Hi all,
lastly I got an interesting question. It is about the Shadow & Hope rules/usage. As it stands, offences like stealing, lying or manipulating others clearly earn you Shadow Points. Now, how would you handle Robin-Hood-style characters in this respect?
As we now the legends, these guys clearly disobey the laws of the country they live in (which is most likely their home country as well), trick, cheat, lie, steal and sometime even kill. Now, of course, they do all this for the "greater good" of the people. They break the laws of an - more or less oppressive - regime to help the poor and weak and help to restore the rightful and "good" ruler. In D&D terms, they are "chaotic good" characters. From a moral POV it is clear that they do it for a good purpose, but nonetheless they do it, and the offences are often not minor. They also do harm or even kill the normal soldiers of the regime, even though these are not really "evil", but only do their job (unless they actively participate in the oppression, which gives them a slightly darker shade).
The question is similar to another thread we had about more shaded characters and situations rather a very clear Black-and-White cliché.

Cheers
Tolwen

There is considerable variance in this forum between what constitutes good and evil. Thus, to a certain degree, only you can answer your question.

For example, in a previous debate, we discussed the morality of using a garrotte to stealthily slay an orc in order to sneak into a camp and free a companion. A minority -- including me -- argued that there is nothing problematic with this act whatsoever. The majority found this act troublesome, although the degree of "sin" varied from person to person. What's funny, is that when I first put forth my opinion, it did not occur to me that there might be serious disagreement; after all, we'd do the same thing in my current line of work (though to a man, obviously) without losing a wink, and I certainly wouldn't feel compelled to go to confession for it afterward.

So, in MY opinion, I think so long as the war was just in the eyes of the Wise and the player-heroes were careful not to indulge in cruelty or needless violence, and likewise careful to avoid collateral damage, I would not be handing out Shadow simply because they broke the law. One must give Caesar his due only so long as Caesar's due is just.

Now, I have given some thought to Corruption Tests after every encounter in which there is serious violence, whether the player heroes were perpetrators, victims, or simply witnesses. Violence does leave a mark on you, regardless of whether you're touched by it physically.

I think you made a good point here. A middle way (between a strict "yes" or "no") is probably appropriate for it. As long as they walk this fine line, Shadow would be kept to a minimum. They would probably get some (e.g. due to being exposed to said acts, for whatever "good" purposes), but not nearly as much as if they would commit this selfishly or even indulging in the acts.
Thus, it would be - relatively - easy for them to limit Shadow gain, but not totally. And then it also be easier for them to reduce this later as well.

And my main question was not about breaking laws (which is a side-effect here), but about the - objectively - moral crimes (stealing, lying, manipulating etc.) they commit in the name of the "greater good". Saruman probably began with similar intentions "for the greater good" (IIRC Tolkien did indeed write something along this line), but he did not manage to walk said fine line, but fell from grace and deteriorated further.

Cheers
Tolwen

I'd go with Tolwen's approach. Half shadow gain, or less, but still gaining shadow for their actions. With the act comes the temptation to carry on stealing for less noble causes. The gradual corruption of the soul.

EDIT: Didn't see the OP was Tolwen as well. Anyway ... go with that. Reduce the cost, but don't remove it completely.

Actually had something similar in the session tonight ... is it okay to kill the NPCs in a dream/vision. They're not really there, they're just vision people. The dream/vision feels real, the PCs can make a conscious choice on their actions. Instead of the full 5 points, I'm giving just 1 (talked me down from 3). That's still 3 shadow points for one of the PCs. Another PC gets 1 for the same. I'll also be awarding the rest of the group 1 point for witnessing the act. The adage is true - a scenario doesn't survive contact with the players

I think part of the answer to this question depends on the tone of the campaign you are running.

Are you running a game in which Good is always pure white and Evil is always pure black? If so then give them a Shadow point every time they do anything less than good.

