Well put. I will assume this only applies to creatures with fëar/souls (and not deer, boar, fish, wargs, trolls, goblins, etc).

At least the last of this list (orcs) do have a fëa. They were made from elvish or mannish stock (depending on which version of Tolkien you prefer), but for this question it does not matter. Melkor could not create life and thus he had to use pre-existing one and twisting it.
This is the point I quoted above. For Elves and Men they are likely irredeemable, but they are still corrupted versions of the Children and thus under the same Law as these. Trolls may be different though, as their origin is even more ambiguous.

Cheers
Tolwen

"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)."

And herein lies the problem with Tolkien's works from a moralistic POV IMO. From my limited readings of his books iit seems to me that butchering orcs and goblins is perfectly exceptable behaviour in ME. But, when it comes with dealing with even the blackest of hearts of Men then tolerance and mercy seems to be the moralistic norm; which just doesn't make sense to me. Of course Tolkien really only dealt with certain crimes commited by Men in his stories pretty much the occasional raid and sack of a town or region where people were killed outright (after out right defending themselves) and their property taken or destroyed, but he doesn't really delve into the really dark places of the human heart (wanton murder, rape and such). Which is why his moral code stands up in ME, Men just don't do that to one another, this is left up to orc. And this creates a system that is Black and White with no shades of Grey, which isn't really based in reality.

To use the above example of the Woodman killing the bandits...was it an evil act? You have to look at the situation. Was the party in a position where they could have tied the raiders up and easily contacted the local Sherrif? Or, were they out in the middle of the wild 50 miles from no where and 25 miles from anywhere? If they were in the former I might have a problem with that, but if they were in the latter then showing mercy and letting them go could end in them bringing their buddies for a late night camp visit were they wouldn't show same moralistic code.

So, really I have to amend my past statement to not only is the Shadow mechanic at the mercy of the LM personal moral code, but it is also (as written) at the mercy of Tolkien's idealized moral code.

Well we have two situations actually.

Ormazd question dealt with using violent threats.
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?




And Cynan had a goblin situation.

Well that certainly complicates things, doesn't it.

With the men I guess you are referring to the Dunlendings shown mercy by Erkenbrand? If so, it is not that easy IMHO. As a native of Westfold, he has had some experience with these people - and probably their past. A careful reading of Tolkien's notes on the matter reveals that they did feel wronged by the Rohirrim (and partly this was justified). Even though on the front face the story is about upright and heroic Rohirrim (partly), a closer look reveals some jingoism and right of the mighty on their part.
The conflict is an old one with a quite mixed history with no clear "right" and "wrong" side. In the LotR we only see the last chapter of this century-old conflict, and even among the Rohirrim there are quite different takes about the Dunlendings (Éomer vs. Gamling), ranging from scoffing at them to a certain understanding and more differentiated view.

Here I have to disagree. The "darker sides" of human nature can be found as well, but not in the mostly glorifying and idealizing main narrative of the Hobbit and LotR - and this is not meant as derogatory for sure! Both are - more or less - first-hand reports with a limited scope and thus show only a small part of Middle-earth. The interesting stuff (in this respect) comes when carefully going through the Appendices and the posthumously published works like Letters, UT and the HoMe. Here you find a much more differentiated view - though often hidden in nice or euphemistic phrases.

A good example is Gondor's Kin-strife. Brother against brother, and families torn apart. Like in reality, civil war is among the most ugly wars to be found. And after its end, the kings became suspicious among their own family (sic!) and their court in Minas Anor knew very well treason, mistrust and denunciation:

IMO it is important to look closely at these "minor" texts, as Tolkien uses a rich and indirect languqage (sometimes euphemistic) and you have to see the events hidden behind nice words.

A good example is found in the Appendix as well:

The interesting part is the second. First there is a big battle, but then Minalcar proceeds on a campaign of terror - IMO it's just this - after the enemy's army is defeated proceeds into his country and brings fire and destruction into their homes. These few words contain much more than can be gleaned at first sight - IMO a much more darker side of the "noble" Dúnedain than usually painted when seeing the noble Boromir (even with his weaknesses) or especially Aragorn.

