Hey there.

Yet another thing that TOR does better than many other fantasy RPGs:

The classic prisoner scenario. The PCs have ambushed, defeated, and captured several sentries from a bandit camp. When the bandits finally wake up, the PCs go about interrogating them for information about the bandits, their leader, etc. After questioning them, the PCs head out, but before long the Elusive woodsman says, "I drop from the rest of the party, circle back, and slit the prisoners' throats. It's the only way to be safe." I respond, "OK, no problem. You get 15 Shadow." "What? Oh, never mind." I love that there is a mechanic that discourages, but does not prohibit this sort of un-heroic behavior.

That said, the question came up about the 1-Shadow penalty for "violent threats." Should the party members each have received a Shadow for Intimidating the bandits into talking? How strict should this be?

Just curious what others think.

O

I think that totally depends on the situation. Is it a selfish act, or is it an act to save life for instance. The Heroes does not get Shadow points when she lifts her sword and strikes a killing blow (of course can she get Shadow points from that too if its in a selfish act).

Think of when Gandalf intimidate Sam when he is eavsdropping on Gandalf and Frodo. For Gandalf it's importaint to know that Sam will tell him what he heard from their discussion and make sure that Sam dont tell anyone that should not know about the matter.

I think its up to the LM to make make that choice. If the LM shall inform the player that her Hero is about to get a Shadow points, well that is also up to the LM...hehe (Or it could be a rude awakening for the player.)


/Khamul

I agree that it's really a Loremaster call, and probably not something that should be spelled out, since circumstances and situations can be so different.

The Shadow points are indeed awesome and a nice fit for Tolkien's world. I can't speak to all other RPGs, but Decipher's LotR game has a very similar mechanic, allowing for corruption over time when character's make evil (or selfish) choices. And West End Games' d6 Star Wars game has a corruption mechanic (Dark side points) as well, which could lead to a PC going over to the Dark side, eventually becoming an NPC.

Right. Obviously it's a judgment call and up to the LM to determine things ultimately, but I'm looking for a little guidance in the judgment area.

I don't really think the Gandalf situation applies. He didn't really threaten Sam, just used his reputation as a wizard to full effect, and we all know that Gandalf isn't really going to hurt Sam, no matter how he responds.

On the other hand, my Woodsmen PC threatened to have his faithful hound eat one of the bandit's fingers. I suspect that he really would have done it, too. (I'm not positive). Torture is pretty clearly on the list, but do other LM's out there think that threats during interrogation count for Shadow points?

Just in the interest of full disclosure, I DID give the Woodsman a point of Shadow for his threats. I told him about the potential danger, and he chose to threaten the bandit anyway. Again, I like the fact that there is a real mechanic for handling this that doesn't just say, "PCs are heroes and don't do this sort of thing."

My question is whether anyone else thinks that a point of Shadow was appropriate.

O

For my part I think that the Shadow point gain was justified.

Don't hesitate to give the player-characters Shadow point to remind them where this kind of actions can lead them.

This is my opinion based on years of gaming in other systems, but not having played TOR yet but been studying it thoroughly.

I like the Shadow mechanic too. It is a way for characters to play like they wish, and either walk the path of good and enjoy fellowship with like minded players, or walk on the dark side and suffer the consequences of their own actions.

TOR is a game based on LOTR books, and is basically good vs evil philosophy, and wicked characters don't fit into the TOR fellowship model.

BUT.... We as LM's should resist restricting them from taking actions they wish to take. Maybe they want to try to walk on the dark side and they think it is fun.

I think it should be allowed.
However, that player might find his character at odds with the rest of the fellowship before long, and with the madness mechanic would soon become a liability and undependable or untrustworthy and maybe even disbanded from the fellowship by the other players themselves.

If I were in your place, I would not tell the player I would penalize them with Shadow points if they what to do something shadowy.

I would let the player take his actions and then give out the points accordingly but fairly. That way your players will come to trust you, and that you will not try to control their actions with threats, but will reward their actions accordingly.

And later when his character is full of shadow and so out of control with madness that the fellowship disbands him he will have learned what the cost of his actions are.

