Well, the title should give you a basic idea, but let me explain anyway.


I don't do "save vs insanity" unless I'm playing something Lovecraftian, and even then I prefer my madness to come when it works for the narrative, not at a random moment determined by a die roll.

Corruption, I understand full well is integral to the setting. No fuss there, I just don't plan on using it unless items or beings of great Power are involved.


So, the question is, do I need to rework anything in order to safely ignore madness and downplay corruption, or should the game pretty much run without a hitch?

Not sure how you are going to be able to do this. Corruption, and the resulting madness are pretty integral to the world as a whole not just to certain stories/situations.

I really don't see anything integral to the setting in madness.

Ring bearers, sure, but otherwise...not so much.


And like I said, corruption is something that I don't really see much sense in outside of interaction with items and beings of great power. Even Mordor has the effect that it does on Frodo and Sam because of the influence of Sauron.


If a great power isn't involved in any way, I just don't see any need for it.


To be clear, in case it wasn't already, I'm mostly wondering about any mechanical/gameplay pitfalls I might run into. A general discussion of the topic could be interesting, though. I'm always up for that.

"I'm mostly wondering about any mechanical/gameplay pitfalls I might run into."

Lots. Corruption/madness is a very integral part of the story;
-Boromir
-Denethor
-Gollum
-Saruman
-Wormtongue
-Isuldur
-The Nine

The corruption mechanic, I think, is core to the whole game, you remove it and the whole "feel" of the game becomes non-Tolkien. IMO, of course.

The majority of corruption my players have encountered is related to journeys through dark places...

However, Dreadful Spells inflict Shadow Points on the victims if they fail to resist and that cost needs to be placed elsewhere.

Likewise, if the characters commit dark deeds, there needs to be a consequence.

If you want to remove Corruption and Madness from the game, change the gain of Shadow to a loss of Hope on a one for one basis. To avoid them running out of hope too quickly, you may have remove Corruption tests from Journey.

I have obviously not tried this, as we are running the game as intended, but you were looking for a suggestions, so I'm throwing one out there.

No doubt some other forum users will explain in great detail why my suggestion is terrible

Removing the possibility of corruption while on a journey (and leave most of the other corruption rules as they are) would probably be the best way to go in this case.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but those are examples of beings and items of power corrupting people, which I haven't suggested removing. (I've specifically called them out as the only place where I think rules for corruption make sense)

Denethor, IMO, wasn't a case where any mechanic is needed. Which brings us to the other important point. All of those examples are, IMO, best handled narrative. In fact, IMO, all cases of a character going mad are best left to the narrative, not to dice rolls.

Characters don't go mad because they've had a series of rough days, and a hard journey, depleting their hope points, and then happen to stumble upon a place where great evil has happened. To me, that is completely absurd, and does not in any way make the game feel more like Tolkien. It makes it feel less like the world I've read so much about, and more like Lovecraft.


your mileage may vary, as they say, but this is the whole reason I don't really see why there are rules for madness in the system in the first place.

Rules for rings of power corrupting people? Sure. Rules for powerful beings having the abillity to warp the minds of lesser beings? Absolutely. General madness rules that could come up just from fighting trolls and walking past the wrong grove in Mirkwood? No. Absolutely not.

If a character commits a dark deed, I think the consequence should be in game. Alignment punishment rules, to me, almost never make sense outside of Star Wars force users. As always, just my take on it.


I've already removed corruption tests from journeys, but I'm thinking specific powers, items, beings that are known to cause corruption will keep that trait, with the consequences being determined by me as LM and the player of the character.

The only problem seems to be that the consequence of corruption is madness, so I have to replace the consequence.

What I'm thinking is, any shadow point gain will have immediate consequences in game for that character. My experience playing GURPS should help here, but I'd love some help codifying what types of influences would create what types of corrupting effects.

For instance, I figure different Dread Spells would induce different effects if the target fails to resist. A ring of power would depend on the character and the ring, etc.

It could be said that both Denethor and Saruman were corrupted by Sauron through their use of the Palantir.

The rest of them (except Wormtongue who was turned by Saruman) were affected by the rings of power.

There is one key moment that comes to mind in the Hobbit (first page of Riddles In The Dark') where he does suffer a 'Bout of Madness'.