Cheers
Tolwen

I think we need to ask what do Shadow Points represent, in relation to Hope?

Someone with a few Shadow Points isn't evil - s/he's someone who has committed acts or seen things that makes it harder to maintain faith in something better.

So justifying means according to ends would count, since by definition it's saying that the ideal path wasn't available.

The post mentioning a sheriff led to me to another facet of the problem that might be significant. In M-E there seems to be an absolute standard of justice and every action is sanctioned with a certain reaction – Bilbo’s mercy on Glum brings end to Sauron, Isildur’s retaining of One Ring brings Sauron back. Eru doesn’t bring justice through his power (at least usually) but through hands of those loyal to him – as happened during the final coup against Melcor.

Usually this justice is carried by authorities – i.e. judges, kings, sheriffs. Most people have no problem with bandits being put to death by a judge. However there are times when the justice is far (in a bandits' camp, during war) or corrupted – is it all right in such occasion to step up and do what is needed to do?

Let’s say that judge would put a bandit to death because that bandit was involved in felonies. Does an adventurer have a right to make and carry out that judgment when it is not possible to bring that bandit to justice? It is better to carry out the judgment and take justice in one’s own hands (as we say in Czech republic) or let the bandit go and risk that he will kill innocent people afterwards? Is there a line? What if the said bandit would rape women? Kill children?
And war presents even more difficult questions…

That's a really good point. Properly constituted authority is extremely important, and while its actions are not necessarily good, it has a lot more leeway, as it were, than private actors. That fits very closely with Catholic teaching on secular power.

"A good example is Gondor's Kin-strife."

Though a good example of the darker side of Man to be sure; it was not what I was referring to. I was talking about the lack of any kind of truely hienious crimes committed by Men on Men (ie murder for the sake of killing, rape, and the slaughter of children) all these types of crimes are pretty much are only done by the Orc.

Basically put Tolkien created an idealized world in which Revenge against the orc=ok, revenge against your fellow man=intolerable.

Ovid: the question is why is it so, and how does the situation change if there is no such authority in given time and place...

Not wholly. I forgot another example from the tale of Túrin found in UT. here we find an - attempted - rape (which you mentioned as lacking as well).

Tolkien is too much well-educated to go into graphic details here, but the description is clear. The outlaws know what their chief and Andróg are out to do (they fear the retribution of the woman's people and know they have to leave quickly then). Andróg also iterates the needs of the outlaws, and what needs are meant when they are chasing a lonely young woman through the forest with their companions back home with a smile on their face is pretty clear.

The woman is quite scheming as well, having just escaped rape, she tries to use Túrin to kill the other would-be rapist as well and then have her strong "protector" come with her (perhaps implicating that he may take her as reward as well).
Sexuality in general is not described in much detail, but this indirect way clearly shows what Forweg and Andróg were up to do, had not Túrin interrupted them.

Interestingly, there is another instance of men satisfying their sexual appetite without great concern of the women involved as well (even if not outright rape, but it is very insightful nonetheless). It is in UT as well:

It is the speech of an embittered Erendis to her daughter, and not everything may be seen at face value, but the fact that she judges men as driven by their desires and see women as nothing else than a way to satisfy their sexual desires is quite disillusioning - especially if we look at the normal description of the Númenóreans as noble "Kings of Men".

Another instance where man goes against man in mutual hate is the Second Age where the Númenóreans in their hubris do not care about the people of the forests whose forests they recklessly cut down, and who respond in kind with guerilla warfare, and the Númenóreans becoming even more reckless themselves in turn.

In addition, the passage of Minalcar is exactly that what you "lack": Ruthless revenge against men. Burning down hamlets, homesteads and towns/cities of a defeated foe is not exactly what I would see as idealized and intolerable. And despite this, in the chronicles Minalcar (Rómendacil II) is described as a great king who secured the eastern frontier (true, if you don't care for the means), laid foundations for the close friendship with the Northmen and built the marvellous Argonath.
Thoroughly razing Easterling towns and cities with civilians, old, women and children in them clearly is a case of revenge against men on a grand scale.

