Shadow for killing innocuous orcs

[Agnot]

In any case, it's also a good idea to remind players that earning Shadow is something that's going to happen to all characters. It's not a 'punishment' for doing things wrong (even though it can feel like that when it's a Misdeed, which is why it's important to point out the consequences before they make that choice), but the consequences for living in Middle-earth and being exposed to the Shadow and darkness.

This is a very important point to make. To use an example from our campaign, our Beorning slayer has been dealing with some thugs who extort payments and harass the poor around Lake-town and Dale. He'd finally had it with this one Lieutenant, so when he came across him in a tavern outside of town abusing the patrons, he killed him with one stroke of his axe while the poor sap was monologueing. Instant Shadow gain, but totally in keeping with his character.

[Farath]

In my opinion, players shouldn't worry too much about their characters gaining a few Shadow points anyway. It's part of the setting that drawing closer to the Shadow is easy, and resisting it is hard. They shouldn't see it as a punishment, but as something that naturally arises from the drama, like battle scars. Their characters deal with fear and horror and despair regularly, and may well find their morals or will to resist evil gradually eroding if they don't take careful steps to prevent that.

Good points!

[Ghorin]

I see many good points and also different opinions here, very interesting to read you all, even when i have different opinion.

In last session, it was no point of making the orcs prisoner as the PCs were looking for a key to deliver the hobbit and then quickly flee the Goblin Hall. They never meant to spend time here.
There were only mâle orcs fighters here, that was à goblin post for harrassing travellers, not a dwelling goblin home.

For my session, I keep my idea of giving shadow points for the action of Killing those 3 orcs but with following comments
- gaining shadow points are not a punishment for bad action but as part of Middle Earth setting (as nicely explained by Earendil). I will explain that to the players so that they understand.
- still it wasn't female or child and the 3 orcs could have been a threat later => shadow points lowered. I think to give 2 points to the hobbit and the dwarf (who killed the 3 orcs) and 1 point to others who didn't complain that decision.
- i never (and never will) alert players about "careful you will gain shadow points if you do that" even if this is asked in TOR rules. I dislike that as this is un-immersive in my opinion. Anyway at the start of our campaign, i explained them all about Hope and Shadow and how to get Shadow. And in last session, i explained them twice that the 3 orcs were absolutly innocuous. They know the game as they play it since nearly 2 years and more than 35 sessions.

[Butterfingers]

I guess there's no one correct answer to this question, so you can do what feels right for you. In my campaign orcs are fair game regardless of circumstances. There are no good, neutral or redeemable goblins/orcs in a world where absolute evil exists (the Enemy). They have been plaguing the free folk for ages, and are completely unredeemable, unlike Gollum, who is torn in two directions at one point. I guess for me it's a question of free will, if the enemy doesn't have it, like orcs (I think), then it can be no misdeed to kill them in any situation?

So killing goblins is not a misdeed in my campaign, unless you do it in a particularly cruel way and just to satisfy your sadistic compulsions or whatever. That's more about the companion than the quality of the enemy. Killing goblins for revenge is especially understandable if you're a dwarf. Their enmity is famous.

Ask yourself what the goblins would do to you if the tables were turned? At the very least they'd take you prisoners and torment you in unimaginable ways.

About the scenario with Dinodas as prisoner in the goblin hall, I dunno, if you consider killing defenseless goblins a misdeed, what about the poisoning itself? It seems that alone would constitute a misdeed, even if the poison wasn't lethal. It feels kinda underhand - exactly what an evil person would do? That is if you choose to take the high road as far as treating goblins or any enemies is concerned? But even then you'd ask yourself is poisoning a misdeed regardless of who you poison? So the deed itself is despicable.

With human enemies I'd be more inclined to treat them with more as equals to free people, unless the particular individuals are completely irredeemable etc. But these are just my personal thoughts about this matter. No doubt it can create some interesting moral situations.

[Rich H]

I guess for me it's a question of free will, if the enemy doesn't have it, like orcs (I think), then it can be no misdeed to kill them in any situation?

Interesting. I'd say the exact opposite; if something has no free will then they are just as much a victim as anyone, more so perhaps. I think you need to be careful about the use of such a term. Do you perhaps mean they are irredeemable, instead?

Ask yourself what the goblins would do to you if the tables were turned? At the very least they'd take you prisoners and torment you in unimaginable ways.

Shouldn't matter; heroes are better than the foes they face. That's why they are what they are.

.
.
.

.
.
.