Just my 2 cents

totally. I think threats during interrogation is definitely grounds.

While the ends MIGHT justify the means, they do not protect the perpetrator from shadow in my views.... In real life, men who go over seas to act as peacekeepers and witness evil acts, though they are doing what they think is right themselves and do no ill, they do sometimes come back haunted or calloused or emotionally scarred.

My brother in law was a good example of that after Bosnia. Even if a character does something for good reasons I would not be above testing for corruption or granting a shadow point with no roll. A LM will often be posed by situations that are grey, either light grey or dark... I think yuor call was more straight forward than some.... making a graphic threat like "I'll get my dog to eat your fingers!" is gritty enough to earn a point of shadow. The could have just let his dog growl menacingly, that i would not count for a shadow point. Saying, "If you don't tell us where the kidnap victim is we'll hand you over to the authorities" or "we'll make you regret it"sounds normal enough, Telling someone how you will torture, kill or maim them on the other hand.. shadow....

One thing that came up when I was a player was we were confronted with a grisly dark scene where 2 of the five prisoners being kept by the Troll were partly eaten with missing limbs tunicented off. They asked for their lives to be ended... and after the arguments among the other villagers about what ought to be done (they didn't know if they could spare the food to feed two who could not work to help feed the village, they were all very poor) it was left to the heroes as representatives of the local power that be. I ended up stepping forward as the default leader of the band (after discussing it with my companions) and taking two lives, (lives of relative innocents no less) The LM of the time was faced with a tough decision of whether to give me shadow points and if so, how much, he asked me what I thought and I explained that though my character had the best of the village in his heart and that he was mostly doing it because he couldn't bear thinking of the two living (or slowly starving) in misery, this was a grim act and one that would haunt him for some time to come so yes he should get shadow points. The LM was generous in my opinion letting me off with just 2 shadow points, one for each life, but considering it was a situation of his own creation and that we handled it in what seemed to our characters as moral fashion, I guess he didn't feel right giving me more.

Shadow Points for slitting throats -- yes.

Shadow Points for threatening bandits -- no.


Gandalf recounting his 'conversation' with Gollum:

"‘I endured him as long as I could, but the truth was desperately important, and in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him, and wrung the true story out of him, bit by bit, together with much snivelling and snarling. He thought he was misunderstood and ill-used. But when he had at last told me his history, as far as the end of the Riddle-game and Bilbo’s escape, he would not say any more, except in dark hints. Some other fear was on him greater than mine."

Shadow points gained by Gandalf -- zero.

If they don't fear you or the repercussions, they will keep mum or laugh in your face. But of course the subject matter is important. "Tell us when the next attack will take place" is completely different than, "Tell us where the kidnap victim is". With the former, the characters could never know whether the bandits were saying anything to keep whatever the characters threatened them with from happening, but with the latter there is more certainty, since it is easily verified.



this was a grim act and one that would haunt him for some time to come so yes he should get shadow points. The LM was generous in my opinion letting me off with just 2 shadow points, one for each life, but considering it was a situation of his own creation and that we handled it in what seemed to our characters as moral fashion, I guess he didn't feel right giving me more.


That is a fantastic moral dilemma and plot development. I think he was lenient though. Putting someone out of their misery on the battlefield is one thing (0-1 Shadow Points), but doing the same to not only one, but two people, that you brought back to a village, who would survive if cared for... ouch.

At least 5 SP's. Good story though.

How do you know?

EDIT: Let me expand and say that it seems like Gandalf is justifying an action that he even he knows is wrong but felt compelled to undertake even at the risk of staining his own soul.

Just to be clear, I understand that some threats are more effective than others when interrogating someone. And perhaps some interrogations are even necessary. But do they affect the interrogator? The more I think about it, the more I feel the answer is 'yes.'

The point I was trying to make of my character doing the mercy killing and getting shadow points was that you can do things with good intentions and still get shadow points.

I agree that yes, even Gandalf, can get a shadow point, getting a shadow point doesn't mean you are bad, but that you did something bad, and even Galdalf seems to need to find his respite (in the shire sometimes) to shake off the trails of striving against the enemy.