'He did not go much further, but sat down on the cold floor and gave himself up to complete miserableness, for a long while.'

I know that technically, he does have the ring at that point, but when that story was written, not even Tolkien knew that it was the One Ring.

The trigger for that was Bilbo being alone, in the dark and far from home, so really it was a result of the journey and his circumstances.

I would argue strongly that that moment in the Hobbit is not, in any way, a bout of madness.

He sits in the dark hopelessly for a while, probably cries a bit, but to say that he went mad?


As for modeling such events in the system, the effects of running out of hope do that just fine.

One use I can think of for shadow point tracking without madness it to raise the floor on the effects normally associated with running out of hope.

In other words, if you have a 3 shadow score, you "run out of hope" when you have three hope left, instead of at 0.


So, gaining shadow causes some kind of narrative effect, like being irritable, suspicious, etc, and also makes it easier to lose hope. Things like a ring of power have their own effects, determined by the item, being, whatever, rather than a broad game mechanic.

You are looking at Bouts of Madness in TOR in the same was as you would in Call of Cthulhu.

They are certainly not the same.

In TOR it's more a case of a violent outburst, losing your temper, a moment of despair etc.

Lovercraftian madness is much more severe and has long lasting consequences and in extreme cases permanent insanity.

Ok, how best to put this. Boromir, IMO, was in the end corrupted by the Ring, yes. However, he never came into direct contact with it. Having fought the Shadow and seen first hand the atrocities the Orcs and other creatures of Mordor visited on his lands had (using the game mechanic in TOR) given him shadow points to the point where he could easily be seduced by the Ring even in proximity.

Saruman and Denethor were driven mad by the use of the Planitiri, however the palanitir only has the power to show you the information you want, but not always how you want it. It forces you to draw your own conclusions; so Saruman and Denethor lost hope by what they saw in the Palantir, not because of the Palintir itself.

Wormtongue, Isuldur and The Nine were corrupted by Rings of Power (excepting Wormtogue of course) true, but one of the driving themes in Tolkien's work is the corruptability of Man, and over coming it. It is why Aragon is so afraid to take his rightful place as Isuldur's Heir, because he fears that that power will also corrupt him as it did his ancestors.

As to being corrupted by places where great evil has been done; personally, I think Evil can infect a place, just as it can a human being. I have been to places where, historically, horrendous things have been done and they "feel" different then the areas around them. But, as I said above I have no problem if you (or others) remove the possible corrupting influences during travel. That doesn't really remove anything from he game. However, I feel that corruption as a whole should be done with a mechanic, because if it is left to the player or LM then the characters don't actually face the threat of corruption.

Sorry I hadn't realized I was logged in under my original account which I decided not to use. So, to let you know Beran and Legate are the same person. I am having trouble logging out of the Legate account. Anyway sorry for the aside.

I just want to make sure I have understood your orginal post completly. You are talking about removing the mechanics for both maddness and corruption and replacing them with a narrative style, correct? Or are you talking about just removing the corruption checks for journey's?

I just want to make sure I have understood your orginal post completly. You are talking about removing the mechanics for both maddness and corruption and replacing them with a narrative style, correct? Or are you talking about just removing the corruption checks for journey's?

Theoden almost gives in to despair.

Sam loses hope after Frodo is captured.

Pippen is stricken by grief when he finds Merry after the Battle of the Pelennor.

When Faramir was sent to supervise the defences at his father's bidding he did it with a heavy heart.

Thráin II went loony after the loss of the Lonely Mountain.

Thorin Oakenshield loses the plot towards the end of the Hobbit (gets it back on his death bed).

These are all obviously 'narrative' in nature, but the corruption mechanics can lead to these 'narrative' events happening to your PC's which can only enhance their own roleplaying.

Think of the corruption system as a guide for your Pc's as the grow weary with sorrow and toil.

I think you could remove Corruption for the elements the OP wants to remove it for and still have a serviceable mechanic, personally. If it wasn't quite working for his group the GM could also adopt some kind of Hope subsystem where that is lost when witnessing particularly grim scenes, etc.

Just a quick question though - what does the OP propose for bad/evil actions not related to items of power? Are you taking the corruption mechanic away from those as well?

