at what I was thinking as well. My idea was whether the Hope/Shadow mechanic is suited (or might be further developed) to represent ("simulate" if you so will) the whole bandwith of Middle-earth reality and not just - as noted - the clear and easy good/evil settings.
It need not that the heroes will ever encounter or know such people long enough to notice any changes so the LM would have to keep track of it.

All the shades of gray from dark to very light appear in a pseudo-realistic world, and they must be able to live their lives in their chosen (or determined) way even for extended periods without being unrealistically limited by a - for them unknown - game mechanic.

Spies/agents regularly lie, cheat and trick their counterparts - sometimes for years or decades - in order to appropriate information that is not intended for them. Diplomats try to manipulate their counterparts for the benefit of their lord (even the Dúnadan kings) and the detriment of their hosts. The professional and "successful" assassin that kills for money (or other material benefit) is "real" as well, and if he's good at his business, he might live to a retirement age.
And all the non-western people in the "East" and "South", who sometime work for Sauron and sometime not, have to be taken into account as well. Some (or a good part) will be true adherents of Sauron, other may follow him out of pragmatism, or because they have been ordered by the lords to do so. Others will follow because they are forced to.

Many people will be totally unaware of the great events of world-domination (or liberation!) and just engage in normal "human" affairs of war, deceit and treason just to gain an advantage over their enemies or competitors. That may be on the small scale against your neighbour next door, or on the bigger against the other lord whose lands you and your family have so long coveted.

I'm thinking of finding a way to supplement the RAW mechanic to account for all these shades of gray too without damaging the basic intention in the same instant.

Cheers
Tolwen

If I read things correctly, Shadow is accrued in the following manner:

• Anguish: Per event, with each event considered to be unique despite similarities. Death of each family member causes anguish, you do not get "used to" death or any other type of Anguish.
• Blighted Places: Per visit, even if the site is already known. (Does not take Francesco's recent clarification into account.)
• Misdeeds: Per event, with each event considered to be unique despite similarities.
• Cursed Item: Per accrual? Once obtained item cannot inflict additional Shadow points? No explanation or examples are given for this situation so we can only assume.

Off the top of my head the only thing that I can think of doing, besides allowing for intent, contrition and betterment - as I argued previously - is to increase the granularity.

Lets assume we're in Tharbad, as I previously described. We've got our favorite NPC, Gritty. The following is the result of RAW:

For our first example, Gritty is a pick-pocket, wandering along the city streets, enjoying the delightful late afternoon weather. Fortune smiles and Gritty encounters a distracted merchant who is soon without his coin purse (Misdeed: Theft +2 Shadow). Later in the evening, finding a well-to-do Lady with the tongue of a Harpy, he relieves her of earrings and necklace (Misdeed: Theft +2 Shadow - I'm assuming here that all items are 'one' act of theft) and would consider further removal of her worldly goods if her tongue had not elicited the attention of bystanders. Finally, to cap off the evening, Gritty enters an Inn where a talkative sailor has a rare and exciting story to tell. Shortly thereafter the sailor's fortune has sailed into Gritty's possession (Misdeed: Theft +2 Shadow).

So at the end of the day, Gritty has +6 Shadow. Assuming this is a typical day, Gritty will suffer Corruption very quickly (72 hours absolute max) with Madness and Degeneration occurring shortly thereafter. Based on these numbers Gritty will be a Greater Servant of Evil in a couple of months. Either that or he will be the epitome of a Lovecraftian Investigator - Sanity 0%.

Increasing the granularity allows us to redefine how Shadow is applied. Instead of a Per Event or Visit basis, we change things to be Per Tier. So each time the NPC does something that changes their normal Tier level, they suffer increased Shadow. Repeating actions on the same tier level accrues no additional Shadow.

