Enemy-Lore: Evil Men?

[Michebugio]

In the Clarifications and Amendments document, the revised Shadow Bane Virtue seem to introduce a new enemy type (I wonder if this was intentional). I quote directly from the document:

"Adventurer’s Book, p130, Shadow Bane
When you are fighting in a Forward stance (see page 168)
against servants of the Shadow (including Spiders, Orcs,
Trolls and Evil Men), add one Success die to all your attack
rolls (up to a maximum of 6)"

I guess that the "Evil Men" category may easily cover the Wild Men of Mirkwood (the servants of the Spiders), as well as the Men from the Gundabad Hills. But also any men who, directly or not, serve the will of the Sauron (thus, a lot of NPCs from Tales of the Wilderland and the Darkening of Mirkwood campaign arc).

So I was thinking: could this type of enemy be chosen as the target of the Enemy-Lore of the Slayer calling? Has it officially been incorporated in the revised book? Or would you, LMs, allow it in your campaigns?

[Hermes Serpent]

I don't think that adding a sub-category to the Lore trait of Lore (Evil Men) would be that helpful.

The Enemy Lore skill says "This Trait gives
you knowledge of the characteristics, habits, strengths
and weaknesses of your chosen enemy; warriors and
hunters often owe their survival to such knowledge.
Slayers invariably dedicate themselves to the destruction
of an enemy."

The choices offered are Dragons, Giants, Orcs, Spiders, Trolls, or Wolves which fit with the Warriors and Hunters knowledge theme of combating enemies/allies of the Shadow in Wilderland.

I'm not sure what specific information might apply to Evil Men rather than all men. I could see a specific sub-category of Easterlings for example as they are sufficiently different in customs and combat techniques from the Northmen of Wilderland.

[Michebugio]

Thanks for the answer, but something is still missing.

First of all, why should we have a reference to Evil Men in the Shadow Bane description, then? How could elves train against Evil Men if such category of enemies is not recognized?

Second, I agree that there may not be specific traits for different "cultures" of Evil Men, but the same can be said for Orcs (there are very different "species" under the same definition, from the small snagas to the big uruks, not to mention the Great Orcs and the Hobgoblins, which could almost be a totally different enemy type) and Trolls (from the dumb cave trolls to the highly dangerous and cunning Olog-hai).

Third, there may be different cultures of Evil Men (from the Easterlings to the Dunlendings, for example), but Men are Men, physiologically speaking. Even (not too much) distant cultures tend to eat the same stuff, use the same (broad) kinds of weapons, train the same animals to ride and labour, and so on.

Maybe we could allow multiple but broad Evil Men categories, like Evil Men of Rhovanion, Easterlings, Southrons and Umbar Corsairs.

I would explore this option since I like the idea of a Slayer who walks the thin line between being a hunter of monsters and a hunter of men... it could have significant and interesting implications in his background, but also in his corruption vulnerability.

[Rocmistro]

Thanks for the answer, but something is still missing.

First of all, why should we have a reference to Evil Men in the Shadow Bane description, then? How could elves train against Evil Men if such category of enemies is not recognized?

Second, I agree that there may not be specific traits for different "cultures" of Evil Men, but the same can be said for Orcs (there are very different "species" under the same definition, from the small snagas to the big uruks, not to mention the Great Orcs and the Hobgoblins, which could almost be a totally different enemy type) and Trolls (from the dumb cave trolls to the highly dangerous and cunning Olog-hai).

Third, there may be different cultures of Evil Men (from the Easterlings to the Dunlendings, for example), but Men are Men, physiologically speaking. Even (not too much) distant cultures tend to eat the same stuff, use the same (broad) kinds of weapons, train the same animals to ride and labour, and so on.

Maybe we could allow multiple but broad Evil Men categories, like Evil Men of Rhovanion, Easterlings, Southrons and Umbar Corsairs.

I would explore this option since I like the idea of a Slayer who walks the thin line between being a hunter of monsters and a hunter of men... it could have significant and interesting implications in his background, but also in his corruption vulnerability.

1. Perhaps the Shadow Bane blessing is not so much the product of training as it is of divine (Vala) blessing. Thus, the Elven power kicks in as a spiritual/divine boon while fighting agents of evil.

2. Different breeds of Orcs, perhaps, but not so much difference in terms of culture, thinking patterns or styles of warfare. I imagine all Orcs are aggressive, reckless, and bold to the point of stupidity.

3. Agreed, but I'm not sure this argument really supports your claim, especially if you consider that the Shadow Bane reward is a divine blessing rather than a training blessing.

4. It's your party, as Miley says, so you can do what you want. But I personally don't see that the value of this outweighs the added complication.

[Glorelendil]

1. Perhaps the Shadow Bane blessing is not so much the product of training as it is of divine (Vala) blessing. Thus, the Elven power kicks in as a spiritual/divine boon while fighting agents of evil.

Something of this nature, imo. Or just fervor. It's not like D&D Ranger's "favored enemy".