Forum giving ya trouble? I've had to fiddle with my posts to get them to work right a few times.


Anyway, corruption is staying, but not for journeys, unless something really out of the ordinary is going on. (in which case, it's not that it's part of the journey mechanics, but rather the mechanics of whatever effect is in the place they travel to, etc) Madness, if it comes up, will come up based on items or beings of power, etc.

I don't plan on them getting ahold of any items of great power any time soon, so there's plenty of time to figure out how to handle that, and beings of great power are best done entirely via narrative, and rules/effects for that "monster".

So, madness I'm thinking of replacing entirely with narrative style, but corruption is just getting taken out of journey rules, with some minor madness-like effects when a character gains shadow, and possibly a new mechanic that makes it easier to experience the effects of losing hope if you have a higher shadow score.


Poosticks7: For my group, such things get in the way more than they enhance anything, unless they're done with a light touch.

Rich: I'm not sure how much such actions will even come up, but I'm generally not a fan of "dark side points for killing shopkeeps", as it were. The consequences for evil acts in game will be what makes sense for the act, and a character that is "good" that commits an evil act will lose hope, experience remorse, and then I'll see where it goes from there. A character that keeps doing evil will probably be dealt with by their companions or authorities, as it works in the game world.

That's a fair point. I do think that TOR bouts of madness are something best left to narrative, where they aren't already covered perfectly well by loss of hope.

The palantir allowed direct influence by Sauron, the Ring calls loudly to the powerful and those desperate for it, and any evil item of power should have in it's rules notes on how much harder it is to resist without hope, along with the rules for what giving in to it does to you.

That's one of the key problems, IMO. The One Ring, for instance, should have rules for how it specifically corrupts people, how hard it is to resist, how a high hope helps you resist, etc.

This statement I strongly disagree with. If the group is disinterested in that aspect of the world to the point where they won't explore it without be "forced" to by the mechanics, then they'll probably ignore it even with the rules there, or it will take more away from their play experience than it will add. My group is perfectly capable of deciding on a narrative basis whether corruption is appropriate for their character at a given time. IME, most gamers are.

The threat of corruption should, IMO, be dealt with via story telling and roleplaying, not random dice rolls.

Ok, I see where you are going now. The one problem I do see is with the Treasure-Hunters Shadow "Flaw" (can't remember the term) "Dragon Sickness". How would you handle that as it is a maddness and is, somewhat, built into the mechanic of the game? If you got rid of it what would you replace it with?

I think you are getting hung up on the word Corruption. It makes it sound like it's always evil magic radiation affecting the character, and I don't think it works well in representing what is going on.

A better description for what actually happens in the game is the word Despair.

What is happening in TOR isn't "save vs insanity." The characters aren't dealing with things that make them Daffy Duck-style coo-coo bonkers. What is going on is that the terrible things in the world make them lose faith, and they give into despair and sorrow. When they give into their sorrow (when they have a bout of madness), they irrationally act out. This leaves them permanently scarred, as they cling to a dark version of what drives them to do good.

Although Boromir and Smeagol are the obvious examples, they are so extreme that they confuse what the mechanic is trying to model. I think better examples are Thorin and the Elvenking. Both are so driven by greed and pride, that they are willing to send their people to war over a single gem. Neither could be called "insane," but both seem at times to be mad in pursuit of their goals. THAT is what it means to fall to Shadow.

Taking that out of the game makes it less of a Tolkein experience, IMHO.

I agree. I think current system is perfect BUT corruption could be replaced with despair as the name.

Very good point and I think that's where I've been heading with it.

Recently, I ran the beginning of Kin Strife and Dark Tidings. I'd already introduced Merovech in a previous scenario and had the PCs roll corruption tests during the encounter at the beginning of the adventure (sorry, trying not to give too much away just in case some people reading this haven't played it yet). One of the player's character's is an Elf and he really keyed into the despair of the situation (he'd picked up a Corruption Point), which is a strong narrative component for elves and their longing for the sea, etc.