Using this method for Gritty, his very first day as a pick-pocket, Gritty's first act of larceny (Misdeed: Theft +2 Shadow) was the only one that counted. If he never commits a more serious Misdeed, Gritty receives +0 Shadow every day for the rest of his life. Including at the end of the day previously cited. He is a pick-pocket and spends the entire day picking pockets. This being his normal activity he suffers no change to his Shadow rating.

Now this works fine for the first 5 tiers (anything <4 points). But at four point Misdeeds (oathbreaking, treachery) things become difficult due to oaths, promises, and fealty being critical aspects of a medieval society's culture. Each instance of binding yourself to a promise is so unique that making and breaking promises every day cannot be construed as commonplace. The closest you could come to a circumstance like this is a con artist / grifter. For anyone else this is a near impossible tier to relegate to granularity.

Surprisingly, five point Misdeeds (murder, torment, torture) can take advantage of granularity quite easily. The assassin, hangman, thug, headsman and torturer, among others, can become quite jaded performing their jobs. While this does seem seriously wrong, it has been known to happen without making exceptions for antisocial people.

In LotRO there are a number of "GREY" shady persons - the bandits/brigands around Bree are an example.

However with anyone who has a grey shadiness about them - typically answers to someone who is even more corrupted. And that leader is typically in bed with an agent of Sauron.

Eventually these persons that exist that the OP is espousing to, would eventually catch the attention of someone who is already somewhat corrupted who works for someone even more corrupted etc etc.

So while these shades of grey people's evil is not intrinsic, they are unaware that they are in some way working for the shadow.


Most people like that are cowards at heart and thus like many gangs, that prey on the outcast, downtrodden and weak of heart, they bind together in clusters to bolster their individual courage, and give acceptance to their pseudo wicked ways or unsavory ethics. Ultimately this spells disaster for them as they go about their lives unknowingly spreading fear etc on behalf of their secret master.


Tolkien's writing seems to indeed carry a more fairy tale good vs evil - you're either one or the other with little shades of grey - I think this works better, and works better that if there are grey they unknowingly already have been working for evil.

Thanks Garn for your thoughts. I think I'll put something together as soon as I find the time.

The thoughts about a "chain" of lords/bossess of increasing corruption that ultimately lead to Sauron (or one of his major servants), is one that IMO works quite good in times like the late Third Age, but I was also thinking more abstract on the "design level", e.g. shades of gray also for times and people when Sauron (and his major servants) is either absent or very weak and without influence in a given region.

Crime and its perpetrators that do it for a profit happens (and has happened) also in times and places outside of Sauron's influence/interest, or when he was not even present (e.g. in the first milenium of the Third Age).
And even if small criminals are unwittingly manipulated by more corrupt bosses in said chain, the question about the rapid corruption as per RAW still persists.

Thanks again for both your input

Best
Tolwen

Tolwen, I want to say all who inhabit Arda participate in the dynamics of Hope and Shadow and Hate. Even the Powers and their servants participate in this metaphysic.

Gandalf defines Hope in a roundabout sense, and this might betoken own thought (and is most likely):

Hope seems to form a dialectic with Hate. Despair where the end is seen without any doubt (a pre-destination of sorts that denies the freedom of the Free Peoples or takes away the semblance of agency that can change things), and Folly or a false hope in a single end that is utterly believed in that denies possibility, these things seem to describe shifting scales between Hope and Hate where the Shadow is the dynamic serving to tip the scales towards Hate.

That said, individuals embody this tension between Hope and Despair-Folly. When Despair-Folly overwhelm Hope under the influence of the Shadow so I would speculate, then Hate takes place of the Hope. In game mechanics, if a player-hero Succumbs to the Shadow and didn't leave for Valinor or find him- or herself killed because of their Madness, then I suspect they would become like an Adversary with Hate as the operative attribute replacing Hope. Cast mythically, their life now harmonizes with the cacophonous chords of Melkor's devising as opposed to the harmony of the Ainur that stayed faithful to Eru.

