Hi, everyone. I need some help from the clear minds of the forum.

After directing my first adventure I have ended confused about a good deal of rules. For this topic, in particular, I'll focus on Recovery and Rest.

The Adventurer's book, page 144, says:

That is, after every combat, if not wounded, and able to rest for 30+ minutes, recover Heart amount of Endurance.

Then below it says:

That is, after a whole night of sleep (or equivalent), if not wounded, recover Heart+2 amount of Endurance.

Now my confusion comes from the fact that one of my players came to the conclusion that if there is no big risks involved, in order to rest the fastest possible, it's better to enter combat twice against easy or harmless enemies than to sleep for a whole night.
He had 9 of 25 Endurance left. Had he gone to sleep for the night he would have recovered 5+2 Endurance points, reaching 16/25.
Instead he went to a nearby goblin cave where they had killed all but two goblins and had caged them.
He released one, fought the disarmed goblin and killed him without loosing any Endurance.
He rested for 30 minutes, recovering 5 Endurance. Then he fought the second one in the same way, then rested 30 minutes, recovering extra 5 Endurance.

As he said, by having a combat every half an hour for 8 hours, he could recover 16*Heart = 80 Endurance points, as opposed to Heart+2 = 7 if he had gone to sleep.
I know that this is not the kind of game for number-crunching players. But still I see it a big coherence problem that characters will start a new day much fresher if the day before they had a lot of combats than if they would have spent it sleeping.

Am I interpreting the rules in a wrong way?

I think you're right about the rules, but you have to take into account all the rules of TOR: If al player decides for his character to enter a fight just for the fun of it (i.e., to recover endurance), he would receive shadow points for cruelty. If the character did so regularly, he would soon become miserable, accumulate permanent shadow points and be taken out of play.
In a sense, the rules don't allow you to just "pick a fight" - well, they do, but you'll have to deal with the consequences.
Also, fights are still dangerous, and armour doesn't protect against endurance loss, so even if you pick a fight with someone much weaker, there is a good chance that your opponent will score a hit that costs you more endurance than you will gain by recovery.

I would say, yes ... at least, the "spirit" of the game's rules.

To me, your player is attempting to min/max the system. I would rule that the combat activity every half-hour invalidates the Recovery time being sought every time. At the rate he is going, he is never actually "Recovering". My interpretation is that these Recovery rates do not "stack" in such a manner.

I'm happy that you mention the Cruelty subject because that's another doubt I have.

It's clear for me that if a character is cruel against another character from the Free Peoples, he or she is committing cruelty and deserve a Shadow point.
However, during that session, they decided to raid that goblin cave that was close to the river.
Their reason was "To prevent future travelers from being ambushed or attacked by these goblins."
In that sense, they were being righteous, and besides, goblins are not Free Peoples, but creatures from the Shadow that are inherently Evil.
Was their attack to the goblin lair, that was not posing any immediate threat to them, an act of Cruelty?

During the fight, they defeated the goblin chieftain and the surviving 3 goblins had run out of Hate points so I determined that they, being cornered in a cave, dropped their weapons and surrendered to save their lives. One of my players said that his character wanted to kill them anyway because these were creatures of pure Evil and if left alive, they would just survive to harm someone else other day.
However the goblins were disarmed and begging for their lives.
Was it an act of Cruelty when this character beheaded one of the goblins to scare the other two?
I thought so, and gave him a point of Shadow. As a consequence, they determined to cage the other two and leave them in the cave, expecting them to eventually escape from the cages and flee. It was not clear that the goblins would have been able to escape from the iron cages without help from outside.
Was it an act of Cruelty leaving these goblins to starve in the cages?
I didn't know what to think anymore and the players started debating about it. At one point the mentioned player did what I said in the previous post, in part for recovering extra Endurance, in part for not committing the cruelty of leaving those two living beings starving in the cages. He killed one and the other players decided to tie and bind the remaining one and bring him with them the rest of their trip.

Now I think this went too far and that Aragorn or Gimli wouldn't have doubted dispatching as many goblins as they wished. But your comment makes me aware that I'm not the only one considering that even killing servants of the Shadow can be seen as a Cruelty.
Because, is it cruelty when killing not for defending, but for sport, even when your kills are servants of the Enemy?