In this case Gandalf tried to do things the nice way, he failed, and was forced to resort to threats of fire (violent threats) to get the information he needed for the greater good.

I'm not saying that a LM should not take into account the reasons for the act, but that even when the ends seems to justify the means it still has an impact on the psyche of the character in question, and if a character turns to violent threats again and again and again without a chance to recover his moral stability in between he will quickly be well on his way to his first permanent shadow point.

I very much agree that the threats in this case (for the dog to eat his fingers) is worthy of a Shadow point. And I think Gandalf likely would have gained a Shadow point in his interrogation of Gollum as well.

Cynan has hit the nail on the head with his well articulated posts. One might intend good things (or be choosing the lesser of two evils), but there are still consequences, as the person who was forced (or chose) to do them wrestles with their own conscience. They are forced - via the game mechanics - to a period of rest and recovery to realign their moral compass.

Great discussion! And wonderful example of a tough moral choice for you as a player, Cynan!

Moral dilemmas, good characters doing something bad, flaws, I love it. But I think it should be rewarded with shadow points, because those things come with a cost.
For me, it's not restricting the players, it's just actions having consequences. Which fits the thema of the middle earth, by the way.

If you want to play a chaotic evil game (it's also fun), there's tons of RPG more fitted for the task than TOR.

I would. Maybe not flat-out "if you do that, you'll gain XX shadow points", but more "Before doing it, you hesitate because you know inside that what you're doing is crual".
Because sometimes, in the story, it's not easy for the players (not the characters, the players) to evaluate what's acceptable or not. And they should have that information before making the decision.

My turn to ask a question on gaining shadow points from misdeeds.

The heroes are creeping through a small goblin holding, as yet no alarm has been raised.

2 goblins stumble along, and are taken captive. One is knocked unconscious in the taking, the other held with a weapon to it's throat, and questioned.

A member of the fellowship then puts the remaining goblin unconscious through a strangle hold. This could be considered an act of unprovoked aggression but I kinda felt that it almost fit under self defense since leaving the goblin there would have raised an alarm and gotten everyone killed, and it is hard to sneak away with a prisoner.

As the other heroes left two of the company decided that it would be better not to leave the goblins alive for fear they will revive and raise an alarm, share information about them with the other goblins, and that they might have to face these same goblins again in battle or that these goblins may do more harm later if left alive. I really didn't know how to handle that? I didn't feel prepared to lecture them on the sanctity of life but I did tell them it would cost a shadow point. They killed them without hesitation. I can respect that, but it didn't seem very heroic to me. Looking up murder in the LM guide after the fact tells me it's 5 shadow points for murder, which it was. They were helpless, and not posing any risk to the heroes. They did not have to kill the goblins, either of them. I guess the question is, does the sanctity of life apply to creatures of the shadow. I'm inclined to think that it does.... to a limited extent, but there was also an implication that the goblin's life would be sparred if it talked. Does it seem fair to modify the number of shadow points awarded for murder depending on the target? Less for a Nazgul, more for an innocent child?

What would you do if you found a poisonous snake in your sleeping child's bed? What about a brown recluse or black widow? They are not attacking your child at the moment but they are still a threat are they not?

A better question: Your players waited along a path to ambush some goblins. And in doing so, they slew every goblin there. Let's say there were ten goblins whose motives are entirely unclear. Perhaps they were off to visit their goblin mum. Who knows? Would you give your players a Shadow Point for every goblin slain? After all, the goblins weren't doing anything except walking down a path.

It's not as though these were humans, eeking out a life of banditry and spending quality family time with their spouses and children.



Ever since the fall of the Great Goblin of the Misty Mountains the hatred of their race for the dwarves had been rekindled to fury.

The elves were the first to charge. Their hatred for the goblins is cold and bitter.

‘Orophin has now gone in haste back to our dwellings to warn our people. None of the Orcs will ever return out of Lórien.'

Suddenly a sword flashed in its own light. Bilbo saw it go right through the Great Goblin as he stood dumbfounded in the middle of his rage. He fell dead, and the goblin soldiers fled before the sword shrieking into the darkness.