Are you running a game with more nuanced shades of morality? If so, consider the motivations and the way in which a deed is performed. In this sort of game, I could see a player not receiving a Shadow point for garroting an Orc sentry, but receiving one for torturing an Orc prisoner "just because he's an Orc".

The example you give of soldiers of an oppressive regime is an interesting one. I would give a Shadow point for stealthily killing, "murdering", an ordinary soldier who was just doing his job, especially if he could have been dealt with in a non-lethal manner. Doing he same to a soldier who was a right bastard and rebelled in his power over others would likely get either a reduced or no Shadow point. Orcs are simply "evil" by nature, so killing them is ok.

Look to the fates of Boromir and Denethor for some examples of characters who fall prey to the Shadow, and Faramir and Eomer who walk the line, stray outside of the law, but ultimately do not become corrupted.

I think Shadow points should awarded when a characters actions serve the ends of the Shadow and indicate that the character is becoming more like the Shadow. Remember Aragorn and Gandalf speaking with regret of the need to employ harsh questioning with Gollum. This regret is the key to why they would not have received Shadow points in my game.

Robin Hood style characters in Middle-earth? I will have to chew on that for awhile and try to think of a character that fits that description. Right now, I cannot think of any.

I wonder if the intentions or motives of a character matter as much as his actions to Tolkien?

There's a setting in Middle-earth for this style of characters that I have long wanted to write a short adventure or campaign idea about. Admittedly, it's far away (spatially and temporally) from the default TOR setting however.

This is set in Gondor during the Kin-strife (another great grey-shaded time, with brother pitted against brother ). Here we have all the ingredients necessary: An unjust and increasingly "tyrannical" (although we have to remember that the later history was written by his enemies) king in Castamir, while the rightful king (Eldacar) still lives but currently is unable to exert his rule.

This also has the advantage that there exist a number of suitable RPG sourcebooks for Middle-earth (specifically MERP's The Kin-strife, and for supporting info the Minas Ithil, Minas Tirith and Southern Gondor sourcebooks). And for such a setting (Robin Hood) in general there exists the great mid-80's sourcebook Robin Hood - The Roleplaying Campaign. All this could be made in a very special campaign setting and idea set in Middle-earth. And all the more to my liking, since it offers plenty of grey-shaded areas beside the black-and-white clichés so well known. Which era is better suited for difficult questions of morality than a civil war? And especially since the obvious "Evil" has only a very minor role here.

I have already begun a short outline and hope that I'll be able to put all this together in publishable form for one of the next Other Minds Issues.

Cheers
Tolwen

I would toss this up as an example of the LM's choice. An old example I will pose is this. Way back in the day, there was a Star Wars game. It had a rule that said that if you used the Force to attack anyone, you got a dark force point. This meant that if you used it hit a bad guy in that back of the head to knock them down, dark force point. If you shot them dead with a gun, no dark force point. Not that this really pertains to TOR, but what we came up with was making the GM perceive the intention of the act. Rather then the literal. You could engage in acts of aggression, but trying to con the GM into letting you get away with violence didn't work. The moral structure of TOR is not as black and white as Star Wars (heh), but the reasoning could be the same. Whats the intent, and how does the party perceive the "heart" of the character. If being moral, I could see a reduced shadow gain. Murder is still murder, but there is a difference between killing a panicky merchant who was giving away your position and killing an orc scout who would reveal the same.

I could see a reduction for stealing from a rich merchant to give to a starving family on the edge of Mirkwood. It would depend on if they took the merchant for everything he had, or just enough for the job at hand. Were they violent about it, or made so that the loss was barely noticeable.

Sounds interesting Tolwen! I was picturing a former Man of the Lake now living in Mirkwood, stealing from cargo rafts floating down the Running River.