Cheers
Tolwen

"The woman is quite scheming as well, having just escaped rape..."

A little too scheming if you ask me. I have not had first hand experience with this type of situation...but, I think she was a little too calm considering what just happend to her.

Yeah, In found her behaviour quite "practical" as well, but OTOH her psyche was perhaps on an "alert status" still and not acting in a way we would normally expect. But a hard life in the wild will probably make oneself much harder than in a more protected civilized land.

Anyway, IMO from the existing examples it is pretty clear that the usual crimes of man against man exist even in Middle-earth. They may be a little less common among the Free People due to their being a bit closer to "ideal" people than in the primary world, but they still exists and are addressed.
Tolkien was not interested in writing these ugly things in detail, as his intent was another, but where necessary he makes it clear that human societies (and sometimes elven as well) are subject to the same flaws as we in our real world. And crime in its various dirty facets is among these things.

Cheers
Tolwen

Thanks Tolwen.

I'd just like to point out to others what it states about Shadow Points in the AB:

Shadow points reflect the marks left on a character when his spirit is tainted by doubt and despair. Starting characters begin the game with a Shadow rating of zero.

And this in the LM:

Adventurers accumulate Shadow points to represent the growing burden of grief, doubt, weariness and selfinterest that comes to rest on the hearts and minds of those who oppose the Shadow. While much corruption can be attributed to the anguish caused by the Dark Lord’s deeds, the Shadow can only work to exaggerate and nurture weaknesses that are already present.
As the Twilight of the Third Age approaches, the sources of corruption multiply and increase in severity. Heroes mainly risk gaining Shadow points in four ways:

1. Experiencing distressing events (see Anguish);

2. Crossing or dwelling in an area tainted by manifestations of the Shadow (see Blighted Places);

3. Committing despicable or dishonourable deeds, regardless of the end they sought to achieve (see Misdeeds);

4. Taking possession of a cursed or tainted item or treasure.

Awarding Shadow Points or asking players to make Corruption Tests usually doesn't have anything to do with their PCs committing an evil act. Also even if they commit an act and think they can justify it, it will still lead to SPs (or a Corruption Test). These to me are two important points.

Shadow Points and their accumulation are a by-product of various types of circumstances and narrative drivers within the game and the literature it is based on. It's the psychological damage certain actions, experiences, or events leave as marks on the character in question.

With this in mind, it's quite acceptable for a character to gain SPs based upon, for example, ambushing Haradrim even if they can justify such actions. Also such award of SPs does not necessarily mark the character as committing an evil act. It's simply that such deeds leave long term and/or hidden scars or marks upon the character that may lead to anguish, misery, and despair and further problems down the road. PCs can (and I think should) accumulate Shadow by constantly slaying and killing Orcs. Righteous are their actions but it should still lead them to Misery (ie, gaining Shadow and the Miserable status) as that constant exposure to death and pointless loss of life gradually wears away at our heroes.

These types of outcome within the game are to be embraced. It's the main driver within the system to that element of Tolkien's stories.

People really need to move away from equating SPs to evil deeds as they really are a lot more complex than that. They are a measure of growing doubt and despair not how Evil a PC is.

All of this is why I think they should be embraced as a neutral outcome to actions and events within the game. The rewarding of such points is NOT a way for the LM to enforce/punish a certain style of play, Shadow Points should NOT be avoided - they are a part of the NATURAL and PREFERRED narrative development of The One Ring RPG. Characters engaging in heroic events, witnessing and being involved in those events, and so on will accumulate Shadow - even for actions which are deemed *good* (ie, the ambush of Haradrim) as such actions affect the PCs in ways that are subtle and cumulative.

... Least, that's what I think Francesco was aiming for and it seems obvious from how he's detailed things in the RAW.