In the latter quote, we see that, although Gandalf could have taken the Great Goblin prisoner and ransomed his freedom, he chose instead to cleave him in two.

I tend to resist the temptation to 'humanise' goblins, orcs, and spiders, creatures that lack compassion and true remorse. Else we get into these grey areas of moral ambiguity. If you had said Easterlings, I would have thought you too lenient, and would suggest the 5 points. But goblins toss babies into the fire to roast them alive and laugh at the screams. So no, no tears for the goblins.

Francesco agrees with you (its the 7th post down)


http://cubicle7.clicdev.com/f/index.php?tr...topic=2887&st=0



However, note at the end:

Here I may share some insights that Tolkien developed in his essay where he thinks about good and evil:

Here we find arguments for both sides. First, if an elf is present, no orc - under any circumstances - will surrender or ask for mercy. So that's easy, as all will fight to the last orc (or try to flee). OTOH, vs. a man an orc might surrender and beg for mercy (depending on circumstances IMHO). An orc that has surrendered (or taken captive) however, is - in theory - to be treated as any human prisoner. Tolkien acknowledges that this is most often not heeded, but nonetheless killing prisoners or torturing them for useful information is still wrong, no matter what justification is brought forward ("...they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery..."). Extenuating circumstances (being orcs, a danger in the future, raising alarm etc.) can be claimed in many cases, so the full 5 SP are not justified, but 1 or 2 (again depending on circumstances) are unavoidable if they are tortured for information and/or summarily killed.

The example with the orc column being ambushed (and the orcs not recognizable as being on their march to war or bringing booty and prisoners back) is similar. Here a test (with failure resulting in a SP) might be in order, as the orcs are not wholly in the mercy of the characters without a chance to defend themsleves.

An interesting question would be the same ambush situation in a "normal" war of man against man and without creatures of the Shadow involved (e.g. during Gondor's Kin-strife or in the wars of Arnor's successor kingdoms in the North and before the rise of Angmar).

Cheers
Tolwen

I will respectfully submit that this line of reasoning implies that any combat that involves wounds or death should inflict 1+ Shadow Points. Where does it end?



If we go back to the OP about threatening bandits to find a kidnap victim, let's say the characters failed to find the victim, who dies.

Should the heroes gain Shadow points for not doing everything they could, i.e. threatening torture, or even torturing the bandits? How far do we carry this out?


I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it could verge on becoming CoC.

I am aware that this poses a problem. One criterion that might (and IMHO should) be used is the situation: In direct combat, with both sides being aware of it, armed and ready, there's no SP involved.
It becomes tricky when one side is unaware of the other and therfore more or less (depending on circumstances) disadvantaged or totally helpless. IMO this last (being unaware and helpless) is an important point. You as the attacker are aware that the other cannot defend himself and is even unaware of your presence and you use trickery and treacherous behaviour to gain an advantage. This is the primary moral dilemma IMO.
The case of Faramir's Rangers ambushing the Haradrim is similar: Is it morally OK to shower an unaware - here mannish - enemy with a sudden missile volley from hidden position; very likely killing many before they knew what was happening? Of course it is war, and a balance has to be found. An ambush might be a situation where a light to medium test should be made to avoid SP gain. Again, it is an individual question: Do I have moral problems myself with shooting someone from a hidden position? And is it morally OK from a theoretical POV?

A battlefield situation may be similar. After the battle is over, the battlefield is littered with dead and wounded soldiers. The wounds are of varying severity of course and often the victors wander the battlefield, looking for booty and plunder. Wounded enemies are often killed on the spot and plundered if they possess something useful. Does this deserve one or more SP's? Such behaviour was usual after ancient and medieval battles. Again - IMHO - it depends. If the enemy is only lightly wounded and may be treated, it is very questionable behaviour. If he is wounded to the death and begs the character to relieve him of a further long suffering before succumbing (e.g. merciful killing), we again have extenuating circumstances.

Cheers
Tolwen

P.S.: Such questions of morality and borderline decisions are IMO natural to pop up if you have a rule mechanic that deals with morality and ethics.