While switching Corruption for a word like Despair might cause less conflict with people's pre-conceptions based on other gaming; Corruption and Madness are, in fact, terms used quite often by Tolkien (especially by Gandalf in the books) and in his Letters when discussing these types of issues. Maybe the best way to view Corruption and Madness is through the consequences created in the game and resonances these words have with sources. That is, they are mechanics that help provide a "Middle-earth feeling" as discussed in the LB (page 7). When I first read the TOR rules, they instantly triggered associations with The Hobbit and The LotR.

So there is some value in the terms staying what they are other things being equal.

Also, think of Corruption tests as providing mechanics to trigger another dimension of that "Middle-earth feeling," specific to situations that we read about in the sources. If we think of the purpose of the mechanics as creating a "Middle-earth feeling" with real gaming consequences, then a LM could just as easily narrate in place of the mechanics. However, without the real gaming consequences provided by the mechanics, the narrating of these elements would need to consider consequences and implications so as to maintain the games balance in my opinion.

In essence, what is Madness for Middle-earth? Answer that question and you could then narrate the consequences of Corruption without using the mechanics.

Regards,
E

Your original question was about how it would impact the game. Personally I would play it as written, but I understand your desire to change the game.

Other than the previous mention of impacts I would think you would need to change the "Heal Corruption" activity for the Fellowship phase. In my game the PCs have had to select this option on a regular basis to keep their Shadow down (particularly when the adventure takes them into the darker parts of Mirkwood).

If you are greatly reducing the Shadow Point PCs get, or have a chance of getting, during a session I think you would need to increase the target number for Healing Corruption or only allow the Players to roll it when in a Sanctuary once and not at all if not in a Sanctuary (RAW you can roll once anywhere and twice in a Sanctuary).

I think you will also see the character's able to store up and really spend Hope like crazy during important moments during an adventure. The reduced/eliminated Shadow will not mean they are exposed to Madness.

I appreciate your reluctance to have player characters "roll for sanity", but I have run several sessions and it really hasn't felt that way. It reminds me much more of failed Passion rolls in Pendragon than failed Sanity rolls in Call of Cthulhu.

One of the things I have done in my campaign is allow character's actions to modify regions difficulty/TN ratings on the map through their action or lack of. Where they have really been successful in dealing with the enemy in a region they see the visible change and improvement or corruption of areas. My player's stated goal at the beginning of the campaign was to return Mirkwood to it's formal glory and drive out the Shadow. Reducing corruption in the game would really take a toll on the theme of the campaign I run and the flavor of the game we play.

I think not having it as a major theme in your game will not break anything, but will change the feel.

Good luck and let us know what you think.

Nice post. Well what is madness in Middle Earth? Boromir's madness, Feanor and his kin's madness, Saruman's madness. They're actually all linked with corruption rather than madness like going crazy psychologically. Corruption because of power or riches.

That would be something that could come up in small ways throughout gameplay, either as it makes sense to the story, or/and when the character gains shadow. I'd rather use it as a roleplaying guideline, than as a "you temporarily lose control of your character" mechanic, personally.

I understand perfectly what the game is modeling with the mechanic.

As I've stated before in this thread, I think it's better modeled via the narrative, rather than being subject to the equivalent of failing saving throws. Something that caused "daffy duck style coo-coo bonkers" would require mechanics because it would involve a total loss of control of one's character, rather than a minor loss, and would be even more something I'd want no part of.

Since I'm going to have shadow score increase the floor for hopelessness, gaining shadow should have plenty of consequence in terms of the game balance. I think that part of it is solved, at this point.

But work is calling, so more on this later.

THanks, everyone, for the replies thus far.

Seriously, I've got a much better idea of how to proceed now.

To be clear the bold parts of the quoting are my annotations

Not sure I see any of these as proving an inherent corruption/madness in Middle Earth. In the end it is a matter of different reffing styles. If it works for the players and the Ref then it is fine.

That said the Lord of the Rings specifically is very much about temptation and the fall from grace I think. But The One Ring is closer to The Hobbit.

Just my thoughts

E

But the intent of SG/C7 is to move from the post Hobbit era to the War of the Ring with the supplements and that's a darker game!

Tales From Wilderland is dark. Darkening of Mirkwood is going to be dark!

And... the Hobbit was written for a child, which is why you get the weirdness with the dogs, ponies etc. in Beorn's house for example.