... he went to a nearby goblin cave where they had killed all but two goblins and had caged them. He released one, fought the disarmed goblin and killed him without loosing any Endurance. He rested for 30 minutes, recovering 5 Endurance. Then he fought the second one in the same way, then rested 30 minutes, recovering extra 5 Endurance.

Azrapse, I'm horrified!

Jokes aside, under a strict interpretation of the rules, this is true. But then again, a strict interpretation of the rules would certainly qualify the scene you described as a 'disturbing situation', and require the company to make a Corruption test for witnessing/knowing about what their companion was doing (gruesome killing, senseless destruction) and have them gain a Shadow point on a failure. And especially, the rules would have the companion gain 2 or 3 Shadow points, or even more, for misdeeds of cowardice, or torment and torture...

Francesco

Edit: sort of crosspost with Azrapse. more to follow.

While I accept that in middle-earth, there are "objectively evil" creatures like goblins, I would say that the question of cruelty in this case is not one of "is it right to kill a goblin", but: is the character subjectively acting cruel, regardless of the question if a creature "deserves" death. Shadow points are, after all, about how the actions of a character change him, not necessarily about the ultimate effects of this actions or the question if they would be deemed right by others.
(However, Beorn in The Hobbit seems to have no qualms about torturing and killing a captured goblin. Maybe he can afford a shadow point now and then ...)

Normally, I wouldn't consider attacking a bunch of goblins and dispatching of them as quickly as possible cruel - after all, the Free People are more or less "at war" with them. But imprisoning living creatures and killing them one by one, while they beg for mercy - I believe this will have a darkening effect on the heart of any human, hobbit, elf or dwarf, no matter how evil and vile the creatures.

And in the end, just think about what Gandalf had to say about Bilbo not killing Gollum ...

It's clear for me that if a character is cruel against another character from the Free Peoples, he or she is committing cruelty and deserve a Shadow point.

I don't think the rules explicitly say that acting cruelly against minions of the Shadow do not count as cruelty.

However, during that session, they decided to raid that goblin cave that was close to the river. Their reason was "To prevent future travelers from being ambushed or attacked by these goblins." In that sense, they were being righteous, and besides, goblins are not Free Peoples, but creatures from the Shadow that are inherently Evil.
Was their attack to the goblin lair, that was not posing any immediate threat to them, an act of Cruelty?

The nature of evil in creatures of the Shadow is a difficult subject that Tolkien himself never resolved fully. As far as the game is concerned, attacking a Goblin cave is not an act of cruelty in itself, being basically an action against an enemy at war.

During the fight, they defeated the goblin chieftain and the surviving 3 goblins had run out of Hate points so I determined that they, being cornered in a cave, dropped their weapons and surrendered to save their lives. One of my players said that his character wanted to kill them anyway because these were creatures of pure Evil and if left alive, they would just survive to harm someone else other day.
However the goblins were disarmed and begging for their lives.
Was it an act of Cruelty when this character beheaded one of the goblins to scare the other two?
I thought so, and gave him a point of Shadow.

I think it was a good call. To behead a harmless enemy to scare the others is cruelty, thus deserving a Shadow point.
Conversely, I wouldn't probably have enforced a Shadow gain for a misdeed if they killed them all at the end of the fight, under the same reasoning I detailed before (war*) - but I would have probably asked for a Corruption check for Anguish, to enforce that even if the killing was necessary, it wasn't certainly morally uplifting. War is hell, etc.

*For example, in the books the Elves, or Eomer's band, basically never show any mercy to Orcs, never taking prisoners.

A tough situation anyway - deserving ample discussion. I hope you all will pardon my conciseness.

As a consequence, they determined to cage the other two and leave them in the cave, expecting them to eventually escape from the cages and flee. It was not clear that the goblins would have been able to escape from the iron cages without help from outside.
Was it an act of Cruelty leaving these goblins to starve in the cages?

Man, you like tight corners!
Imprivising as during a game, yes, I think I would have qualified that as cruelty, in comparison to a 'swift, merciful death' at the end of the fight.

But I think I would have avoided the matter altogether, for example having the goblins trying to escape or kill the companions after having being granted mercy. Orcs are not sweet puppies to be pitied over, they are merciless enemies.

Of course, I was thinking on Gollum all the time. Although Gollum is a special case, because he is both Gollum and Sméagol, so he's not pure evil, or at least there is an internal fight for some time, or a glimpse of hope for him.
But as far as I know, there is no glimpse of hope for goblins or orcs.

