Shadow for killing innocuous orcs

[Ramboromir]

You know the killing of evil orcs outside of self defence or battle are all ways that the Shadow takes hold of 'good people'. By characters deciding to kill sleeping orcs, as an example, they are using their will to dominate others, sitting in judgement over others and deciding who should live and who should die. They are acting as a god in deciding when someone else's life should end. These are absolutely all elements covered in Tolkien's work and that good people worry and deliberate over; for those very wise know how the Shadow can find root in actions that would appear to be for the greater good. These are all ways the Shadow takes hold... The killing of sleeping orcs means they will never trouble the free world again but what price have the people paid carrying out such actions? That's how Shadow works; even when fighting against it, characters are exposed to it. By killing these orcs they haven't necessarily done the wrong thing but such actions do have a (cosmic) price that is paid.

To me, this all seems to be absolutely how the game should play out. It provides us with the most interesting RPing opportunities and is completely in keeping with Tolkien's fiction - it is tragic and poignant that people protecting their own folk from the evils around them should risk themselves succumbing to that greater darkness through their own actions. What more could you ask of a game to explore such things and for them to play out in the greatest of fantasy worlds?

+1. Great post.

My group really struggles with this part of the Shadow rules and looking at it in this way will really help. I've really found this thread informative and helpful.

[gsecaur]

I think it's useful to consider the ways that Tolkien's experience in the Great War likely informed his perspective on this matter. He saw the tragic results of war up close, and he carried that experience through his life. Even if he regarded the Great War -- or World War II, in which his sons served -- as a just and wholly necessary event, he still recognized that it weighed heavily on the souls of those who fought in it.

I agree completely with those who've said that one can commit acts which are right and good, yet which weigh heavy on the soul and cast a darkness across the rest of one's days. That is what Shadow represents.

edit: And you might say that it makes the heroes all the more heroic, to shoulder the burden of that responsibility on behalf of those they protect. If the LM allows PCs to slaughter non-combatant creatures without moral consequence simply because they are Orcs (for example), then as others have said, they're not really role-playing in the spirit of Tolkien.

[Farath]

If orcs slaughter free people they also gain Shadow Points. Which might be considered coequal to Hate Points. Not bad, from their perspective! But then: if orcs were redeemable they could also gain „light points“ while sparing the life of a foe. And therefore become weak. That’s why they never do it!

[Butterfingers]

I think it's useful to consider the ways that Tolkien's experience in the Great War likely informed his perspective on this matter. He saw the tragic results of war up close, and he carried that experience through his life. Even if he regarded the Great War -- or World War II, in which his sons served -- as a just and wholly necessary event, he still recognized that it weighed heavily on the souls of those who fought in it.

I agree completely with those who've said that one can commit acts which are right and good, yet which weigh heavy on the soul and cast a darkness across the rest of one's days. That is what Shadow represents.

edit: And you might say that it makes the heroes all the more heroic, to shoulder the burden of that responsibility on behalf of those they protect. If the LM allows PCs to slaughter non-combatant creatures without moral consequence simply because they are Orcs (for example), then as others have said, they're not really role-playing in the spirit of Tolkien.

I dunno, it seems to me this interpretation would give shadow points a little too broad a scope, it sounds more like modern psychological approach, more like war syndrome or something. Sanity points from CoC? You don't really get the impression this is a problem for Gimli and Legolas, when they 'playfully' compete who will take most orc heads in battle?

By the way, giving the enemy some sort of psychological profile and motivations is to me pretty unnecessary, because in the heroic story their only purpose is to be the enemy. You don't negotiate or make peace with them, you kill them. It's an eternal war going on. In the history of Middle-Earth has there ever been a case where any of the free peoples just let them be, unless they had to? I can't think of any, but I haven't read Silmarillion for ages, and never read some of the more obscure works of Tolkien. So you tell me.

So in my story they're servants of the enemy, pure and simple. The enemy might have other servants who could perhaps be redeemed in right circumstances, and killing whom you might feel bad about, but orcs and goblins aren't it. They're servants of the shadow and will remain so for ever. They're the perfect enemy.

I guess it's matter where you draw the line, what is a 'fair' way to fight the Enemy. Do you deem it a misdeed to kill sleeping orcs, or isn't it just a perfect ambush? Or botched awareness roll by the orcs? Or is it actually murder? Can you murder an orc in a war for 5 points of shadow, it seems pretty steep to me? Or is murdering an orc worth less?

[Otaku-sempai]

I dunno, it seems to me this interpretation would give shadow points a little too broad a scope, it sounds more like modern psychological approach, more like war syndrome or something. Sanity points from CoC? You don't really get the impression this is a problem for Gimli and Legolas, when they 'playfully' compete who will take most orc heads in battle?

