forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

This is from a post done by Michael Cole to the Yahoo fan groups forum, I thought this was really good as a way of explaining the consequences of player character's actions:

The nature of evil.

These will probably be the most controversial comments I make here, but evil in the world of Tolkien is most definitely not one-dimensional. Tolkien was writing from a Catholic perspective, and his writings make clear that no one is intrinsically evil. Even Melkor and Sauron have reasons, misguided and wrong though they may be, for doing what they did.

“To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and … desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own…”
The Silmarillion: "Ainulindalë" p. 16

Melkor’s sin was pride and impatience. He wanted to create, to be someone. He was the greatest but he wanted more. And then when Eru publicly rebuked him, “…Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger.” These are human frailties on display here – I have seen the exact same situations occur at work meetings – a combination of incompetent management and socially inept staff. The clear comment by Tolkien later in the same chapter is that Melkor “…feigned, even to himself at first, that he desired to … order all things for the good of the Children of Ilúvatar…” There is no intrinsic evil here – from Letters #200, “…, Melkor, who ultimately became the inevitable Rebel and self-worshiper…” [my emphasis]

Likewise with Sauron, and this is spelt out in Morgoth’s Ring, the cause of his slide towards evil was that, “it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall ...) that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction.” Sauron was drawn to Melkor though his desire to have order – even though he was originally a follower of Aulë, he wanted to guide (or control) the creation, and felt that Melkor was a better option. I would also mention here that Ossë also was for a time, a servant of Melkor, but with the intersession of Uinen, repented and was granted forgiveness by the Valar.

On a smaller scale, all intelligent life-forms should also have this personality to them. Tolkien did this particularly well with the orcs in the flight across the wold, and in the Tower of Cirith Ungol. Yes, we realise that they are a different species, but we can also emphasise with their emotions, and thus make sense of their actions. We can even emphasise, and possibly even feel sympathy with Ungoliant after Melkor had her driven away by the Balrogs with their whips, after refusing to give her the Silmarils to slake her thirst.

You need to ensure that even in the actions of the players’ enemies; they can be understood in some way. There needs to be a reason why people do bad stuff – there should be no irredeemably evil orc babies just waiting to be slaughtered by the closest paladin.

Likewise, the players should not be given carte blanche to do whatever they like, simply because they are supposed to be the good guys. Bad things are still bad things, regardless of who does them. Tolkien’s books are full of examples of people doing wrong things for what they may think are the right reasons – Boromir is probably the most famous example. If the PCs take too many liberties with the freedom that they have, then make sure that they are held responsible.

Robin S.

That's a very interesting article Robin.

I have always conceived of Morgoth primarily as a nihilist; driven with a desire to destroy everything living out of spiteful rage because he himself could not create. And Sauron as the supreme megalomaniac. Although his motivations have always been less clear to me, the desire for avoiding confusion and wasteful friction is a good one.

But for PC actions, I give a lot of wriggle room on this, mostly as it pertains to Orcs and such. I really don't want my games to devolve into hours of philosophical conversations about the nature of evil and whether or not Orcs have free will, redeemable souls, etc.. I've never seen a cute little Goblin baby show up to provoke discussions on killing in my RPG's, and I don't plan on starting it anytime soon. Most of the minion style bad guys are really to be used as belligerent narrative mechanisms only, against which to pit protagonists so as to demonstrate their courage, cooperation and wherewithal. I don't think they were ever really intended to stimulate sophist examination on morality, either by Tolkien or most other authors. I would caution anyone to use them as such and award Shadow Points for killing them. I think it will take your game in a direction that will ultimately feel un-Tolkieny. (By the way, I'm not alleging you actually suggested this, I'm just couching the conversation in a specific example that I can think of to give it some structure and a starting point).

Rocmistro wrote:I've never seen a cute little Goblin baby show up to provoke discussions on killing in my RPG's, and I don't plan on starting it anytime soon.

Independently from any questions of moral choices, it is not that unlikely to show up, depending on situation. If the characters are in an orc camp/cave complex looking for something (either stolen items or for rescuing someone - or trying to escape themselves), there is IMO a fair chance that they encounter the "home life" of the orcs as well. They are corrupted versions of Eru's children for sure, but they function on the same premises (e.g. two genders and natural procreation). Thus, "at home" these "civilian" orcs (compared to the heavily armed gangs normally encountered in games and novels) must exist as well.