In our game, Beorn has a way with animals, but it doesn't go quite that far!

To go off on a tangent: This is an interesting discussion, I just had a similar one in a German CoCthulhu forum: Some people feel that providing rules for psychological changes in characters is somehow an incursion into the game and usually produces ridiculous results. Others feel that such rules, if done well, stimulate creativity. Im firmly in the latter camp and like the corruption rules (which, to me, are the most "indie" aspect of the game), however, I can see where you come from. With such rules as for corruption, the players have to keep an eye on the numbers and go with the flow to make it run smothely, otherwise, something like a bout of madness probably seems ridiculously abrupt.

Perhaps if you guys could give some examples how did you played out a bout of madness in your games it would be good for the discussion.

Only one has cropped up so far.

Final battle of Tales from Wilderland.

Hobbit rolled an eye in the middle of the big fight. He just panicked and fled, or would have done had he got chance, but an orc dropped him before he could disengage.

Bit of a crappy bout of madness I know, but with so many enemies it seemed logical.

Only one of my players has had a character suffer a bout of madness. It was an Elven Warden. It happened during the climactic battle at the end of a three session adventure. The first Trait gained is Resentful so we used that as the theme. I let the player decide how it would play out and offered suggestions and final approval. The character threw himself into the already desperate fight and at the end, after saving his Fellowship focus, he immediately left in disgust. He spent that fellowship phase alone and narrated his actions and then returned in the spring filled with a bit of shame in his behavior.

Now during social encounters I have the ability to call on his Resentful Trait. I use it to force a roll that would not otherwise be necessary or increase a TN.

The player has used it during the game to explain why he fails this roll or that on occasion. It's not really in the forefront, but now is a part of his character.

One of my players also had a bout of madness in today's session. He tried to take the Wolfbiter axe head from a Woodman character by force. The hound of the Woodman stopped him and put him down. He then come to his senses and apologised, told that some shadow has captured his heart and it was this forest's evil aura that effected him.

Which is precisely why I feel that it makes more sense to have less significant consequences, but those consequences spread out by happening each time shadow is gained.

So, you gain shadow because your fellowship focus gets wounded, say. Normally, the result is fairly binary. You either add one to your shadow score, and that's it, or you suddenly have more shadow than hope, and bad things happen.

the way I'm going to run it, you would experience something negative appropriate to the reason you gained shadow upon gaining shadow, and you would be one point closer to "losing hope", because you lose hope when your hope drops below your shadow.


Madness only happens in the stories when a person is interacting with an item and/or being of power. Even Theodan is being magically influenced by a pupil of Saruman, and he's able to snap out of it with Gandalf's help.

To me, that means that any rules for that sort of corruption/madness need to be particular to the thing which causes them, in this case an item or being of power.


When Bilbo sits in the dark feeling sorry for himself, he's (using my system) gained some shadow, and the result is a feeling of despair, which he gives into, in a pretty purely roleplayed scene. I might give him an extra advancement point or some other benefit for really good RP of the scene, and using some trait or something as a guide for how he breaks himself out of his sad state and gets back up to escape.

To me, the game runs much more smoothly and naturally that way. YMMV, of course.

Oh I totally disagree and hope your wrong about moving away from the Hobbit. I love the fairy tale (I mean that in the not-Disney manner) feel of many parts of the Hobbit.

In my game Beorn's house was filled with animals serving and greeting the players. The players enjoyed it and we didn't get too silly with it. But we embraced the fantasy elements and it's weirdness.

Our game is a mix of grim with moments of hope and sometimes really bright points. Of course we are in the period prior to the return of the Enemy to Mirkwood.

Thought the movie, Snow White and the Huntsman had some real flaws many of the visual dark fairy tale aspects were great.

Just my opinion. I don't think your doing it wrong or that I am doing it wrong, just posing a differing opinion.

Templar72,

I've thought about starting a thread just to discuss different campaign themes. You've just hit on a great example of how different LMs present the material differently: "more like THE HOBBIT" or "more like LOTR."

What's funny is that we won't even all agree what defines THE HOBBIT in contrast to LOTR.

Anyway, I'm too lazy/busy to start a discussion that I'm not confident I'll steward well.

Enough thread-hijacking for now!