To add to the discussion, this player's character didn't kill the goblins in a really cruel way. That is, he was not torturing them, or making them suffer, or delighting on the killing or even enjoying it. He killed them without emotion or pleasure, just like a surgeon removes a tumor. For him, killing the goblins was just the right thing to do, as the right thing to do for a gardener is to kill the snails that would eat the flowers otherwise.

Thanks for the reply, Francesco. But from your words, and from others' that have answered, what should the characters have done in that situation?
When your enemies, pure evil, drop their weapons and beg for mercy even when everyone knows that they will kill and torture some innocents as soon as the adventurers depart... What would you do?
Make them swear that they will leave their evil ways? They have no honor. You are just trying to fool yourself.
Kill them while disarmed and begging for mercy? That is, as you say, a really disturbing scene.

EDIT: Crosspost again. Sorry.

I think this is interesting, because I would imagine that a lot of the Rohirrim suffered corruption for their cruelty in their war against the orcs. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were acting wrong, only that they were fighting a brutal war and that this was bound to have an impact - and probably a negative one - upon their heart and soul.
I wouldn't consider shadow points for certain behaviour as a "penalty" for not choosing the right course of action - there just may be situations when every course of action is cruel. It's a tragic element that fit's quite well with a lot of Tolkien's stories - just read "Children of Hurin", you'll see that Turin is a quite interesting example for a hero tainted by cruelty. "The good guys did it in the books, therefore it can't be cruel" isn't a good argument, I would say, because the good guys may very well do cruel things and have to suffer the consequences.

Wow, THAT really sounds utterly evil!!! I would consider a PC with such an outlook as much scarier than any ork, spider or Nazgul.
Interesting!

Anyway, I think there should not always be a "right" answer. As I said, I wouldn't consider shadow points as a "penalty for bad behaviour". Cruel times breed cruel souls, on all sides. What should you do in this situation? Dispatch with the goblins and then deal with the mark this leaves on your soul, I would say.
That's just my interpretation of the shadow rules, though ...

Okay. After your second post, and considering all answers I have got, I think I come to the conclusion that it was not my players' fault that they acted cruelty or naive when they decided to kill the begging goblins or sparing their lives.

I think it was me to be blamed of the whole thing. The entire scene feels more proper of a war movie like Full Metal Jacket where the disturbing scenes serve the purpose of make you meditate about the "War is hell..." concept.
It doesn't really belong to Lord of the Rings, that is epic fantasy, where the good guys are Good, and the bad guys are Evil, and that if there is someone wondering about the feelings and frustrated projects of life of the enemy you have just killed, that's the exception and is always related to Free Peoples fallen in the Shadow, like haradrim or easterlings or dunlendings. Never with orcs or goblins.

So the goblins should have never begged for mercy in the first place. Otherwise they become human, and that messes up the whole moral thing.

Edit: Good point, Jakob. Certainly, for me Shadow points are not a punishment, but another way in which the character evolves. They make them look adventurers less like badass action heroes, and more like people dragged into the war by necessity, and in the long run, defeated by the burden of their own deeds.

As I said, a complicated issue. I think my post taken as a whole was clear, though.

I am not condoning act of cruelty committed against the enemy. The Rohirrim were certainly fighting a brutal war, but in game terms I don't think they gained Shadow for attacking and killing the enemy in battle - for burning the feet of an Orc-chief asking for information, yes.

Btw, if I was writing a supplement about warfare in the Third Age, delving into the details of the effects of campaigning for months against a terrifying enemy, and what war might lead you to do for the 'greater good' I think I would need an appendix to the Shadow rules.

Francesco

I think the issue is even trickier than that...

Look at the episode with Eomer's band. For chapters you have followed Ugluk's band of uruks, northeners and Mordor orcs. The different characters prompt you to develop some sort of sympathy for the orcs, especially Ugluk, the strong commander, who seems even to show some orcish 'humanity' towards his prisoners, Merry and Pippin (they are given the orc-liquor to drink, they are carried by the orcs...). When they are finally confronted by the Rohirrim, Ugluk is even granted a last 'heroic' spotlight, when he tries to force his way through the ranks of the Riders with a sort of wedge formation towards Fangorn Forest... but then they are slaughtered to the last orc. No quarter is given, to the point that Eomer risks to kill the hobbits in the fight. I think the orcs are shown some sort of 'military' respect there - by Tolkien AND by the Rohirrim - they are the enemy, they must be killed, but this does not mean they are all equally despicable, wicked things.