Actually, it has not been unusual to compare Shadow points to Sanity points. They really are very similar. Remember than Gimli and Legolas were fighting in the War of the Ring, not engaging on a casual trip of Orc-hunting. We don't normally give out Shadow points as a result of routine combat.

By the way, giving the enemy some sort of psychological profile and motivations is to me pretty unnecessary, because in the heroic story their only purpose is to be the enemy. You don't negotiate or make peace with them, you kill them. It's an eternal war going on. In the history of Middle-Earth has there ever been a case where any of the free peoples just let them be, unless they had to? I can't think of any, but I haven't read Silmarillion for ages, and never read some of the more obscure works of Tolkien. So you tell me.

Most of the time the Free Peoples are fighting defensively and not a war of offense. The exceptions are when there have been specific provocations (examples: the Fall of Angmar; the War of the Dwarves and Orcs).

So in my story they're servants of the enemy, pure and simple. The enemy might have other servants who could perhaps be redeemed in right circumstances, and killing whom you might feel bad about, but orcs and goblins aren't it. They're servants of the shadow and will remain so for ever. They're the perfect enemy.

However, that still does not excuse dishonorable behavior. Honor is about who you are, not who you are fighting. Acting dishonorably incurs consequences, though that only reflects part of the Shadow mechanic. As others have pointed out, the other part is simply the burden of facing the sorrows of the world. But if you have shown your quality, and that quality is lacking, you have actively earned any Shadow points you get.

I guess it's matter where you draw the line, what is a 'fair' way to fight the Enemy. Do you deem it a misdeed to kill sleeping orcs, or isn't it just a perfect ambush? Or botched awareness roll by the orcs? Or is it actually murder? Can you murder an orc in a war for 5 points of shadow, it seems pretty steep to me? Or is murdering an orc worth less?

If the Orcs are trespassing on your territory, obviously intent on mischief then they are fair game. If they are sleeping in their own lair and you murder them in cold blood because you are the invader then that should be worth more Shadow.

[Butterfingers]

I don't really see what difference it does whether your fighting a defensive or offensive war? It's still a war. And it doesn't end until the Enemy is defeated for good, because the Enemy will not give up...

And I don't really see whether it matters where the orcs are, on home turf or raiding, they're always 'intent on michief' because that is their very nature. Which is my point.

I dont' know what casual trips of orc hunting would be, it sounds odd, almost like sport? Is that grounds for shadow points, hm? I know the free people's have very strict and formal codes for battle, honor, courtesy etc. But they're intended for honorable opponents/guests and so on. So I would give companions more leeway when dealing with orcs. Then it would be down whether the deed itself is completely despicable. Slitting the troats of sleeping orcs would be the quick and sensible way. They can't leave them there, and what would be the point of taking them prisoners? Especially if you're raiding in shadow lands, and cannot afford to get caught up in some battle or let anyone raise the alarm? So I don't see that as a misdeed.

Like I said before, Sanity and Shadow have a lot of similar features, which is why I brought it up. But I think there are some important differences too. I would think a better comparison is the Dark/Light Side in old WEG Star Wars RPG.

[Otaku-sempai]

I don't really see what difference it does whether your fighting a defensive or offensive war? It's still a war. And it doesn't end until the Enemy is defeated for good, because the Enemy will not give up...

You brought it up; I just gave an answer. And those wars all did come to an end, regardless of whether or not the Enemy was completely destroyed. Often, beating back the Enemy is enough--for now.

And I don't really see whether it matters where the orcs are, on home turf or raiding, they're always 'intent on michief' because that is their very nature. Which is my point.

No, there is a difference--or there should be--between actively looking for trouble and being asleep within one's own colony. We could make a distinction between simply cleaning out a lair just because it's there and attempting a rescue of one or more captives.

I dont' know what casual trips of orc hunting would be, it sounds odd, almost like sport? Is that grounds for shadow points, hm? I know the free people's have very strict and formal codes for battle, honor, courtesy etc. But they're intended for honorable opponents/guests and so on. So I would give companions more leeway when dealing with orcs. Then it would be down whether the deed itself is completely despicable. Slitting the troats of sleeping orcs would be the quick and sensible way. They can't leave them there, and what would be the point of taking them prisoners? Especially if you're raiding in shadow lands, and cannot afford to get caught up in some battle or let anyone raise the alarm? So I don't see that as a misdeed.

Think of the example of Rohirrim actively hunting Woses and counting them as subhuman. Entering the mountains with the specific goal of hunting Orcs for sport would, to my mind, be similar. Not that I couldn't see a Slayer engage in such behavior (and, yes, it would probably earn Shadow).

