forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Oh boy, the more I read your responses, the more annoyed I get. Maybe I should stop?

But seriously, the one VERY important thing between Sanity and Shadow mechanism is that you lose sanity regardless of whether you do good or bad things, in fact you lose sanity simply by witnessing things that men are not meant to whatsit. Sanity is your grip of the reality and ability to withstand mind rending horrors at the same time. You can be just walking the street minding your own business when a fire vampire pops up, and you're going nuts all of a sudden, temporarily or otherwise. It's not a reward or punishment system (more on that in a bit) for playing good or bad, it's really a timer of how long you can go on as a PC. It's a constant struggle to remain sane enough to go on playing. AND it's a losing game when you come down to it, you're pretty much doomed no matter how good or bad you are, Sanity is not a moral meter in itself. Although doing bad stuff will only accelerate your slide towards insanity, and doing good stuff might actually gain you some. But that is just a momentarily respite. And that is by design.

Whereas WEG SW light side/dark side is more about your own choices, how you decide to play things in certain situations. You can do good or bad and suffer the consequences or be rewarded. You can get more powerful by using the dark side, but equally, playing good you get rewarded by force points. But it's about free will and how you choose to act. And how you position yourself in the epic stuggle between good and bad, or light and darkness.

This is similar (but not same of course) as gaining hope or shadow points. You can use the hope points to succeed better, and that is certainly a reward and hope is the 'antidote' against shadow. Whereas the mechanism of shadow, misdeeds, and suffering bouts of madness are direct penalty for doing wrong. Getting negative traits which the GM can use against the player, is a penalty system right? Not to mention there's the risk of these penalties getting worse, and ultimately forcing your companion to quit one way or another. If that is not a penalty, then what is it?

I just refuse to rule misdeeds if companions kill obviously 'one-dimensionally' evil beings, like spiders, orcs and dragons. These are inherently servants of evil, will never be otherwise, and killing them is always good. It's only if you kill them in some heinous ways which are really beneath you, or take them prisoner and torture them, and so on that I'd rule a misdeed. I don't think killing them 'unfairly' like in sleep is reason for misdeed.

But there are exceptions to enemies, like what about the wild men of Mirkwood? They're thralls to spiders, so should you rather try to liberate them instead of killing them, would it even be possible etc. Or if you're making deals with dragons, should that be a misdeed?

Rich, I think of the cost for misdeeds as more Karmic than anything else. Not so much as punishment to be handed out by the LM. I think that we are more-or-less in agreement here.

Otaku-sempai wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:08 pm

Rich, I think of the cost for misdeeds as more Karmic than anything else. Not so much as punishment to be handed out by the LM. I think that we are more-or-less in agreement here.

Yep, completely agree.

That's no good answer, as we know karma is a bitch?

Besides, who doles out karma in your game, it's you the GM! So don't try to avoid the issue. And since you use misdeeds, I am going to assume you use negative traits too? So you're penalising the players for doing bad thing by making their game a little bit more difficult. You can call it what you will. Ask your players, if you don't believe me.

I'm not hosting a regular game, so the whole issue is more academic for me.

I do find the attitudes that you describe to be contrary to the ideals of some of Tolkien's most heroic characters (such as Aragorn, Gandalf and Faramir). And I am encouraged that I'm on the right track when it turns out that my spouse is largely of the same opinion.

Butterfingers wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:06 pm

Oh boy, the more I read your responses, the more annoyed I get. Maybe I should stop?

Seems you're losing your cool, mate. We're only expressing opinions and views on TOR and Tolkien at the end of the day!

Butterfingers wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:18 pm

Besides, who doles out karma in your game, it's you the GM! So don't try to avoid the issue. And since you use misdeeds, I am going to assume you use negative traits too? So you're penalising the players for doing bad thing by making their game a little bit more difficult. You can call it what you will. Ask your players, if you don't believe me.