Even in war situations, soldiers often come home emotionally damage, spiritually crushed or morally insensitive; all of which can be seen, mechanically speaking, as the effects of Shadow points (and permanent ones in many cases).

That is part of the horror of wars: soldiers have no choice* but to do things that will earn them Shadow Points, even for a just cause.

*well they do, but they will likely be trialled/executed on the spot if they don't do as they are told.

I think this is a very good point. For me there's a clear distinction between players knowing that their characters are accruing Shadow Points and the actual characters in many cases. It may be a point of education for players and LMs alike to see the accrual of SPs not as a failure of play but actually demonstrating that the game is being played correctly - ie, the accrual of SPs is completely 'natural' as part of TOR gameplay.

I think a test should be in order but should be presented in such a way so as the players understand that it isn't the LM/game trying to stop their characters from doing such things. As characters, I think Faramir and his rangers would be aware of the difficult choices they need to make to serve the 'greater good' but that some of those choice are not honourable, desirable, or in fact 'good'. Just like Glorfindel referred to in his post, in times of war there is no right decision.

It also creates a lovely narrative driver that just engaging in conflict with the forces of evil means that good people may well succumb to the Shadow. I think that's a very deliberate design decision from Francesco but again it's how the LM presents it to the player - ie, as something to be embraced rather than being used to force a certain style of play or used to penalise 'wrong' actions. I think this particular detail in how the ruling is presented is absolutely vital.

I just want to add one point about many of the hypothetical scenarios that are being presented here as part of the slippery slope that could lead to absurdity.

Ambushes and ambiguous situations about "not knowing if the goblins are going to visit their goblin mums" all bear a characteristic distinct from the murder of helpless of prisoners. Any situation in which the opponent could conceivably fight back seems much less morally "sticky" than the circumstance in which the victims of violence are wholly under the power of the attackers. Torturing and slaughtering bound or unconscious enemies is not even close, in my mind, to attacking foes that are capable of responding in kind.

The way I see it regarding ambushes, etc., is that the enemies involved here (orcs or Haradrim, for example) know that they are 'at war' or, minimally, violently hostile to another group (Gondorans). When Gondor attacks, the Haradrim be surprised by the time and of the attack, but they can't be shocked by its nature. Further, the Haradrim are able to seek cover, attack in return, etc., making the original ambush a risky venture.

Attacking a totally helpless or surprised creature, though (for example, raiding a settlement that has no reason to suspect your attack and/or has no way of defending itself), seems to be obviously different (and deserves SP).

O

It's still war and still affects people in very negative ways. Again, I try to see the accrual of SPs as a perfectly normal part of TOR-play and supporting the narrative drivers behind it, whereas some of the posts here do seem to view them as a way of penalising certain play - which they can be used as I suppose, but that does seem to be missing the point of them.

As a footnote, regarding the ambush above I'd allow a Wisdom check and only award SP if the character failed.

And here I think those actions should result in the automatic reward of SPs.

I think both situations add to the dramatic drivers within the game with regards to corruption, the effects of war on all sides, etc. It's my experiece and opinion that in these situations SPs rewarded enhance the game rather than detract from it. Again, perhaps its a viewpoint thing - my players see Shadow Points as a 'natural' part of the game and creating interesting story dynamics when they are gained. When I reward them they aren't seen as me punishing decisions made by players/characters but as supporting themes within the game/story/characters.

* Note: And yes, I'm deliberately trying to use 'reward' to describe when SPs are obtained!

I think that for heroes opposing the shadow there may well be desperate occasions when they threaten violence but this is the shadows methods. Adopt the methods take the shadow points? Now the player makes the call for his character ... thats roleplaying. For every Aragorn there are going to be plenty of Boromir's.

I'd caution folks against conflating separate issues. For example, honour and morality are quite distinct, even if in the Western European tradition, the Church attempted to co opt chivalry to make soldiers better Christians. (cf. "In Praise of the New Knighthood," by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, for one example). Likewise, there's a substantial difference between doing and seeing "rough" stuff that leaves a mark on your psyche and doing something immoral.

