Fate and Free Will

[zedturtle]

Thanks so much! Feedback, as ever, is extremely appreciated. I lost some my way last night, and didn't finish my thoughts. Maybe in a day or two...

[Robin Smallburrow]

You ask a very deep question here Zed, to which I will reply with another deep question:

Why do you like running RPG's in Middle-earth?

I once asked myself this very same question, trying to 'figure out' why I preferred Middle-earth as a setting for RPG's over others, and I realised that Middle-earth as Tolkien describes it is a more Moral world than ours - ie good gets rewarded, bad gets punished and things don't happen for no good reason, unlike in our world. Within this broad overview there are times when black and white becomes 'blurred' such as during the Kin-Strife, but generally Right & Wrong seem clearer than in our world - if players want a 'gritty' campaign in my games I will usually offer them something like the Kin-Strife, where 'the good guys' are harder to determine

Robin S

[Glorelendil]

That's a really interesting question, Robin, and probably deserving of its own thread. I'm looking forward to Zed's answer. For my part, it's some combination of:
1) I don't know if morality is black & white, but at least there is an expectation of heroic behavior. I typically do not enjoy RPGs where it's ok to be evil.
2) I like the way Middle-Earth heroes, at least 3rd age ones, are "small and weak", and that the difference between new adventurers and mighty heroes is not that large (compared to typical RPGs.) A low level of magic ties into this, as well.
3) The richness and detail of the setting, of course.

[Wbweather]

Regarding moral ambiguity, let me see if I can explain my thoughts and then tie them into role playing in Middle-earth in The One Ring.

Tolkien's works always appealed to me because it was a morally clear world. As Robin described it:

I realised that Middle-earth as Tolkien describes it is a more Moral world than ours - ie good gets rewarded, bad gets punished and things don't happen for no good reason, unlike in our world. Within this broad overview there are times when black and white becomes 'blurred' such as during the Kin-Strife, but generally Right & Wrong seem clearer than in our world

In the Christian world view (as I see it) it could be said that true morality is absolute and sharply defined. There is Good and there is Evil (that which is opposed to the Good). At the beginning of creation, that was all that existed. Any blurring of those lines is not the result of an alteration of absolute morality, but more the result of the entropy of countless imperfect individuals acting in free will over time.

I can envision an old-school slide projector. There is a "perfect" image on the slide. Light passes through this slide and then carries a copy of the slide across space and time to produce an imperfect image of the original. In the process, the light diffuses and the image become out of focus, more so the farther away from the "perfect" original you get. You can still get a sense of the general idea of the original, but the edges are all blurred. This blurred projected image does not mean that the original was not perfect, it just means that the viewer perception is imperfect.

I think that Tolkien, writing with the influence of his Christian background created a world that is truer to the original than what ours is, but it is not a perfect world either. There is still some blurring of the lines between Light and Shadow because individuals have free will.

There are creatures who are created morally pure (Elves, Men, free peoples) and those who are created inherently evil (orcs, trolls). I would argue that orcs don't have free will in Tolkien's world, because they cannot choose to do good. Men and Elves on the other hand can choose to do evil and reject good. Orcs and their lot cannot be redeemed, but the Free Peoples of Middle-earth are never entirely beyond redemption.

In The One Ring, a "good" character can be affected by shadow either through their own actions or the actions of others and gain shadow points, but there is some spark of Eru within them that drives them to seek the good. Elves seem to be more resistant to the corruption by the shadow. Men seem to be more lured by the promise of power or wealth and more easily blur the moral lines. Maybe that is due to the fact that Elves are immortal and remember how the Shadow destroyed all they held dear while men live such short lives comparatively that generation after generation falls for the lies of Sauron.

I like that in the One Ring, a player could make an evil character, but he would quickly be overwhelmed by the shadow and no longer be playable. Such men existed in Tolkien's world, but they were similarly destroyed by that which they sought after (the Ringwraiths for example). The heroes in Tolkien's books were those characters who imperfect or flawed as they might be kept the absolute morality of the Eru's original design in focus and sought to advance that theme. Their heroism wasn't dependent on their success or failure, but on their motivation. Ultimately Eru's will would be accomplished and even those who fought it would contribute to its fulfillment. Each character just had to chose their side and do what they could in their sphere of influence.

I player who understands this going into the One Ring will, in my opinion, enjoy the game much more than a player who wants to make a character become all powerful or change the world. Tolkien's characters generally didn't want to be heroes and those who did (Boromir perhaps?) ended up getting off track.

Don't take this too seriously. It is just a few thought I had. I am no expert in theology, philosophy, or Tolkien.