I agree 100%. At the end of the day, we clearly have our own notions what defines "honourable" or "evil." Regardless, it's a proven fact that many aspects of war and human nature cause psychological damage. As I stated earlier, I've contemplated handing out SPs after every combat in which people die (enemies or friendlies). I'm just not comfortable yet with my management of Hope renewals (since, like you, I link Fellowship Pool refreshes to events in the adventure rather than session ends).

Yes, it is more common that the accumulation of Shadow is a by-product of being heroic not of committing evil acts. Which I suppose is a somewhat obvious thing to state considering that the rules are written with PCs in mind and they are usually good!

I'd certainly award SPs for the death of a friend in combat and maybe go with Corruption Test for slaying enemies. I don't see a problems with this at all, but you're right about balancing it with Hope renewals. Remember, SPs can be healed though in the Fellowship Phase.

Even though I agree with some of what was said (SP measuring nasty things I see or experience) it would lead to outcomes that are in my view inconsistent with ME. Aragorn with his history would be on brink of becoming a madman, the same goes to Faramir and even more to any of the elves that have seen and experienced a lot, but I fail to see this clearly enough in the story - on the contrary, characters most deeply involved in battle against Sauron tend to behave calmly and reasonably, not showing any signs of corruption.

One of most important themes in Hobbit and LOTR is the importance and duty not to be inactive when bad things happen, yet activity would be rewarded with SP, corrupting the character. Another important theme is corruptive nature of evil deeds and redeeming nature of good deeds - yet even good deeds would be rewarded with corruption in some instances if we would follow your proposal. That seems to be a bit incoherent to me...

I think one of the other important themes of LOTR is the ever-increasing despair that seems to simply happen through existence. The elves clearly sail to the West when they have diminished and been overwhelmed by despair. Now, whether we want to call this Shadow (with a capital 'S') or just ennui, it's ultimately semantics. The heroic action, of course, is to carry on even in the face of despair, as Aragorn and Elrond do. In response to your final point, it does not seem incoherent to me to suggest that years of constant warfare against the Shadow would result in despair and malaise. The incoherent element has to do with the word 'corruption,' which leads to Rich H's point:

Fair enough. As the OP, what I really meant to ask was, "Is a violent threat toward a bandit really considered a Misdeed?" It seems like the answer should be, "Yes," but, coming from very different RPG backgrounds, I thought I'd ask for other's opinions. I, for one, am convinced that is the right answer.

O

The points you make here are very easy to explain/address. Elves often distance and isolate themselves for long periods as well as also fading and leaving for the Undying Lands when they become tired and weary of Middle Earth. And in game terms, just because the characters you cite aren't 'madmen' doesn't mean they (i) don't have Shadow Points, (ii) aren't having to make Corruption Tests (but largely succeeding at them due to their high Wisdom), and/or (iii) they choose to Heal Corruption during their various Fellowship Phases.

Not really, in my opinion. Here's why... There are narrative elements running throughout Tolkien's work about characters defending their lands but in the end not for themselves (Frodo), taking the One Ring (importance and duty and not being inactive) yet those decisions leading to sacrifice and corruption, etc. And there are rules within the game for good deeds and positive action replenishing Hope (eg, achieving objectives) so the rewards are there as well. And again, SPs can be healed - so although characters are exposed to the trials and tribulations, despair and sacrifice of facing the Shadow it can be healed. Remember Hope and Shadow are different devices in this game and it's important to remember that they can both be used and often to offset each other indirectly - ie, achieving their objectives (Hope gain) but experiencing dark and negative experiences (gaining Shadow) and then on to resting an a period of respite (Healing Corruption during the Fellowship Phase). In my opinion, that PERFECTLY represents this dynamic of Tolkien's stories within the game mechanics and structure of play.

Hi Ormazd,

Let me just caveat that, yes, I think it is probably a misdeed (I can see that it would depend on how vehement and nasty the threat was) but in general I wouldn't award automatic Shadow Points but rather allow a Corruption Test and then if Shadow Point(s) were gained I'd say its not because the act is inherently evil but because the character has been sullied or tainted by such actions, "they've become something they regret" or "shown weakness and taken an easier, unwise, path", if you will. One should always allow for variations and room as an LM.