Okay... Lets not let this get out of hand and get too pointed and confrontational in our posts, thanks. /thumbsup /all-friends-here

Butterfingers wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:06 pm

Whereas the mechanism of shadow, misdeeds, and suffering bouts of madness are direct penalty for doing wrong. Getting negative traits which the GM can use against the player, is a penalty system right? Not to mention there's the risk of these penalties getting worse, and ultimately forcing your companion to quit one way or another. If that is not a penalty, then what is it?

So, just to clarify, never have I once said that there aren't penalties in the game and if I have I didn't mean to. Note, the GM being punitive ain't the same. My posts have clearly talked about that in regard to the GM trying to force certain behaviours, etc. That's different from mechanical penalties, Also, I don't accept that a penalty is at all a punishment to playing the game wrong, which I don't think you've said but wanted to just state flatly. Nor do I think they are solely because someone has done something "bad"; and to talk about this further...

Negative traits due to Bouts of Madness can and do exist in the game and they aren't positive things (at least from a mechanical perspective; I'd argue they are fantastic things for making the campaign interesting and richer). Also note that these traits can be accrued due to a player's character simply failing some Corruption Tests and never once committing any kind of Misdeed so the situation regarding these mechanics is far more complicated than you've described. I think the language you use in the above post is quite telling, if I'm being honest. You use phrases like "direct penalty for doing wrong", "GM can use against the player", "forcing your character to quit" which I think is quite telling. These kind of aspects accrued during play, for me and my players, are something that 'just happens' as part of adventuring in Middle-earth when the Shadow is on the rise across all lands, free or otherwise. It's pretty much like mechanics you may get in other games from characters' aging. They are penalties from a mechanical perspective but I don't agree with your viewpoint expressed through those phrases that they are punishments for doing wrong, etc as just stated. Also, for me and my players, they are something we embrace and use as a foil for roleplaying our characters better and telling stories together that are richer, more tragic, poignant and in keeping with Tolkien's work. They are part of the price paid for being a hero and stepping outside of hearth and home; sacrificing yourself so others can live safely or at least safer lives. They are an enabler for telling such stories. Based on my experience they therefore aren't a penalty "for doing wrong/bad things" but more something that is going to happen because that's part of how TOR has been designed. You fail corruption tests, commit misdeeds, witness works of the enemy and suffer a Bout of Madness by not Healing Corruption then your character is going to wear those scars and have to deal with them.

Butterfingers wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:06 pm

I just refuse to rule misdeeds if companions kill obviously 'one-dimensionally' evil beings, like spiders, orcs and dragons. These are inherently servants of evil, will never be otherwise, and killing them is always good. It's only if you kill them in some heinous ways which are really beneath you, or take them prisoner and torture them, and so on that I'd rule a misdeed. I don't think killing them 'unfairly' like in sleep is reason for misdeed.

And just because they are "one dimensional" doesn't mean the affects on the player characters are one dimensional. The stories we tell at the gaming table are about the characters not the creatures and evil they face. But this evil is multi-faceted - it exists as creatures hiding and hunting in the shadows but also works in subtler and more insidiuous ways; those grim deeds undertaken, although winning an immediate respite or victory may lead to the long defeat. That's exactly what Tolkien is about in this respect. If you don't think that slaying orcs in their sleep is some form of misdeed then that's fine. I, and others do, because we like to explore that very-Tolkien dynamic within our games and feel those games are richer for it. There is a cost to those actions but it isn't a punishment or penalty from playing the game wrong, its actually the opposite, if anything.

Butterfingers wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:06 pm

[T]he mechanism of shadow, misdeeds, and suffering bouts of madness are direct penalty for doing wrong. Getting negative traits which the GM can use against the player, is a penalty system right? Not to mention there's the risk of these penalties getting worse, and ultimately forcing your companion to quit one way or another. If that is not a penalty, then what is it?

I just refuse to rule misdeeds if companions kill obviously 'one-dimensionally' evil beings, like spiders, orcs and dragons. These are inherently servants of evil, will never be otherwise, and killing them is always good. It's only if you kill them in some heinous ways which are really beneath you, or take them prisoner and torture them, and so on that I'd rule a misdeed. I don't think killing them 'unfairly' like in sleep is reason for misdeed.