Extrapolate this into a cultural context with TOR's mechanics in mind: The base Hope score provided by a culture represents in some sense a tangible foundation that speaks to this dynamic proposed above. As an example, Hobbits possess the highest base Hope number, and this might be compared on the extreme to a character culturally hailing from the Harad. A client state of Sauron's would not be a place of great Hope precisely because Hope defies a single will, the One Will that seeks to dominate all free wills. Push the spectrum and Orcs, if they could be cast in TOR mechanics as a playable option, might have no Hope and start the game at a total disadvantage. This would capture the seemingly impossibility of an Orc trying to embody a life other than that it was conceived for by the spite and Hatred of the Enemy.

To your question directly, cultures where unsavory elements become more common are cultures where the foundational Hope score has dropped tangibly. The lower the foundational Hope score the more the seedier sides of society are mainstream social phenomen as opposed to personal representations on the fringe of society. Put this into practice as part of the Enemy's strategy for domination, then corruption of society as a whole is just as important as corruption of the individual player-hero. In The LotR, The Scouring of the Shire provides the perfect example and results for the 'social experiment' encapsulating this dynamic.

This is all theoretical of course; but, in fact, I have put your question into practice to some extent in my own campaign. I assumed that the starting Hope scores for each culture represent something tangible that the Enemy can target. My prelude to the Darkening of Mirkwood (the name of my campaign is A Flickering Flame called Hope) has a Hound of Sauron as the antagonist orchestrating a covert war to destroy the cultural legacies, this base Hope score player-heroes start the game with, the provide the Free Peoples of the North with their identity and Hope. If the Hound's machinations unfold as planned by his Master, the cultures of Wilderland slowly degenerate into a "gray-er" version of itself. The endgame is the "stretching thin" of an entire culture by eroding its foundation of Hope until it becomes almost wraith-like, a non-entity in the visible world. This is my postulation for the absence of the Woodmen in The LotR. And, more importantly, something I propose my player-heroes can affect positively by their actions (the Woodmen are prominent in my version of The LotR for example), or fail with more than the Woodmen disappearing from the story.

This short summation doesn't do it justice I feel I must say, but captures something of the spirit. And, provides more food for thought on this question of Hope and Shadow. Or, so I Hope

Regards,
E

Elaudin,
An excellent post, with both internal and external logic being consistent and matching the known examples within Middle-earth as we know it. I will be looking forward to further information on the use of the Hope/Despair/Hate mechanism within your campaign.

I do have a concern, however. My understanding of your post is that an individual (character or NPC) follows the normal Hope rules until somewhere after Madness they succumb to Despair, and then the scale inverts. Hope is replaced by Hate and further evil acts will bolster the NPC while acts of kindness would lead (potentially) to bouts of Loremaster controlled Sanity - for lack of a better term. Which is perfectly fine and works for known 'traitors' like Saruman, Lotho Sackville-Baggins, Bill Ferny, and Gollum. This works perfectly within campaigns that have an Epic / Faerie Tale tone with strongly delineated good and evil.

The only thing I failed to fully comprehend was how you would deal with characters and NPCs that are in a more realistic and gritty campaign. Wherein good and evil situations, actions and outcomes are only gray, by varying degrees, but are never absolutely black or white. Particularly in situations where these acts have to be repeated (example: stealing to eat).

Your current campaign intent, while placing the Hope/Despair/Hate mechanism into practice, may still be an Epic toned campaign and will thereby skew the results (depending on quests undertaken and there results). What I mean is the characters are still meant to be good and do good; unfortunate acts and outcomes will cause these individuals and their culture to be negatively impacted. But an optimal result still exists.

Hi Garn, here are my two cents.
Having to steal to eat will make you bitter, over time. Shadow points, in game terms. And easily you will descend into Hate, if you lack the way to shed this darkness from your soul: something like satisfying and healthy relationships -in real life-, or Craft and Songs, in game terms.