Also, I think it's important that players understand that it's very likely their character have only (at best) a feeling that they are affected by events in general - but being unable to attribute them to actual specific events. I present shadow accumulation as more like a growing sense of unease and that the characters affected need to retreat and heal from the wearying events of their struggles. You hit the nail on the head though with the "narrative of the bittersweet"; the sacrifice to protect something but perhaps at the cost of oneself. That's Tolkien, right there.

Elves are trully being corrupted, but not through their actions in war but rather through their vast lifespans spent in a fallen world corrupted by Melkor's element in essence (HOME: Morgoth's ring). My point deals with actions in war, not enviroment. If the proposed theory was valid we would see that elves active in wars are far more corrupted then those who do not - but I do not see that in story. It still seems to me that Faramir was a levelled, calm character without any traits similar to those characters suffer when gaining shadow, even though he was involved in not honourable combating for quite a while. We can say that he just made his corruption tests... but even that is not convincing to me.

We should not forget that SP trully do deal with despair - but primarily they are a measure of how corrupted a character is. Rich doesn't see shadow as primarily corruption thing, but I believe that trully is what shadow describes: it is clearly connected with what the One ring did, and that thing corrupted. Moreover it seems far-fetched to me that we would ascribe hoarding of treasures or violent streaks to growing despair, that should be left to freudian psychoanalysis IMHO It is far more believable to just see it as an outcome of corruption, which is a result of being exposed to evil coming from within or outside.

BTW I see too that there can be a beautiful and epic story told of a hero battling not only with enemies but also with shadows growing in him, but that is another thing.

Rich: and that is what goes against me feel: that characters would be gaining SP because they do what they need to do and unless they are abel to sing and craft enough they start to behave like villains LOTR goes quite the opposite way: by doing what is right (which is also being involved in direct combat) I get more noble, not more "villainy"...

Frodo was corrupted because he was exposed to corruption from outside: TOR, obviously, not because he ambushed someone

<double post - curse this "smart" phone!>

<double post>

To be fair, that's not what I said. I stated that I don't see the accrual of Shadow Points as primarily an EVIL thing as I pointed out in a previous post when I directly quoted the RAW.

No. They'd be exposed to Corruption Tests which may lead to Shadow Points but that would be dependent on the character's Wisdom trait which for people like Aragorn, Faramir, et al is probably quite high and so they therefore don't accrue SPs very often, if at all, for things like acts of war but 'normal men' do. So, the rules work to support the narrative as I described and fit in with the idea that exposure to war and murder and other equally dark situations does taint people (or at least potentially - Wisdom dependant).

And that can happen in the game - ie, the accrual of XP and spending them on Wisdom. In the literature, where do you directly correlate characters becoming more noble actually through fighting or is it that characters who fight are *already* noble or wise? Faramir certainly doesn't get more noble/wise - he already is, same goes for Aragorn.

I'm assuming you're joking but nobody has ever said that! The conversation has evolved into a wider discussion than just the initial one about ambushes.

Just singling out this one part of your post as a focus point. The accrual of SPs are not about becoming more 'villainy' they are about growing despair, etc.

It's only Permanent Shadow (ie, Shadow Weakness/Traits) that you could associate with villainy and we're not talking about those here as they are extremely different things to Shadow Points. These are a consequence of a Bout of Madness but such bouts are not a definite outcome of growing SP accrual as such accrual can be managed/avoided.

See, what you've described there are Shadow Weaknesses caused by Bouts of Madness *not* the accrual of Shadow Points (which are about despair, etc). As I've described above the two are not the same if you follow the RAW. I really think you're mixing things up and that's why you're not understanding the rules and how they work.

So, I really think that you appear to have misinterpreted the rules and are seeing SPs as a measure of villainy*. They really aren't. If you accept that base premise then in my opinion the rules really do work and support the literature as I have stated. Francesco really did an amazing job with TOR, I find it incredible that it so accurately represents Tolkien's works. Truly awesome stuff.