I think this gets at a fundamental difference in the way you're viewing this mechanic and the way others are. Maybe it even goes deeper, indicating a fundamental difference in the way we view the game itself.

"Getting negative traits which the GM can use against the player" is not, actually, a penalty system. It's a story-telling system. It's a game mechanic that injects more drama and, crucially, more interesting stuff into the game. Having Flaws which the LM can invoke in ways that make the player's job more difficult is a complication, a conflict, which is the basis of all drama.

You acknowledged that some actions would go too far -- torture, for example -- and would count as a Misdeed, and you are obviously free to deal with morality in your own game however you see fit. But if I were a player in your group, I don't think I would see clearly where the line is. If "monsters" are irredeemable and therefore fair game to be slaughtered under any circumstances, how do I also justify seeing them as worthy of compassion or mercy when my comrade is preparing to flay them alive?

If the players never have reason to question their actions, if they feel justified in doing whatever they will to the enemy because they pay no personal, moral price for their ruthlessness, then what is the point of the game? Is it merely a combat simulator? Are we just mashing piles of dice against each other to see which side can achieve numerical, probabilistic victory? Or are we attempting to play characters, people with souls who should have feelings about the things they do (beyond just a high-five and popping open a celebratory beer)?

And, again, this is not to say that they shouldn't do any of these things. Just that, if they do, it should affect them over time. Thousands of years of moral philosophy would argue against the idea that this is purely a construct of modern psychology, which we dare not impose upon a quasi-dark ages fictional setting.

@Rich H, I feel should add that I was only joking, I am not in danger of loosing my cool.

I feel it's pointless to argue about semantics here, whether it's punitive or not or whatever. Shadow points do give certain penalties to the players, and it's a slippery slope for companions, and I fully agree they make far more interesting game play and richer characters. The system is there, and we all use it. That's enough.

I can see how an old veteran of many wars might become to question whether all that slaughter has made any difference, or whether he's paid too great a price in doing so. But I don't think misdeeds cover any of that 'combat fatigue', unless it was for doing something very horrible (like flaying someone/something alive). You almost give me the impression that all killing is bad... (which is a very modern and enlightened sentiment, but has no place in Middle-Earth. How can you be a pacifist when you have the Enemy?) The fight between light and shadow is fought with weapons, not with words. You cant talk this Enemy into submission.

gsecaur wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:12 pm

You acknowledged that some actions would go too far -- torture, for example -- and would count as a Misdeed, and you are obviously free to deal with morality in your own game however you see fit. But if I were a player in your group, I don't think I would see clearly where the line is. If "monsters" are irredeemable and therefore fair game to be slaughtered under any circumstances, how do I also justify seeing them as worthy of compassion or mercy when my comrade is preparing to flay them alive?

It's not a question of mercy, it's a question of the comrade doing something that is beneath him/her or against general human nature. Flaying someone alive would be a terrible thing no matter who you do it to, you need to be total sh*te and a sick sadist to do something like that.

Speaking of monsters, I think one reason Tolkien did not write (as far as I know) about orc society, or their females or children, might be that he didn't want the reader to feel sympathy for them. I could be wrong?

Butterfingers wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 01, 2018 6:11 pm

Speaking of monsters, I think one reason Tolkien did not write (as far as I know) about orc society, or their females or children, might be that he didn't want the reader to feel sympathy for them. I could be wrong?

I certainly wouldn't disagree with you, Butterfingers, that Tolkien intended for Orcs to be perceived as purely wicked, and that they are always servants of the Enemy. I don't think we are ever meant to feel sympathy for them. But as others have said, how one treats even the foulest foe says more about oneself than it says about the enemy.

At the end of the line the game is all about having fun. As there are different options towards the usage of shadow points among the LM it’s probably true for the players as well. The great thing about the TOR system is that it‘s rules allow a wide range of usage meeting the expectations of all kind of players, the more tolkinesque and the more b/w ones.