My spatial idea was to set this "Middle-earth RH" campaign primarily in Ithilien during the Kin-strife. The setting is very similar to the classic Sherwood: A major forest near an important city, with a major road running through it or at last nearby, wild areas in the vicinity (and even "evil" ones in Mordor) for a wide variety of adventures. I guess it would not be difficult to develop NPC's to fill the roles of the Sheriff of Nottingham, Guy of Gisburne or evil sorcerer/noble. The Robin of Sherwood TV series comes especially to mind for the latter. The host of media coverages of the RH theme gives many ideas for potential adventures (of course you have to translate from the english pseudo-historical setting to Middle-earth).

Cheers
Tolwen

Given the context that Robin was stealing the proceeds of outlandish levels of taxation from a corrupt government and returning it the people that were starving because of said outlandish level of taxations and not keeping any for himself, i would say said act of stealing would not be an "evil" act in this case. I am, however, hard pressed to think of a community in ME that would, in continuity, allow such harsh behaviour by its officals.

To the Star Wars point made above, if memory serves the rule was that if you used a Force power that was intended to harm someone by design (ie Force choke, Force lightning,etc) then you did get a Dark Side point. However, you could use Force Push on an opponent with worry. But, when in doubt always fall back on what Master Yoda said "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack."

It need not be for extended periods. Castamir's increasingly oppressive rule is again an excellent example. He was "just" 10 years on the throne, but these ten years can be very long if you live in that time. And in these few years a lot of injustice even in Gondor and among the Númenóreans could (and did!) happen in which a Robin Hood character (or group) can flourish

Cheers
Tolwen

Perhaps Cardolan or Rhudaur. Of course, unlike Robin Hood, these probably don't have a happy ending.

Other possible settings, although stretching things considerably, would be landfall and settlement of either the Numenoreans or Black Numenoreans almost anywhere.

While the Numenoreans theoretically were helpful and beneficial to the native peoples, that does not mean they were greeted warmly. Nor does it mean that their efforts over time were appreciated. It is completely possible - and quite likely - that something akin to the Gwaitherium/Dunlending situation played out in other portions of the world.

Remember, we see Middle-earth as the Elves and Men of Numenorean descent have painted it. Not as the Dunlendings, Easterlings, and others experienced it.

In all cases the "civilized" world have been kind and helpful to all native peoples, without requiring anything in return, based on the native's point of view of events, right?

The way I see it, Tolkien's moral structure is much more absolute than George Lucas'. According to George, "Only Sith deal in absolutes." This followed a line delivered by Anakin who said, "You're either with me or against me." Yet, Aragorn says to Éomer, "You may say this to Théoden son of Thengel: open war lies before him, with Sauron or against him."

You have a point there. I had not considered the way that everyone falls into either Free Peoples or into Shadow. Orcs: EVIL. Elves: GOOD. I think my thought process was more that the Force itself was black and white. Light vs dark. There is no middle ground.

That being said, I don't think a robin hood character would every be considered and Orc. There are bandits and other unsavory types, Bill Ferny for example. A nasty, unsavory sort who worked for the servants of shadow. And while I am sure he had accumulated points of permanent shadow, he was not a fallen creature. So there are extremes of grey here. Tolkien once lamented that he had portrayed the Orcs as unremittingly evil. So I think a hero of Sherwoo...er Ithilien would work. Corruption would definitely be an issue, but it should be moderated by circumstance so that it's survivable.

I'd argue that Middle-earth, just like real life, IS black-and-white. At least, the author had no doubts. Either someone is counted amongst the followers of the One at the Last Battle or one is counted against His enemies.

At that date, that may be the case, even though Tolkien's thoughts on that are fragmentary and the most complete date from an early stage of his myths. However, before the final cataclysm, many things happen and many grey-shaded people and decisions among them.
Evil things (due to man's nature) did happen that had nothing to do with Sauron as the big evil CinC directing or commanding them - but often to his advantage.
Gondor's civil war is an excellent example. It was nothing commanded or orchestrated by Sauron, but the very own pride and faults of the southern Faithful themselves. The events were of course to Sauron's advantage and he could build upon it.

Cheers
Tolwen

No argument whatsoever, Tolwen. I should have quoted Cleggster, as I was addressing the nature of morality in the Tolkien worldview.