* or perhaps you're inconsistent in what you think they relate to as some of your comments appear contradictory or innacurate (as pointed out above) in places from how I'm reading bits, apologies.

I agree with Rich H.

Shadow Points are not an indication of growing villainy, though permanent Shadow Points and the associated Degeneration flaws are. The accumulation of Shadow Points indicates a growing despondency and despair for the character. A weariness of the spirit, as the gaining of fatigue is weariness of the body. It raises the threshold for the corresponding loss / spend of points. Where the fatigue threshold marks a limit for endurance where weariness kicks in, the shadow points mark a threshold where the loss of hope will end up in despair - and the potential for a bout of madness.

I'll try to cut it short, as I feel I would more or less repeat myself. I understand your point of view, but I still do not find it convincing.

Frodo was a bit of a (lamish) joke.
Shadow points lead to pernament shadow point, or in other way: if I gain enough SP, it is quite probable I will get even those pernament SP via bout of madness (unless I am missing something). It is consistent process with foreseeable end: if I generate enough SP, I am likely to have a get to the end. I know that there are countermeasures, they just do not change what I do not like: getting involved in the whole corruption mechanic while I am doing something good. But one could say that I will get trapped just by travelling to Mordor or seeing bestiality of orcs and such things, which undermine my position somewhat. Still I say that killing in war should not be rewarded with SP for reasons I mentioned (that's where I draw the line).

Aragorn spent his entire life fighting the enemy, so I guess it is reasonable to say that if he was more noble in the end (which I assume), than the way of life he led must have had some role in that. Same with Gandalf, Thorin, Eomer, Faramir. My point is again that I do not think characters should be punished when they fight evil even when that involves killing, and we do not agree here obviously.

Well, in the end I guess that every mechanic is an abstraction and no abstraction is perfect, so we have to chose how we use such an abstraction. I have no problems with your interpretation, I think it can bring amazing moments to the table, I just find it as less correct interpretation of M-E, that's all...

Maybe you don't see the links between rules and literary source like I do, but some of your interpretations of the RAW previously weren't correct so I hope you reconsider and re-evaluate things. Maybe it will change matters for you.

Shadow Points *are* about despair, etc not villainy. That's the narrative behind them in line with Tolkien's work.

Permanent Shadow Weaknesses are a different mechanic, easily avoided by high Wisdom (which I'd say pretty much the majority literary characters you quote have) and Hope use (to supplement lack of Wisdom or low rolls), and other game mechanics to ease the burden of SPs (which there is evidence of for many characters in the literature - ie, recital of poems, song, etc).

Characters gain XP as they adventure and recover Hope which can both be used to offset SP gain which addresses other points you raise.

Again, and I can refer back to a previous post I made here, your language that you use is pretty telling - you see the corruption mechanic as impeding heroic play, punishing characters, etc. It isn't, it's a natural part of play not a penalty and it's fully supported by the literature if you accept it as such. SP gain should be embraced. It isn't a punishment for doing something wrong. There are loads of themes within LotR about sacrifice, weariness of combating the Shadow, acceptance of this duty, etc, and the characters in the books accept this. SP gain is a natural by-product of Heroic Play. A hero's duty is putting themselves on the line for what they believe in and the people and things they love. SP gain occurs when this happens and heroic characters are invariably Wise (ie, the trait) which supports the RAW (ie, back to high Wisdom stopping or severely limiting SP gain), etc etc. It isn't punishing play or trying to inhibit heroic behaviour or particular action, its part of the sacrifice the hero makes. The bittersweet element of what being a hero is.

It's all there in the rules and they work in concert together. But that's the important part - the elements work *together*.

I guess if there's still a problem with all this then it kinda lies with you and your understanding of the rules and how all the elements link in with each other to support the tapestry of Tolkien's work. I think it gives a far closer interpretation to Middle Earth than your own and I'm sorry I (and others) haven't convinced you as I do think you're missing out on some, like you say, "amazing moments at the table".

Great discussion though.