I don't think they [orcs et al.] were ever really intended to stimulate sophist examination on morality, either by Tolkien or most other authors.[/i]

Nonetheless, Tolkien took care to integrate them into the overall design of Arda and how they should be dealt with in theory and how this was done in reality. How the Free People deal with these creatures thus is for Tolkien indeed a way to judge their own morality and ethics.
Granted, this is not in the LotR narrative text (and thus outside the license), but one can make his personal mind on it nonetheless.

Cheers
Tolwen

Well, I haven't had this happen with TOR (or even MERP), but in one of our old AD&D campaigns we cleaned out a goblin 'nest' that had become a danger to a nearby human community. Once victory was assured, we did allow any non-attacking females and young to depart. We were the heroes and were determined to act like heroes. My guiding principle on such matters is,
'WWBD?' (what would Bilbo do?).

Nice article. Thanks for sharing

Certainly shadow points for PC are there for a reason! We use them more for action than for walking through terrain. We do not like the blighted terrain rules much (they are too stingy for our tastes) but failing to act goodly, allowing evil to win influence through inaction, or not following a virtuous action (like ransacking everything you can from a tomb instead of just what you were supposed to take) bas LOTS of shadowy consequences. We LIKE being penalized for that because it feels like ME to us

Otaku-sempai wrote:Well, I haven't had this happen with TOR (or even MERP), but in one of our old AD&D campaigns we cleaned out a goblin 'nest' that had become a danger to a nearby human community. Once victory was assured, we did allow any non-attacking females and young to depart. We were the heroes and were determined to act like heroes. My guiding principle on such matters is,
'WWBD?' (what would Bilbo do?).

Did better than my players then. They slaughtered a whole nest of Kobolds, females and younglings included.

Valarian wrote:Did better than my players then. They slaughtered a whole nest of Kobolds, females and younglings included.

I do understand the 'Pokemon' mindset: XP - gotta get it all!

I had few other thoughts and questions regarding the nature of evil, thought I would use the thread.

As I saw it, the primal moral sin in Tolkien's work is the sin of pride. People (be they Valar, Maiar, Elves or Mortals), consider themself to be best, to know best, and go to extreme heights to prove it. Melkor's pride is hurt at the Song, Sauron thinks only he can put order to Arda, Feanor don't think anyone but him and his bloodline is worthy of his skill, Boromir know that only his people can stand against the shadow, and so on.
(I think he is much influenced by Chesterton on that point - http://gkcdaily.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/ ... reach.html)

I would like a stronger mechanical representation for that. Shadow points gain based on over self-reliance, self-importance and taking too much pride in your deeds and those of your ancestors (remember that the first deed of the Just King Aragorn was humbling himself before the humblest of people), something based on mechanical choices, amongs others.

And a different question - What was the sin of Radagast according to the One Ring version of the Middle Earth? Why wan't he a full participant in the War of the Ring. We know that Gandalf is a paragon of virtue because he feared the shadow and it's manipulation, and Saruman has fallen because he hasn't, until he understood it's full power (Stood proudly, and broke). What is with Radagast then? What third option does he represent? The canon said that he is not interested in the affairs of men, but the version of him decipited in the Darkening of Mirkwood is highly involved and beneficant.

One idea I had, was that he may be too Micro-Thinking based, but extended logically it may give us a rather radical interpratation of him. Someone who think that life, local and familiar life, must go on at any cost, and willing to make a compromise with the Shadow to allow forests and communities to survive, instead than fighting a Great Final Battle of Death and Songs. Someone who fears the power of Shadow, yet underestimate the threat it brings.
It is an interesting interpretation but I don't sure I want it. Any others?

Why/how did Radagast fall? Perhaps Saruman, realizing that he was not going to be able to turn the Brown Wizard into a willing ally, found ways to distract Radagast from his duty. He may have deliberately encouraged Radagast to take special interest in the protection of the beasts and birds of Middle-earth, eventually getting him to neglect the Woodmen and other Men who fell under his sphere of responibilities.

Radagast doesn't fall, but he does FAIL: he abandons his mission of helping the Free Peoples against the Shadow. But he's still an ally of the West: he aids Gandalf when asked.

One thing we don't know is what happened to him once the War of the Ring started. Messengers from Elrond went to Rhosgobel and found him gone. We don't know if that means he had abandoned Rhosgobel, if he was on a journey somewhere, or if he had been killed.

The game also depicts Rhosgobel as a town of woodmen, but many sources assume that it was just the name of Radagast's house. It means "russet village or 'town' (enclosure)," but this could just refer to a small compound, not unlike Beorn's homestead.

In The One Ring's version, Radagast hasn't failed in his mission. Unless he changes in the years leading up to the War of the Ring, there's no reason to say that he fails in his mission. He doesn't play as great a role as Gandalf, but he seems to be doing his part.