[zedturtle]

You ask a very deep question here Zed, to which I will reply with another deep question:

Why do you like running RPG's in Middle-earth?

That is an excellent question, and I will answer it, but first a minor aside.

If it seems in this thread that I'm struggling with some sort of moral quandary, that's not really true. I'm just trying to explore a certain set of ideas, and set up certain questions, so that I can attempt to answer them, at least to my own satisfaction. So interesting mental exercise, but not exactly keeping me up at night.

- - - - - -

To answer your question, there are a lot of factors.

Firstly, there is a tremendous resonance that Tolkien has with us (meaning people who enjoy TOR or those who might enjoy TOR if they were exposed to it). Part of this is a philological resonance, but that's not all... we have a lot of players whose first language is not English and, while I imagine that the translators have done excellent jobs, they probably couldn't convey everything in another language. But the imaginative space that Tolkien created has been influencing everything else for eighty years. There are a lot of mega-dungeons, but there is only one Moria. There are lots of secret elf refuges, but only one Lothlorien. There are lots of wise mentor wizard figures, but there is only one Gandalf.

The moral component that both you, GE and wbweather alluded to earlier is another big component. I don't view morality in Tolkien as simplistic... but it is different than 'modern day morals', for sure. Exploring that morality is actually a big thing with me, and I actually try to scale some things back in order to keep the majority of my players comfortable. For me, it's a big thing that, in Tolkien's world, there are Objectively Good options, but characters (and thus players) are free to choose whether or not to take those Objectively Good options.

For myself personally, as a Loremaster, the other challenge is to try to bring the world to life. Sometimes I do a better job than others. But I want my players to have experiences that make them feel like they are exploring Middle Earth. If they have an opportunity to speak with Gandalf, I want them to come away from that encounter feeling like they felt once they read Shadows of the Past, or The Voice of Saruman, or The White Wizard, or whatever particular mood of Gandalf I'm trying to replicate. Again, I don't alway succeed... I get tired and take shortcuts, or have typos or miss something. But I'm always trying.

[Blubbo Baggins]

This is one of the best discussions I've seen in the TOR forums.

Wbweaver - you put that extremely well, don't discount your ability to speak on theology, philosophy, and Tolkien. I also wanted to address this idea that Tolkien's world is more Moral than ours. I think your analogy of a slide and projector is perfect; it addresses the fact that Morality is clearer in Arda, and yet that does not mean that our world is less Moral, only that Morality is more difficult to see at times..."the result of the entropy of countless imperfect individuals acting in free will over time." The importance of focusing one's eyes on the perfect and original image!

I also agree, players who understand that heroism is not dependent on success or failure, but rather motivation, will have more fun playing TOR. I think Francesco & Co understand this entirely...otherwise they would not have made the theme of their major campaign book "The Darkening of Mirkwood." It's not the "Freeing of Mirkwood." Not to say that the only option for stories in Middle Earth is that things must get worse. The Lay of Leithian/Release from Bondage as an example of where things do get better...well sort of.

[Angelalex242]

Well...things get worse before they get better.

Sadly for everyone else, the 'get better' part is when the titular Ring takes a lava bath. Up till then, things are pretty much getting worse. The PCs just make it get worse slower.

[Glorelendil]

The PCs just make it get worse slower.

Excellently stated. And that's what I love about adventuring in Middle Earth: you're not a demi-god saving the world. You're a very, very small person trying to slow down the rate at which the world falls apart.

Can I change my previous answer about why I like RPing in M-E?

[jamesrbrown]

I may be posting soon a document I created to help players improvise games. In it is a section on heroic development and I suggest using hero types as a guide. Perhaps similar to calling, but more of an overall template. I was thinking of Frodo as a chosen hero. He certainly had free will to choose what he would do, but in the moment he spoke up at the council of Elrond, Tolkien describes it as if another will were speaking through Frodo. I love this! Frodo allowed a higher will to use him; a moral and good will.

Maybe there would be a player-hero willing to do the same? When all the rest of the companions can choose to debate and stall, a chosen hero cannot. That greater will speaks through him and compels him to action. Such a player would submit himself to and trust the direction of a good Loremaster.

[zedturtle]

Yeah, that gets tricky because there are those who would spin that as 'player willing to ride the railroad'.

And also that's not always a clear morally good thing. Why did Frodo inherit the Ring? One answer is that he was the most suited person for the task. But he was also Bilbo's ward and heir, because of his parents' unfortunate accident.

Sorry for taking a dark turn there, it just seems like Eru really made sure he'd have Frodo in the right place.


For me, I think it's most important to out heroes in a situation where there is a clearly better/more heroic/morally justified action and then make clear to them that they get to choose how to react next.