forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Yes, I agree it happens but that's not the material or caliber of men that are supposed to be feeding into the heroes of Tolkien's world.

It's like Hermes reference to Tolkien's quote above, about all soldiers being "orcs" in the trenches of World War I. I think the point of his story though, is that there are a few people (heroes) in his world with the spiritual purity and higher moral ground/values to not give in to the baser instincts of rage, fear, hatred, answering violence for violence, projecting violence from fear of being a victim, etc. I believe that's the intent of Tolkien's heroes; and the ones who fail at maintaining their hope and spiritual ethos, die for it: Boromir, Thorin, Denethor, Saruman. Those are the "heroes" that chose to compromise with Evil, or use it's tools.

Rocmistro wrote:Yes, I agree it happens but that's not the material or caliber of men that are supposed to be feeding into the heroes of Tolkien's world.

It's like Hermes reference to Tolkien's quote above, about all soldiers being "orcs" in the trenches of World War I. I think the point of his story though, is that there are a few people (heroes) in his world with the spiritual purity and higher moral ground/values to not give in to the baser instincts of rage, fear, hatred, answering violence for violence, projecting violence from fear of being a victim, etc. I believe that's the intent of Tolkien's heroes; and the ones who fail at maintaining their hope and spiritual ethos, die for it: Boromir, Thorin, Denethor, Saruman. Those are the "heroes" that chose to compromise with Evil, or use it's tools.

Bullseye. (Otherwise I'd just play D&D.)

Rocmistro wrote:Yes, I agree it happens but that's not the material or caliber of men that are supposed to be feeding into the heroes of Tolkien's world.

You don't think Tolkien intended us to view guys like Romendacil and Hyarmendacil, whose resumes are basically "killed a lot of men, built an empire on their corpses" as heroes? Because they're certainly portrayed that way.

Eldacar spent ten years planning how to kill the hell out of his cousin and all those who followed him, and he was unambiguously heroic.

Murcushio wrote:

Rocmistro wrote:Yes, I agree it happens but that's not the material or caliber of men that are supposed to be feeding into the heroes of Tolkien's world.

You don't think Tolkien intended us to view guys like Romendacil and Hyarmendacil, whose resumes are basically "killed a lot of men, built an empire on their corpses" as heroes? Because they're certainly portrayed that way.

Eldacar spent ten years planning how to kill the hell out of his cousin and all those who followed him, and he was unambiguously heroic.

You keep using this word, "hero". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Just kidding; couldn't resist the reference. But there are multiple meanings of "hero", and I guess it comes down to which definition you want to base your games on. I'm with Roc on this one. It seems to me that the whole design of TOR, with Hope and Shadow points, is meant to support an interpretation that is more along the lines of what appears in Hobbit and LotR than in some of Tolkien's other writings.

This topic has come up before in various forms (c.f. Angelalex's plan to destroy Sauron's supply chain and starve tens of thousands of orcs to death...); it all comes down to personal preference.

Elfcrusher wrote:
Just kidding; couldn't resist the reference. But there are multiple meanings of "hero", and I guess it comes down to which definition you want to base your games on. I'm with Roc on this one. It seems to me that the whole design of TOR, with Hope and Shadow points, is meant to support an interpretation that is more along the lines of what appears in Hobbit and LotR than in some of Tolkien's other writings.

This topic has come up before in various forms (c.f. Angelalex's plan to destroy Sauron's supply chain and starve tens of thousands of orcs to death...); it all comes down to personal preference.

True. And Michebungio, in the OP, was asking for peoples take on whether or not you could justify having a Trait like that within TOR. Now, obviously the answer to that is "If your Loremaster thinks it is cool!" but he did seem to be soliciting peoples opinions, and I do think mine holds up.

I mean... if we're gonna restrict ourselves to the materiel presented in the actual rules and the primary (but not extended) sources they draw from... it's totally permissible, in TOR, under the rules, to dedicate yourself to murdering orcs. To learning everything there is to know about orcs and how to kill them.

Given that orcs are thinking, reasoning creatures, if it's suitably heroic to develop special expertise in killing them because they're evil and have to be stopped, and you can be a hero within the context of TOR's definitions by doing that, it's equally plausible to remain heroic by developing expertise in killing men, who are just as capable of evil as the orcs are and do sometimes need them some killin'. I don't really see that undercutting the tone at all. It could undercut the tone, but it doesn't have to. I don't see a moral or thematic difference between a Beorning who spends twenty years slaying ever goblin from Mount Gundabad he can find because feck those guys, they keep murdering his people and trying to steal his land, and between a Woodman who does the same thing, just pointed at Mogdred's merry band of lunatics. One has Enemy-lore (Orcs) and the other has Enemy-lore (Men).

What matters is what they're doing with it.

Maybe the difference comes down to whether the enemies in question are creations of the Enemy and are inherently evil and irredeemable (which has no analogy in the real world, unless you want to count the mice that infest my barn) versus those with free will whose "Hope has fallen below their Shadow" as it were.

Gollum is sort of the example case here.

So for your Shadow Bane to be effective against those who have "fallen" isn't a conscious choice of yours; deciding to specialize in hunting them is.

Murcushio wrote:

Elfcrusher wrote:
Just kidding; couldn't resist the reference. But there are multiple meanings of "hero", and I guess it comes down to which definition you want to base your games on. I'm with Roc on this one. It seems to me that the whole design of TOR, with Hope and Shadow points, is meant to support an interpretation that is more along the lines of what appears in Hobbit and LotR than in some of Tolkien's other writings.