So, yes, Good is good, and Evil is evil, BUT... there are nuances, enough for interesting situations to pop up during play.

Francesco

In spite of the questions of what constitutes cruelty, good vs. evil, and "awarding" of Shadow Points therein, I am still curious as to the original post ... i.e., focusing on Recovery and Resting???

Well, the maximum authority in the game, no less, says in his first answer:

And although in the particular example the character exploiting the rules was also worth of Shadow points because of his particular actions at the moment, it seems that under more normal conditions the exploiting would be correct without any kind of countermeasure.

For example, having 6 combats during a day with their corresponding resting times would return 6xHeart of Endurance points total. While spending 24 hours sleeping nonstop at home would return only 3x(Heart+2) of Endurance points total (3 periods of 8 hours).
For a score of Heart = 5, it would be 30 vs 21.
For a score of Heart = 4, it would be 24 vs 18.
For a score of Heart = 3, it would be 18 vs 15.

As I say, in the case that no real exploiting is intended, but that just plain honest combat is being played, I see no real action possible from the Loremaster to correct this, unless, again, I am mistaken.

Yes, you are correct. Under the rules as written, recovery wil be more useful than resting in case of 'chain-fighting'.

Then, I dearly hope that if there is a story-based reason for a series of fights, the resulting gameplay effects won't appear forced or dramatically unsound.

For example, in a 'Gates of Fire' type of fight, where a bunch of heroic companions are blocking the path of overwhelming forces held at bay only by superior positioning, the rules as written should produce the effect of stalwart fighters able to stand for long hours at their place, snatching a few precious minutes of rest between attacks.

Francesco

I think a reasonable house rule, just for a simple (but not necessarily perfect) fix, is make the Resting recovery value equal to 2 + Favoured Heart rating. Another option could be 2 + (2 x Heart rating). Or 2 + Heart + Body. All of these would give an added benefit to Resting than a bunch of "faux" Recoveries.

Without the benefit of playtesting, I am not sure which would be appropriate. However, I think the 2 + Favored Heart rating would potentially be the least unbalancing to try.

I don't feel like a house rule is needed, but for those who are interested I would rather make the Recovery action require the expenditure of one point of Hope.

Francesco

We've been doing it per encounter (so you can't get back endurance unless you lost it in that specific fight).

I'm not sure if that's because the LM house-ruled it that way out if it's because we're just plain doing it wrong.

Well, indeed it would make sense that you can't recover more than the amount you started with. That would require the LM to note down the Endurance of every player character at the beginning of every combat.

Even without that, I actually would prefer increasing the amount recovered by Resting than making Recovery need a Hope point.

Or just leave it like it is. The explanation Francesco gave of stalwart fighters able to stand for long hours at their place, snatching a few precious minutes of rest between attacks in fact totally works for me. I bet those heroes, fighting for their lives combat after combat, would be full with adrenaline, allowing them to perform deeds that could even surprise them. If we contemplate Endurance representing that too, it works.

In D&D 4E this would fall under the umbrella of the "bag of rats rule." That is to say, you can't go around carrying a bag of rats to kill whenever you want a benefit that would normally be gained by killing or injuring an opponent. This rule limits the definition of "opponent" to a creature that's a credible threat. I would argue that a caged and unarmed goblin is certainly not a credible threat.

Now, TOR doesn't explicitly state a "bag of rats rule," but I think that the intent of the recovery rules is consistent with one. Endurance is more abstract than simple bodily harm, though it may represent minor cuts and bruises (stuff not severe enough to consider a "wound"). It also represents the energy and willpower that a hero has to keep functioning, and these are depleted quickly during a life or death situation.

Combat is a huge adrenaline rush, and a character is pushing their body to its limits because their life depends on it. It has a psychological toll as well as a physical toll. I feel that the resting mechanics are meant to convey what happens when a hero takes a beat after a tough fight; catch your breath, let your adrenaline levels go back to normal, and reflect upon the fact that you could have died, but managed to emerge victorious. That last part is key, I think. Part of the endurance recovery represents that surge of confidence you get, a "victory high" if you will, after facing a tough challenge and coming out on top. Your resolve to go forward is renewed.