I would submit to the community that there is no one "right" answer for anything involving killing. As I've alluded to before in a debate about the morality of slitting an Orc's throat, there's no authoritative interpretation to which everyone subscribes about the righteousness of taking human life in war. I proposed using early medieval or early 20th century Catholic guidelines, since the former is the closest parallel to Middle-earth and the latter is the closest to what Tolkien would have attempted to live personally. I also suggested that some consideration should be made for the fact that Tolkien was a veteran of the trenches in World War I and that he probably understood better than most the moral dilemmas one faces in that environment.

I've killed people. I've helped killed other people. I won't say I've seen the worst face of war, but I've seen enough over forty-two months between Iraq and Afghanistan as an infantry private and cavalry officer. I've tried to reconcile it all with a faith that I take extremely seriously and attempt to live out as well as I can, miserable sinner though I be. I really can't emphasize enough the delicacy with which folks should approach automatically equating killing with evil.

I honestly, deeply believe that some are applying a more rigourous moral code to your TOR characters than most modern mainstream religions and almost all religions of previous eras. If any would care to debate this with me, I'd be happy to discuss Just War doctrine, the Doctors of the Church in connection to killing and war, or relevant Bible passages.

Thank you for sharing that Mordagnir. That's some pretty serious stuff right there and I feel humbled that you're prepared to show that side of your life to us.

If my posts have alluded to this then it wasn't my intention. I try and use Shadow Points not as a 'measure of evil' but to demonstrate or measure the descent towards psychological defeat, madness, etc.

Again, I hope my posts don't paint that. I very much see Shadow Points and their accrual as something the players know about but the characters have no real idea about until (i) they become miserable or (ii) suffer a bout of madness. Like I said above, I like to use SPs to support certain themes and narrative drivers so I never use them in the game as a "If your character does that then he's going to get Shadow Points" warning or attempt to limit or force player choice (ie, in a moral way) but as a way of demonstrating that certain themes and RPing opportunities will come to the fore if that course of action is chosen.

Oh, I did want to revisit something mentioned in a previous thread as well as this one:

There is a lot of potential for expanding the rules in terms of associating Shadow with exposure to the ugliest aspects of human nature. As suggested before, I think requiring Corruption Tests ANY time heroes are involved in mortal combat wouldn't be out of line. You could be a pacifist serving as a medic and still, the horrors of war might easily drive you to a bout of madness. How much easier for a man like Boromir -- who I think remained a fundamentally good man until the end, regardless of his moments of weakness -- to lose it?

My chief fear, in this case, would be an imbalance in the Hope and Shadow economy since this would quickly result in more SP than the system assumes.

I know what you mean but tweaking such things does also support shifts in focus and theme for certain play styles or campaign choices. The quote you refer to is a bit out of context so I'm not sure what the original use/post of it was hoping to achieve but it could be that they were aiming for a more dramatic/traumatic RPing experience where the descent into madness etc is accelerated for the purposes of that particular campaign's goals etc.

I do apologise if my candour makes anyone uncomfortable. In truth, it makes ME a little uncomfortable. But, on the other hand, it's also very awkward to see folks paint a normal military like an ambush -- which we see in the Old Testament and throughout the medieval era without categorical censure by religious authorities -- as "murder."

Having pulled the trigger, during our _ambush_ in an area in which the local Taliban were highly active, on a guy who had killed several Afghan soldiers and wounded several guys I knew with his roadside bombs, it is difficult not to take this topic personally! I don't think what I did was evil and I don't think my religion says what I did was evil either.

No need to apologise, it's really interesting to read and sobering - but in a good way.

I certainly wouldn't say you were evil but as I've previously mentioned I don't always assign Shadow Points for evil acts but for the negative psychological damage actions can have on those inbvolved. For instance, in the RAW it's perfectly acceptable for characters to gain SP when seeing a dead person - especially where the death has been violent, even if they weren't involved in the events surrounding such a death.

In Tolkien torture and executions are definetly the pervue of the villian. That is because, the background in in ME has little connection to how a real medieval world would operate. To my knowledge there is little mention of famine, disease, and even human raiders (most depradations are put down to the Orc.) In the fantasy games I run I allow for a more harder personalities to surface, and still remain "good" because they had to seal with such things on a daily basis. How many people had those bandits themselves killed in their raids? In the end that PC probably would have saved lives by killing those bandits. Given the situation was it the moral thing to do, probably not. Was it the right thing to do, I would lean towards "yes".