To your point, Tolwen, I heartily agree that something like the Kinstrife is delicious in terms of material for exploration. I would go further and argue that many good man likely followed Castamir, at least in the beginning, and many evil men likely fought for Eldacar.

OK, then I misunderstood your posting. *At your service!*

The point about the blurring of good and evil - often to the point of becoming indistinguishable - and the difficult question of morals and loyalties is one of the most vicious and cruel aspects of a civil war. Families torn apart by some members fighting for the one side and others for the other. Friends become enemies through these rifts and brother kills brother. And since the war is fought with extremely high emotions about the "evils" of the others (and the need to keep a military edge), generals often are not very picky about the morals of their soldiers as long as these fight loyally and stick to the general line of the rules of conduct (and some things might be overlooked "for the overall good cause"...)

Truly a challenge for morals and very often with no clear choice what is good and evil.

Cheers
Tolwen

The overt laws that were broken by Robin Hood and his merry men were not the law of the land that deserves respect in modern society. They were the edicts of a corrupt and dictatorial power, enforced -- like its tax-collecting -- by a brutality that could only be justifiable to people who hold incorrect moral views like "might is right", "they're only Saxons", or the big lie that whoever gets the crown onto his head (by whatever means) somehow inherits the status of king by Divine Right.

I think media renderings of Robin Hood, certainly including Goldcrest's 1980s Robin of Sherwood, avoid the graphic depiction of outright killing primarily out of consideration for the sensibilities of young audiences. So the bad guys' henchmen are put out of the fight by a single shot or a push off the battlements, but we kinda think they can't all be killed dead and that, once off-camera, a good number of them must recover. But that indirect motive provides exactly what we should aim to see in adventures set in Middle-earth. The bad guys should be neutralised, but without unnecessary bloodshed, and without anyone inflicting coups de grâce on downed opponents etc.

Robin of Sherwood's Will Scarlet figure, who just wants to kill the Normans and their soldiers, illustrates the darker side there. But as he's held in check by Robin and co., he doesn't really descend into a spiral of bloodshed and increasing Shadow Points -- even if we know he would do so if he acted alone, motivated only by his misdirected efforts to take some revenge for the loss inflicted on him.

TOR presents us with rules that straightforwardly hand out Shadow Points for absolute Misdeeds, with the deliberate intention of depicting the downward slide into 'Darkness' in a flawed world. This is supported by the lore, but also has the metagame motive of limiting Player-heroes to a certain adventuring life expectancy, to make way for the Player-heroes of the next generation. Therefore in TOR, even with perfect 'alignment behaviour' and no accrual of Shadow Points for Misdeeds, exposure to other manifestations of the Shadow simply will drag anyone down if they adventure long enough.

It would probably be more realistic to hand out (significant amounts of) Shadow Points for Misdeeds that are worse than the ones the Player-hero has already performed. By that approach a Player-hero would adopt a certain moral level, 'accept a certain amount of grey' if you like, and as long as they didn't go any worse than that, they could keep on doing the same things without sinking further into the Shadow.
It would be hard -- but beautiful! -- for a Loremaster to orchestrate, but I think Tolkien's view would be that small evils beget larger ones, and do suck such Player-heroes into downward spirals. If you can't orchestrate anything so finessed based on their actual actions, then the same overall effect is achieved by just keeping awarding Shadow Points for the same level of Misdeed.

But of course if a campaign is not going to be paced over the same span of years as TOR assumes (e.g. if everything's going to be over within a decade), then you should definitely treat Shadow Points as a metagame mechanic rather than an objective system. You should aim to hand out Shadow Points at a rate calculated to achieve the amount of moral decline that you want to see in your game. And if treating your players to an education into Tolkien's view of morality is not part of your intention for the campaign, then you should feel free to handle Shadow Point awards in whatever way suits the atmosphere you want to achieve.

Cheers,
--Os.