[Murcushio]

Hmm.

Maybe you're thinking too narrow?

Why specifically "Evil Men?" Why not "Enemy-lore (Men)"

The other enemy-lore traits are all racial and very, very broad. There are lots of types of Orcs, as has been said above, and some of them behave very differently; some goblins are cowardly lurkers who only attack from ambush with ranged weapons and are crazy stealthy and about the size of Hobbits, whereas Black Uruks from Mordor are giant unsubtle killing machines. And both are different from Saruman's Uruk-hai. But Enemy-lore blankets them all.

Similarly, for the NPCs, "Hatred" seems to roughly work the same way. It's not "Hatred (Elves of the Woodland Realm)" or "Hatred (Dwarves of Erebor)." It's "Hatred (Elves)" or "Hatred (Dwarves)."

So I would say it's entirely reasonable for a Slayer, or anyone else, to have "Enemy-lore (Men)." Maybe your Woodmen has spent years fighting the Men of Tyrant's Hill and the Wild Men of Mirkwood as he struggles to keep trade across the Narrows to Sunstead going. There are plenty of Men to fight, not all of them under the Shadow. Girion can be a deadly foe and dude is fully convinced he's a good guy.

So why limit yourself? You just... are really, really good at killing men. I would say it's more appropriate a pick if you're not a man yourself (I can totally see an Elf with Enemy-lore (Men)) but even if you are, go to town.

[Glorelendil]

I also don't see "Hatred", "Enemy-lore", "Shadow-bane", etc. as needing to be parallel. They are not different flavors of the same thing, so the logic and structure of one does not need to apply to the others.

[Rocmistro]

Hmm.

Maybe you're thinking too narrow?

Why specifically "Evil Men?" Why not "Enemy-lore (Men)"

The other enemy-lore traits are all racial and very, very broad. There are lots of types of Orcs, as has been said above, and some of them behave very differently; some goblins are cowardly lurkers who only attack from ambush with ranged weapons and are crazy stealthy and about the size of Hobbits, whereas Black Uruks from Mordor are giant unsubtle killing machines. And both are different from Saruman's Uruk-hai. But Enemy-lore blankets them all.

Similarly, for the NPCs, "Hatred" seems to roughly work the same way. It's not "Hatred (Elves of the Woodland Realm)" or "Hatred (Dwarves of Erebor)." It's "Hatred (Elves)" or "Hatred (Dwarves)."

So I would say it's entirely reasonable for a Slayer, or anyone else, to have "Enemy-lore (Men)." Maybe your Woodmen has spent years fighting the Men of Tyrant's Hill and the Wild Men of Mirkwood as he struggles to keep trade across the Narrows to Sunstead going. There are plenty of Men to fight, not all of them under the Shadow. Girion can be a deadly foe and dude is fully convinced he's a good guy.

So why limit yourself? You just... are really, really good at killing men. I would say it's more appropriate a pick if you're not a man yourself (I can totally see an Elf with Enemy-lore (Men)) but even if you are, go to town.

If you want Enemy-lore: Men in your campaign, knock yourself out. Personally I think it's completely un-Tolkien, and in the words of Obi-wan Kenobi "then you are lost!" I can't imagine a hero with a calling of Slayer who has spent his life learning to hunt and kill men as being the archetype of hero that either Tolkien or the Game Designers had in mind.

[Hermes Serpent]

"We were all orcs in the trenches" seems an apt quotation in this case.

[Murcushio]

If you want Enemy-lore: Men in your campaign, knock yourself out. Personally I think it's completely un-Tolkien, and in the words of Obi-wan Kenobi "then you are lost!" I can't imagine a hero with a calling of Slayer who has spent his life learning to hunt and kill men as being the archetype of hero that either Tolkien or the Game Designers had in mind.

Tolkien wrote an entire history of Gondor that basically boils down to "Gondor spends fifteen hundred years kicking the shit out of lesser nations of Men and making them their subjects, then having a vicious Civil War in which Dunedain spilled the blood of Dunedain, then spent fifteen hundred years getting the shit kicked out of them by lesser nations of Men." You don't think maybe some of those knights and warriors and Kings got really, really good at killing other men? Tolkien portrays the building of Gondor's empire as a glorious, renowned undertaking, and it would have involved stacking the corpses high.

For the vast majority of Gondor's history (Arnor's as well, for that matter) the Dunedain would not have been training to fight orcs and wargs and other monsters. They would have been training to kill other men, and they were quite adept at it.

You're right that it maybe wouldn't be someone who had the calling of Slayer, but even that I can see as being justified. I go back to my previous example; if you run the Darkening of Mirkwood campaign and a Woodman PC spends ten, twenty years stalking and killing the men of Tyrant's Hill under the leaves of the forest... well, he's gonna get pretty damn good at it. What's wrong, or un-Tolkien, about that guy having Enemy-lore (Men) and yet still being a hero?