I just don't see slaying defenseless opponents as generating the same physical or emotional effects, so there's nothing to rest from.

Good point.
Besides, I think it is important to remember that even when constantly fighting weak opponents, with six fights a day sooner or later something is bound to go wrong and you will lose more endurance in a fight than you gain by recovery, or you might even be wounded.

EDIT: One more rules suggestion: It might seem a little complicated to have everyone only recover as much endurance as he has lost in the actual fight - but you could at least rule that one can only recover endurance after a fight IF one has lost endurance points in it. That should be easy enough to keep track of.

I think that is a great suggestion, without even calling it a house rule per se. The Loremaster as Referee can simply use that tidbit based on common sense.

If you haven't lost any Endurance during a fight, why gain any back after a short rest? I would think it would take the prolonged rest to start regaining Endurance. That way, combat can never be a motivator for players to gain Endurance.

In the case of the 'Gates of Fire' that Francesco mentions, chances are that some of those men will lose Endurance during various waves of battle. If they don't lose any - awesome! Then there is no need to regain Endurance! But if they do, these men can still recover their Heart rating in Endurance with a short rest. And because weapons cause 3 or more points of damage, chances are they lost close to or more Endurance than their Heart rating to begin with. Therefore, no need to keep track of specific damage amounts and make a trivial rule that says they can only regain up to the amount of damage taken. Simply: If they took damage (but NOT Wounded), they can regain Endurance with a short rest.

What does everyone else think? Francesco, isn't that an accurate reflection of the spirit of the rule you made concerning combat and regaining Endurance? Was it assumed that warriors regaining Endurance at the end of a battle had lost Endurance during the battle?

Yes, that would indeed be preferable. The process is called 'Recovery' after all.
Just check if the character has lost any Endurance during the fight at all, then allow for recovery (without bothering to check if the recovery exceeds the amount lost during the last fight though...).

Francesco

Yes, I read that ... I also read that he said "strict interpretation". In my original post, I said that I felt that the interpretation of the rules in the stated situation was wrong, at least as far as the "spirit" of the game was concerned. With my second post, I was soliciting additional feedback for that opinion. I feel that subsequent posts have now addressed that solicitation.

With that being said, I feel that I should express that I have no problems with this strict reading of the rules if the application is story-driven (i.e., Francesco's "a 'Gates of Fire' type of fight, where a bunch of heroic companions are blocking the path of overwhelming forces held at bay only by superior positioning") rather than munchkin-driven (i.e., "I'm gonna go back into that cave, free a captured foe, slaughter it [for what else is it when you kill an unarmed opponent?], wait an additional one-half hour and get another healing surge out of it"). I have played too many bad RPG sessions over the years to condone the reward of game system "exploits" over good roleplay ... I don't believe that I would allow that player to profit in that situation (because it is NOT heroic). But, that is just me.

Lastly, I do feel that the giving Shadow Points discussion(s) after my initial post did address the "munchkin inspired" cruelty of the player's actions. I would hope that the gaining of a Shadow Point would come with an explanation of what is expected of a "hero" in Middle-earth.

I don't know if this was mentioned or not or if this is by the rules or just my interpretation:

I don't allow PCs to recover Endurance after a fight that they didn't suffer any endurance damage.

In other words previous fights Endurance can be healed = Heart score and nothing more.

The next fight they can recover more, but not of any endurance damage they had when that fight started



This corrects that rules abuse that was the original concern; and makes sense.

If your players are coming to that conclusion, then I think you have much greater issues than this specific one with rules. First, as a GM, combat should never be presented in such a trivialised manner. It's so far out of Tolkien's work and in fact any form of "normal" treatment of violence as to be problematic by itself. Second, as a player, premeditated violence on weak and harmless opponents is just wrong. In game, the PCs will be risking Shadow, but I would honestly raise it with them OOC.

All RPGs are written with an unwritten rule that assumes those playing will be cooperate in a positive way to produce an enjoyable game. There are many rules, which will be problematic if you only make judgements based on the rules. To give another example, you get XP in D&D from killing things. That should be justification for the wholesale slaughtering villagers just to level up. We used to laugh about that kind of behaviour but no one ever seriously suggested it.