I reiterate: Honorable behavior demonstrates who you are, regardless of the nature of your foes. It does not matter if your opponents are Elves, Dwarves, Men, Orcs or Trolls. If you act without honor, you should incur a cost in Shadow, period. That doesn't mean that circumstances should not factor into that cost. It certainly can. But, again, Shadow isn't about punishment; it is about taking on the weight of the world and accepting responsibility for your actions and decisions.

Like I said before, Sanity and Shadow have a lot of similar features, which is why I brought it up. But I think there are some important differences too. I would think a better comparison is the Dark/Light Side in old WEG Star Wars RPG.

Of course there are differences. The same is true if we compare Shadow with the Dark Side points in West End's Star Wars rpg. Both are just interesting comparisons.

[Rich H]

I would think a better comparison is the Dark/Light Side in old WEG Star Wars RPG.

The sanity mechanics are closer to the Shadow mechanics in this game; comparing Shadow to the Dark Side in Star Wars really is far less accurate.

I know the free people's have very strict and formal codes for battle, honor, courtesy etc. But they're intended for honorable opponents/guests and so on. So I would give companions more leeway when dealing with orcs.

Not really, the free peoples' and heroes in this game define themselves in such a way and hold themselves to this code, whoever they may be fighting. That is what it means to be the heroes of such a story; to be better than your enemies and to hold yourself to higher values. Killing enemies in their sleep, and deciding they are not worthy of life in the most egregious of ways, is arrogant and is enforcing one's own will over another in the most extreme way possible. Sauron would be proud of your actions.

Slitting the troats of sleeping orcs would be the quick and sensible way. They can't leave them there, and what would be the point of taking them prisoners? Especially if you're raiding in shadow lands, and cannot afford to get caught up in some battle or let anyone raise the alarm? So I don't see that as a misdeed.

In TOR that is a misdeed. That's the whole point people have been making about emulating the fiction; even though you know these orcs could go on to commit evil slaying them in their sleep would incur Shadow. It is (potentially) the most sensible thing to do but that doesn't mean it shouldn't come without a cost. There is a cosmic price to pay for such deeds and that kind of theme is exactly in keeping with Tolkien and his works. To leave out these kind of things is to leave something very specific and important out of the game. Sure, personally, you can do that but not many are going to agree with you when trying to emulate the Shadow and how it weighs on the deeds of good people. It's exactly the kind of elements that make RPing in Middle-earth far more satisfying and rich over playing in some bog standard fantasy setting. Such awarding of Shadow is not punitive, it is the impact on the hero(es) having to take such actions and how it affects their 'soul' that applying such points relates to; "I take this action, not in haste, but because I fear for what my inaction could lead to even though I know how it will weigh upon me when I try and find peace and rest".

[Otaku-sempai]

Well, I would argue that there is a punitive element in Shadow gained from misdeeds; they are misdeeds after all. However, I certainly agree that there is much more to Shadow than that alone.

[Rich H]

Well, I would argue that there is a punitive element in Shadow gained from misdeeds; they are misdeeds after all. However, I certainly agree that there is much more to Shadow than that alone.

I lament the usage of the word in the game because I really think it oversimplifies things and gives the impression that the players (and characters) are being punished for such things and is therefore an action that they shouldn't be taking, under any circumstances. Sure, killing sleeping orcs in the game is a misdeed as it accrues Shadow but not in the sense that the players should be deciding that their characters shouldn't do it purely because their LM is saying "you'll get Shadow for doing that"; sometimes their characters may have to undertake such deeds. Critically, it's how the mechanic is used in play - too often I've seen people/GMs use these kind of things to punish or enforce/restrict certain behaviour and also players interpreting it as such as well. I don't like that when I see it. So, ideally, its a cost that is paid within the cosmology of Middle-earth but it isn't a punitive measure deployed at the gaming table, if that makes sense.

When players decide on a course of action at my table I try and avoid any controlling or directive language such as "you do that and your character will get 4 SPs". Instead I suggest it as part of the narrative of the session, "taking such a road, even though it makes sense to do so, will surely lead to such actions weighing upon you greatly". I'll then tell the players the cost of such an action but will always make sure they know this doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do in the greater scheme of things. The quote I put in my last post ("I take this action, not in haste, but because...") is actually from one of the players, almost verbatim.

As an aside, I've actually wondered about keeping a character's Shadow Points hidden from the player and describing the affect they have (in relation to their Hope score as well) rather than it just being a number on their character sheet. It makes me wonder how that could work as a dynamic within play... I've never taken it further as it is too much bookkeeping for me, the LM, but I do like hidden traits/scores within games as it often enhances the experience as players move away from simply grokking the numbers on a sheet to actually thinking about their PCs more.