The Shadow mechanic is a really good addition to the game that I like myself, however, it is an example of idealised world.

Shadow points really do seem a slippery slope. I've realized that there is no easy way to decide where to draw the line. I personnally do not feel that you can look at actions without considering the motives or circumstances surrounding them, and when you do look at these things it will often becomes a judgment call. I think every one will have different thresholds for when they call for shadow gain, and thus every gaming group is going to have to come to it's own balance in what grants a shadow point and what doesn't, and how many. Of course whatever the balence, you don't want all your characters to become overwhelmed in shadow after a small number of stories because the LM is dishing out tons of shadow points too quickly. Few would want to have to put aside thier character because they were over taken by shadow....

It is there, once you leave the main narrative. Off the top of my head I can recall the following examples:

• Túrin joins a group of bandits that have no problems with terrorizing their own kin. Only after he takes over, they improve somewhat.
• Túrins sister dies of a deadly epidemic disease before the Nirnaeth - as do many of the Edain as well.
• In an abstract way Tolkien describes the lives of the men of Middle-earth (as opposed to the Númenóreans - and even before Sauron begins to build his empire - as miserable, short and full of "natural" hazards like famine or disease.
• The Great Plague in TA 1635/36 that sweeps through the Northwest even more deadly than the real-world Plague from the mid-14th century.
• The Long Winter from 2750s and the Long Winter from 2912/12. Both kill many people and famine accompanying and following them is stressed. The second event even has wild wolves roaming the Hobbit's core lands due to hunger.

IMHO these examples show very well that the negative aspects of humankind and the major killers from the real world (famine & disease) are absolutely present in Middle-earth as well and very likely a thing feared by the general population through experience.

Rich H: I absolutely agree with you that SP should be seen as an integral part of the game - and the lives of the people of Middle-earth - rather than a GM tool to "punish" disagreeable actions.
Sometimes necessary things have to be done, but that doesn't make them right. Of course circumstances influence the amount of SP. The prisoner that is killed to prevent him from alarming his comrades and endanger the group or the nearby defenseless hamlet will earn the characters one or two SP (as an example), if it is done quickly and with the inner feeling that it is still not right. Doing this cruelly, e.g. by making the death slow and painful, will earn them perhaps 4 to 6 SP, as this is clearly an evil act.

Cheers
Tolwen

For what it's worth, I'm playing with a very ethno-centric morality; it's not morally right, but perhaps fitting to fantasy like Middle-Earth.

For a Northman, it's OK to ambush (with the intention to kill) a group of orcs which are "obviously" intruding the North to cause murder and mischief. Orcs have no status (other than enemy) and thus have no rights. At best, such creature deserve a quick, merciful death.

However, it is not OK to ambush and kill a fellow Northman for the sole reason of being of the same blood; even without much social status, a free man deserves a trial (which may conclude in its death afterwards).

Elves and Dwarves are not Northmen but have the status of ally; it is not only legally but also morally wrong to attack them. When alliances go fuzzy, things can get ugly (as with the events of the Battle of Five Armies if it wasn't for the orcs and vampire bats). Men of other free or allied nations are treated similarly.

A Northman that has been trialled and cast away is then a renegade and thus no longer a Northman. Still, it is a human being and thus closer than orcs; moral dilemmas can lead to shadow point.

Same goes for humans of other nations and siblings of your allies (such as elves and dwarves of other tribes). They cannot be outright killed but should be treated with extreme caution (and possible prejudice, such as Eomer and the three hunters, or the Dwarves in the dungeons of the Elven King). Their status of friend or enemy should be made clear ASAP, but should not be killed until this is made clear.

This of course mainly concerns armed men and troupes of soldier-like; caravans of merchants and travellers shouldn't be waylaid until their intentions are made clear.

In other words, I intend to be harsher with misdeeds the closer the victim is to your own people but cruelty will always earn Shadow Point, even in "justified" situations.