This topic has come up before in various forms (c.f. Angelalex's plan to destroy Sauron's supply chain and starve tens of thousands of orcs to death...); it all comes down to personal preference.

True. And Michebungio, in the OP, was asking for peoples take on whether or not you could justify having a Trait like that within TOR. Now, obviously the answer to that is "If your Loremaster thinks it is cool!" but he did seem to be soliciting peoples opinions, and I do think mine holds up.

I mean... if we're gonna restrict ourselves to the materiel presented in the actual rules and the primary (but not extended) sources they draw from... it's totally permissible, in TOR, under the rules, to dedicate yourself to murdering orcs. To learning everything there is to know about orcs and how to kill them.

Given that orcs are thinking, reasoning creatures, if it's suitably heroic to develop special expertise in killing them because they're evil and have to be stopped, and you can be a hero within the context of TOR's definitions by doing that, it's equally plausible to remain heroic by developing expertise in killing men, who are just as capable of evil as the orcs are and do sometimes need them some killin'. I don't really see that undercutting the tone at all. It could undercut the tone, but it doesn't have to. I don't see a moral or thematic difference between a Beorning who spends twenty years slaying ever goblin from Mount Gundabad he can find because feck those guys, they keep murdering his people and trying to steal his land, and between a Woodman who does the same thing, just pointed at Mogdred's merry band of lunatics. One has Enemy-lore (Orcs) and the other has Enemy-lore (Men).

What matters is what they're doing with it.

I've reflected on this, Murcushio, and for this very reason I think even having a "Slayer" calling is pushing the line. But in support of that calling, in all of Tolkien's material, I don't think anyone ever questions or reflects on the necessity for violence to be used against Orcs. It seems they are inherently wicked. Men, however, are given a spiritual worth higher than that, and we see it reflected in Faramir's famous pity of the Easterling or Southron that was killed and the "would he rather not have stayed home..."

The differences here are subtle, no doubt, but still profound. It implies that the expected threat of orcs can justify being devoted to a career of hunting and killing them (regardless of whether or not you actually do it), whereas men are implied to be gifted with a state of grace and hope for salvation that does not (justify training in their culling). I'd like to add that the men who inhabit Wilderland are generally of a civilized nature beyond that of Southrons and Easterlings, and thus the demand to expect violence from them should be less of a burden, and thus less deserving of a calling which advocated hunting and killing them.

Rocmistro wrote: The differences here are subtle, no doubt, but still profound.

And therein lies the fun (and challenge). There's a saying, "The existence of twilight does not disprove a difference between day and night." The grey area in all this is what creates opportunities for hard choices and tricky role-playing. It's what led to Boromir's fall, and why Merry and Pippin struggled to understand Gandalf's "pity" for Gollum.

It's the difference (ok, one of many) between Tolkien and...say...R.A. Salvatore.

If we try to make the distinctions black & white it simplifies decisions, but I believe also would make it a lesser game and lesser story.

By the way, reflecting more on the men of Tyrant's Hill (for example) my interpretation is that one reason the Tyrant's Hill group is as successful as they are is that other Men resist giving up on them completely, and hold out a hope that genuine peace can be made. If they were quicker to write their enemies off as lost to the shadow they would save themselves a lot of misery. And, of course, the bad guys understand this and exploit it.

Anybody ever read Bernard Cornwell's Arthurian trilogy? I love the way he portrays Arthur as repeatedly (and foolishly) believing that his enemies have reformed and can be trusted. And his wife. (Oops, spoiler.)

Rocmistro wrote: I've reflected on this, Murcushio, and for this very reason I think even having a "Slayer" calling is pushing the line. But in support of that calling, in all of Tolkien's material, I don't think anyone ever questions or reflects on the necessity for violence to be used against Orcs. It seems they are inherently wicked. Men, however, are given a spiritual worth higher than that, and we see it reflected in Faramir's famous pity of the Easterling or Southron that was killed and the "would he rather not have stayed home..."

Well, this is, of course, one of the classic and ongoing debates in LotR fandom an analysis in general. People have written lengthy theses on the subject!

It does seem pretty clear that Tolkien intended for the orcs and various other creations of the Enemy, such as trolls and dragons, to be soulless, irredeemable monsters with absolutely no potential for good in them. The man himself never came out definitively one way or the other (Tolkien liked to hedge his bets when talking about his expanded universe; remember, he died with The Silmarillion unfinished), but in his Letters he states pretty baldly that he is nearly very sure that orcs lack souls and the potential for good, but also that they are thinking, reasoning creatures with intelligence.

That, of course, opens up its own set of moral problems and questions. Not so much within Middle-Earth itself, but that it presents without apology or analysis the idea that an entire race can be worthy of nothing more than death and slaughter.

I generally am of the feeling that "hunting and killing orcs has the same moral weight as hunting and killing any other thinking thing that is doing the same thing orcs are doing" is less morally problematic a stance to take than "you can do anything you want to an orc because they're not people, not really; they're things." Neither of them is excellent without problems as a way of approaching Middle-Earth, but it's sort of a lesser-evil thing.

I'd like to add that the men who inhabit Wilderland are generally of a civilized nature beyond that of Southrons and Easterlings, and thus the demand to expect violence from them should be less of a burden, and thus less deserving of a calling which advocated hunting and killing them.

Wait, what?

You don't know that. Hell, some of the men who inhabit Wilderland are, racially, Easterlings; the Erringmen are descended of the Balchoth. Halberech the Wineseller and his daughter are Easterlings; they're from Dorwinion. so is Queen Una. Bain is half-Easterling.

There's no reason to think the Easterlings and Haradrim are any less civilized than the other races of Men.