This is ignoring shadow that is gained through blighted lands and witnessing evil events, but I think people need to accept that characters are going to accrue Shadow Points and when they do it isn't the GM punishing the players for their Misdeeds. Often performing a Misdeed is something that has to be done; it is ultimately the 'right thing to do' but that doesn't mean it is easy or that such actions do not have a price that is paid by the PCs through adverse affects that such deeds (ie, the accrual of shadow) have on them. The Shadow can weigh heavily on our heroes even though they have performed deeds that are best in the long run and that saved others from torture and violence. GMs need to explain this to the players so they understand the dynamics at play in the game, preferably before such things happen. I think such discussions would also help players play their characters better in such circumstances as well; for instance, my players make similar tough decisions but they take on such actions with reluctance and trepidation beforehand and often show regret and repentance afterwards. They still accrue Shdow Points, when appropriate, but they see them as a far more complex mechanic than a punishment or a measure of how many 'wrong actions' they've taken.

[Earendil]

characters are going to accrue Shadow Points and when they do it isn't the GM punishing the players for their Misdeeds. Often performing a Misdeed is something that has to be done; it is ultimately the 'right thing to do' but that doesn't mean it is easy or that such actions do not have a price that is paid by the PCs

Yes, this is exactly what I was clumsily trying to get across! I can see the argument that warning the players that they're about to gain Shadow points can break immersion (and indeed it's probably not necessary if the players should really already know it), but I would do it so that the player can decide if it's something they want their character to do despite the Shadow point gain, i.e. if it's worth the price to their "spiritual health", for want of a better term.

[Butterfingers]

Interesting. I'd say the exact opposite; if something has no free will then they are just as much a victim as anyone, more so perhaps. I think you need to be careful about the use of such a term. Do you perhaps mean they are irredeemable, instead?

I don't think one excludes the other? Quite the opposite, how can you be redeemed if you have no free will? That is, you cannot redeem yourself, if you cannot choose to do good/the right thing. Without free will, you're either good or bad, and that's it... And has anyone heard of an orc/goblin who redeemed himself?

That's how I see the evil in Middle-Earth in practical terms... I guess Melkor and Sauron weren't created evil, but they had the flaw or seed of evil in them. And they became all evil at the very least. You wouldn't think they're redeemable? That would certainly upset the setting of Middle-Earth...you have to have the bad guys you know?

I am not sure whence the goblin/orcs came from, whether they were created or corrupted from some existing race by the Enemy, but it's clear that since the First Age they've been the 'standard' evil race. Maybe they were victims once, but they've since embraced evil wholly, and like Sauron they're not redeemable or victims anymore.

[Earendil]

I guess there's no one correct answer to this question, so you can do what feels right for you. In my campaign orcs are fair game regardless of circumstances. There are no good, neutral or redeemable goblins/orcs in a world where absolute evil exists (the Enemy). They have been plaguing the free folk for ages, and are completely unredeemable, unlike Gollum, who is torn in two directions at one point. I guess for me it's a question of free will, if the enemy doesn't have it, like orcs (I think), then it can be no misdeed to kill them in any situation?

Well, the way I see it is, firstly, that even if you (as LM) decide that orcs are irredeemable, there's no way anyone in Middle-Earth can know that for sure. It seems the orcs are descended from corrupted elves and/or men; if so, they perhaps do still have a degree of free will and are at least theoretically redeemable. It's probably hopeless to try, but that doesn't mean it's perfectly moral to kill them like vermin.

The fact that dwarves generally hate orcs and will happily kill them in revenge doesn't mean there will be no shadow points for doing so; dwarves are generally not held up as moral paragons in Tolkien's books (no-one is, really). And as I pointed out in an earlier post, the Rohirrim hunt the Wild Men "like beasts", which is definitely not a good thing to do, even thought the Rohirrim are generally on the side of good.

Right and wrong are generally pretty clear in Middle-Earth. Sometimes good people do bad things, and may even see no other choice than to do bad things. But the principles remain. Faramir "would not ensnare even an orc with a falsehood". Gandalf praises Bilbo's decision not to kill Gollum even though he probably "deseves death" and, according to Frodo, "is as bad as any orc" (and Gandalf doesn't contradict Frodo on that point).

[Rich H]

You mean one excludes the other? I'd say the opposite, how can you be redeemed if you have no free will? That is, you cannot redeem yourself, if you cannot choose to do good/the right thing. Then you're either good or bad, and that's it... has anyone heard of an orc/gobling who redeemed himself?

One can be irredeemable by choice. Having no free will and being irredeemable are not the same thing all of the time, that's what I was saying. And if someone has been denied free will in their actions then they are the most tragic of prisoners and the true victims of any tale.

[Butterfingers]

You all sound like a bunch of namby-bamby liberals, I am sorry to say....

Just joking with above....but if you ask any of the free people in Middle-Earth that can orcs be redeemed, I am sure they'd give you very queer looks.