What was the name of the people that the Riders of Rohan hated...Dunlendings? Either way, what would a lone Rider do with a captured human Raider out in the middle of the Mark? I think he would not hesitate to kill him, after he got any useful info out of him.

The trouble with Shadow Points, Dark Side points, what have you is that they have to rely on our moral standards of today. Most people today would balk at killing a captured Raider, even one whom they saw kill other people. Killing a prisoner is wrong in today’s society. Suppose a Daleish PC had a vendetta with a member of another family, would he get a shadow point for killing him? Depends on what Daleish law says; it could be legal to kill someone in that case (like the Articles of Kanly in Dune). I like these kinds of mechanics in games, because they lead to some interesting RPing. But, they are however 100% at the mercy of the LMs moral code.

"In other words, I intend to be harsher with misdeeds the closer the victim is to your own people but cruelty will always earn Shadow Point, even in "justified" situations. "

This is exactly what I am referring to. Define what is cruel in a justified situation. I am pretty sure your definition and mine will not be exactly the same.

To a certain point I agree. With Middle-earth we have the advantage though, that Tolkien as author and creator did set absolute moral standards for his world (a prerogative of any author of fiction). The law of a certain people within that world might deviate by a small or great degree, but the absolute standards set by the creator still remain and all people within this sub-creation are subject to it - whether they follow it or not.
We have the above mentioned statement about treating - theoretical - orcish prisoners. This can be used as a starting point to deduce about mannish prisoners as well.

Cheers
Tolwen

Well I for one, don't find contemporary Woodmen (or Bardings or whoever they were) dispatching two bound goblins to be cruel. But that's just me.

I always chalked up 'violent threats' as listed in the book akin to the company showing up at The Prancing Pony and telling Butterbur that they don't care if the inn is full, he better find them rooms or 'there will be hell to pay'.

Or telling an honest merchant you'll pay no more than 5 pence for that pony, while resting your hand on the pommel of your sword.

Right, that was a lousy and hasty conclusion to a post that took too much of my break to write!

In a way I want to leave the definition of cruelty vague on purpose, but for the purpose of this discussion, "cruel" is what makes an honest man say "I shouldn't have done that" or "I wish I didn't have to do that".

Within the frame of ToR, a man who doesn't feel that guilt after an act of cruelty is one that has a trait about that, including the flaws acquired through your shadow-weakness. It is quite possible that the kill-intruder-without-mercy rider has earned such a flaw.

But to be honest, this is all a bit fuzzy for me because I still haven't found a satisfactory solution to another related dilemma: what happens when a character performs a misdeed because his(her) character has a flaw and was invoked by the Loremaster on a failed test (or because that flaw was appropriately roleplayed?) Should that character earn a shadow point every time? If so, are permanent shadow point sustainable? If not, why is this character allowed to be callous or cruel without earning a SP?

Taking the case to the extreme, does an orc accumulates shadow points every minutes, or does he stop gaining shadow point since he's already as wicked as one can get?

Both options are viable, but they have a big influence on how shadow-point vs cruelty should be applied. In one scenario, the character are all equally innocent a gain a shadow point for every wrong. In the other, some characters have been hardened more than others and gain shadow point for misdeeds appropriate to their stature (or culture, or level of cruelty etc).

I think 'accustomed to' or 'inured' would be a better word than hardened.


What exactly is Shadow? Some of it mimics insanity points as per WFRPv2, but the rest of it seems to be defined as shades of evil.

And as to an orc, is it directly linked to Sauron's will, however tenuous, or is it linked to this ambiguous Shadow?

Does this all leak back ultimately to a slumbering Melkor?





edit: I wrote 'he' for the orc but changed it to the more appropriate 'it'.

Think, rather, of Erkenbrand after the Battle of Helm's Deep, where he ordered the Dunlendings to help clean up after the battle, then to take an oath never to march on the Mark again, and then to go home, free.

One of the greatest traits in all of Middle-earth is that of mercy. Whenever you are in a position to show mercy, and you do not show it, you should gain Shadow. Moral obligations in Middle-earth are often active, not passive.