I know you are going for the cultural angle, not the individual one, but think about this: downtrodden, oppressed peoples are ready recruits for the sweet lies of the Enemy.
On the other hand, if you are thinking about cultures where "stealing for the clan" or such is socially acceptable or commendable, maybe you need a cultural blessing stating that such shenanigans are kosher.

Sorry for brevity and approximative wording, writing from mobile while rocking baby to sleep

Sorry for necro'ing this thread, but I had some more thoughts on it.

Eluadin, your post gives great ideas for the underlying principles of what is expressed in game mechanics through Hope and Shadow. I hope (no pun intended), to present this in the next Issue of Other Minds in more detail.
Now, coming again to the topic of thre mechanic being able to govern and simulate not only the "do-gooders" (not meant in a negative sense please!) PH's, but also the complexities of "real" societies - even if the latter are only imaginary.

My concrete question is about lying. According to the rules in the LM book, p.58, this misdeed automatically gains you one point of Shadow. How do you apply this in the context of representing the world's societies (and not just the "important" PH actions)? For example, the everyday "small" lies that almost everyone of us knows so well.

• Your friend asks you about how your day was, and you just say "fine", even when it wasn't really so, but you don't want to go into big explanations.
• You're being invited to dinner and being asked whether the meal (or part of it) was fine and you say "yes", even it was wasn't so, but you don't want to offend your host.

All these are IMHO very unlikely to be encountered in a roleplaying game, since they are very minor everyday affairs, but within the society of these imagined societies, they exist - and they happen every day.

Does this already count as "purposefully lying" that earns you a point of Shadow every time? And if not, what "intensity" of lying is necessary to get you the Shadow point? Since even with such small "everyday" lies you subtly manipulate others.

Cheers
Tolwen

Lying to a host so as not offend him about his appalling cooking is not worth a Shadow Point in my game.

Nor is saying that you're fine, when you're not really, as no one tells the truth about everything... if we did, there would a lot of arguments!

Hollywood even did a couple of films that show the downfall of such truthfulness, 'Liar Liar' and 'The Invention Of Lying'.

The distribution of Shadow Points for lying is a matter of intent.

Lying to gain an advantage or for personal gain are two examples worthy of Shadow Points.

But it's hard to define the precise circumstances for Shadow Point gain... you just have to make the judgement call at the time.

I'd say gaining shadow points is more than merely missing out on doing the right thing; its about doing the wrong thing, knowingly and purposefully.

I'd be tempted to say that "lying" doesn't grant a shadow point per se, but the intention to mislead and deceive others (including by means of lying) does. Most "white lies" have nothing to do with purposeful deception, nor do they serve personal gains.

On a similar note, does the arrogance, lying and other unheroic "misdeeds" conceived during a bout of madness or under the influence of a character flaw provoke shadow points? (don't have my books with me atm)

If not, we could imagine that once a character (not necessarily a player character) gains a flaw that makes him/her lie compulsively, no shadow points would be gained from most non-consequential lies, even if they were misleading and deceitful. That character would instead have a lower-than-normal hope score, or being ever closer to misery and madness.

Glorfindel

Thanks Garbar and Glorfindel. It is good to have a few fixed points and definitions what goes and what goes not.

Another example would be deliberate lying to mislead enemies who have captured you and you don't want to give away the of your friends. Of course you can simply say nothing (like Thorin & Co at Thranduil's), but that will raise suspicion and you might be put to death or torture to extract the information. Deliberately misleading enemies into the wrong direction can prevent casualties of innocents or your friends/Fellowship Focus.
In a similar fashion you can mislead an enemy into a trap (e.g. for apprehension by the authorities) by feeding him false information.

This is definitely lying to get an advantage at the expense of someone else, even if it is an enemy (e.g. a "normal" human adversary and not an orc where it might be easier morally) who might deserve his fate. Strictly speaking, this would be "lying" IMO.

Cheers
Tolwen