FWIW IME this rule is an excellent one when treated appropriately by the players, and simulates the stories which inspire the game well. If players exploit it, you could just prevent Endurance recovery for trivial fights. But I would suggest looking at the situation more widely, as "trivial fights" is the issue not the recovery rule.

Never read Knights of the Dinner Table have you?

Yep. That's is part of the mentality I was referring to. If your TOR is Like KotDT then you have much bigger issues

Yes. Some attitude is required from everyone for a certain game to work.

In my case, we have some players with a strong D&D background, that come with their mannerisms, some others with strong Vampire and Legend of the 5 Rings background, that find the social interactions in TOR shockingly girdled. And this player that comes from a strong Paranoia, Violence, In Nomine Satanis, Kult background for whom the entire "Heroes behave like heroes" theme I basically have to shoehorn into him.

But the game is going on and it's just matter to get into it for them. Is just this little things that come during the games for which I don't have a clear answer.

So, here's my advice in a nutshell...

#1. After a combat and a short rest, NEVER allow them to recover Endurance unless they took damage in the combat.

#2. Start utilizing Corruption tests and Shadow points!

What you have described qualifies at least for Anguish and Misdeeds. For example, in that Orc cave, surely there was some half-eaten man-flesh, bones, or some other dreadful scene. You could have forced them all to make a Corruption test just to be there in a place of Anguish. Upon failure, they would have received a Shadow point. Using the Misdeeds table on p. 58 of the LB, you could warn the players ahead of time that they will automatically receive Shadow points if they carry out certain actions. Don't think about this too hard. If they kill a helpless creature (when they haven't been provoked), it is still murder (regardless of whether they should or not). This will ALWAYS have an impact. In this case, they could receive 1 Shadow point for violent threats, 3 points for unprovoked aggression, or 5 points for torture or murder. These events, whether justified or not, will remain as a blight on their soul. The game has a built in system of Corruption based on Shadow weakness. Why not use it? Your players seem to be flirting with Corruption, why not give them what they want?

It reminds me of a player I have. He always wants to fall to the dark side. He begs for it...

Good questions! I'd say that it is very clear that in Arda ends do not justify the means - think about the Ring and Boromir vs. Elrond.

As for Goblins / Orcs: they were prone to commit deeds that are wrong, like causing unnecessary suffering or betraying ally. That doesn't mean they would be unable to do good things, in a way They still feel loyalty to other beings, they can become capable commanders caring about their soldiers to a degree, they can honor an obligation - said in different ways, they are not altruistic, but also not totally anarchic, always striving do cause the Greatest Evil (that was said to be the main distinction between Sauron, who still wanted to reign well in a fashion, and Melkor, who just wanted to destroy everything in the end. I'd say that there could be men who were more evil than many of the orcs, in the end it's always relative, for the only absolute being is Eru (absolutly good and just). The rest are just different shades of grey, though sometimes hardly distinguishable from white, and sometimes from black.

As for the war, classical christian theology (which was quite close to Tolkien's way to see things) was that just war is a noble thing. No corruption there, though it might be horrific and ugly. I remember C. S. Lewis, close Tolkien's friend, who experienced the 1st World War, saying, that he believes, that if he died and the German soldier, who killed him, died after him, that they would both laugh at the situation, not taking it personally That is a good example of a just man's view of nasty business. That said it is still possible to do wrong things even when fighting for a good cause, as the players no doubt did. Glum was an evil being, as treacherous in my eyes as many of the orcs, but still it was not bad to pity him - or to spare his life. Sometimes the only possibility is to destroy your enemies without mercy - but now with unnecessary violence.

In the end I wou;ld still be very careful about the Shadow points - they would be deserved, but if they only lead in disgusting players, may be it would be better to use other system for the play ;}

I remember reading somewhere that Tolkien's opinion on war was not about it being noble affair, but all the opposite. "War turns men into orcs", I think those were his words about it. But of course, that was in real life.
War in epic fantasy isn't usually like that, specially in LotR, a very manichaeist environment.

In TOR, the gain of Shadow and the lose of Hope is not, in my opinion, a way of punishment to the players, but scars on their characters' souls.
I think it's healthy for the game that characters get Shadow points because Shadow is the ticks of the countdown towards every character's end. Being it by retirement or by madness (or by parting to Valinor), characters in TOR must end sooner or later. Because their XP threatens to break the balance between them and the challenges the game has to offer.