Giving Shadow Points for...

[Aeglosdir]

However, in the Battle of 5 Armies, there are no evil men. Orcs are generally considered to be beyond redemption (at least as far as is humanly/elvishly possible). Men (and Gollum) are not.

Correct. "So began a battle that none had expected; and it was called the Battle of Five Armies, and it was very terrible. Upon one side were the Goblins and the Wild Wolves, and upon the other were Elves and Men and Dwarves."

For the Orcs, those interested may want to check out Morgoth's Ring, pp. 409-423.

[Glorelendil]

Since Tolwen hasn't shown up I'll point out that there are suggestions in the Professor's writings that Orcs aren't irredeemable.

But certainly I would agree that bandits and orcs occupy different regions on the spectrum between untarnished good and irredeemable evil.

I will note that when the hillmen are allowed to live they no longer form an immediate threat. They haven't been defeated by a isolated force still wondering if they are going to make it home alive; it is a victorious army, confident in its position, that shows them mercy.

In other words, I think circumstances play a huge role. For example, it might be justified to kill an enemy trying to surrender if allowing him to live poses a large, immediate risk. But if you promise to let him live if he talks, and he agrees and lives up to his part of the bargain, killing him at that point is distinctly different.

On the other hand, it depends on how you are viewing Shadow points. Is it some sort of divine punishment for being evil? Or does it represent the tainting of your own "soul"? This gets back to the earlier discussion about running away to save your own skin. Is it evil? I don't think so. But certainly you don't escape unscathed, emotionally, for abandoning your friends.

Cheating on tests is a good analogy: even if you get away with it, you are teaching yourself that cheating works, and by not mastering the material you are increasing the likelihood that you will need to cheat in the future. That is, you are turning yourself incrementally into a Cheater.

So by that measure, even if it is entirely justified to kill a fleeing/surrendering opponent, even if it's an orc, when you do so you have just taken one step closer to becoming a Murderer, and you can't help but think of yourself as such. It's not that an uncorrupt, pure soul would refuse to kill such an opponent on reasoned ethical grounds, it's that he just couldn't bring himself to do it. When you have your character kill in such a way, you are in effect saying, "My character is the kind of person who could/would do that."

Think of Bilbo not killing Gollum. Certainly it wouldn't have been evil, but he just couldn't do it. Had he done so he might have gained a Shadow point, not as punishment by the Valar for doing something evil, but for being the sort of person who let self-preservation override mercy.

/philosophy

[Falenthal]

I agree with you on your reasoning, Elfcrusher

it might be justified to kill an enemy trying to surrender if allowing him to live poses a large, immediate risk.

Killing or other terrible actions might be justified, and might serve a better good or porpouse, but they don't stop from being evil. If you need to justify why you did something, then probably there's something you want/need to hide.

I don't know how far you want to go in your games, but you could save an entire town from death by killing someone that carries a mortal disease that wants to go in no matter what. You can save hundreds or thousands of citizens, but this isn't incompatible with you feeling guilt over the one person that was killed.
Gain 1 Standing AND 1 Shadow Point.

[Seosaidh]

Since Tolwen hasn't shown up I'll point out that there are suggestions in the Professor's writings that Orcs aren't irredeemable.

This was why I added the caveat:

at least as far as is humanly/elvishly possible

[Dunheved]

.........In other words, I think circumstances play a huge role.

absolutely agree here and this is well within the responsibility of the LM to decide

On the other hand, it depends on how you are viewing Shadow points. Is it some sort of divine punishment for being evil? Or does it represent the tainting of your own "soul"? This gets back to the earlier discussion about running away to save your own skin. Is it evil? I don't think so. But certainly you don't escape unscathed, emotionally, for abandoning your friends.

And once again, acting as Tolwen or not, you strike the core of this thread, Elfcrusher.

Frankly, I can't reach a 100% decision about this. My first thought was NO Shadow points. But there may well be some permanent taint: realised later perhaps? Or can the guilt be avoided with a test against Corruption to avoid the Shadow gain? This is one of those examples of a question raised in the forum that I don't think there is a hard & fast rule for. Such actions do have a RISK of Shadow gain, no doubt. A good LM would have to listen to the comments & reactions of the players before deciding how to apply that risk.
e.g. If the archers are preventing these men from getting away, they have a different motivation to a group trying to eliminate every last trace of their attackers.

SPOILER ALERT NEEDED HERE FOR DofM


As an extra: the LM knows that these men are only potentially evil: perhaps the affect on the souls of the fellowship can be applied when the truth of Mogdred's men's nature is realised (say at the Folk Moot). If they were fundamentally evil the fellowship would gain a sense of doing the right thing; if Mogdred's men are revealed as well-intentioned but on a different track, then the fellowship should feel remorse and guilt. In the latter case the Shadow is delivered at a different time.

(Sorry: long post!)

[Stormcrow]

The rules say that Misdeeds aren't subject to Corruption tests. I'd probably not use those. Either you're embracing the ways of the Enemy or you're not.

I can't agree with the ends-justify-the-means argument of killing prisoners who have surrendered to you but who might turn out to be a big risk. If someone—anyone—surrenders to you, killing them gives you Shadow. If Morgoth himself surrendered to you, destroying him would give you Shadow. Likewise with the plague-victim argument: you may have no choice but to kill him to save everyone else, but you're going to get Shadow for doing it anyway.

The wise Loremaster will avoid constructing such no-win situations for the players.

[zedturtle]

I can't agree with the ends-justify-the-means argument of killing prisoners who have surrendered to you but who might turn out to be a big risk. If someone—anyone—surrenders to you, killing them gives you Shadow. If Morgoth himself surrendered to you, destroying him would give you Shadow. Likewise with the plague-victim argument: you may have no choice but to kill him to save everyone else, but you're going to get Shadow for doing it anyway.

The wise Loremaster will avoid constructing such no-win situations for the players.

+1 for all of this.

[Stilts]

The wise Loremaster will avoid constructing such no-win situations for the players.

This basically explains it for me. In Tolkien's world, the powers that be seem to insist that there is a right way to handle any situation. In other words, there is never a moment in which your only options are evil actions. A "lesser of two evils" situation should not occur unless a character has chosen to place himself in such a position.

Of course, bad things still happen and the Shadow's influence will necessarily creep into a character's heart, even if that character has performed nothing but selfless deeds. I don't believe that the concept of degeneration in TOR represents the Shadow forcibly taking over a character's mind or spirit; degeneration happens when a character is careless with his reserves of Hope, has not spent time developing his Wisdom, or has a habit of committing misdeeds. A Loremaster should not mercilessly bombard players with corruption for passive things, like traversing blighted places or witnessing terrible events. These things do happen to some extent, but the most significant sources of Shadow should affect the players when they decide to face (or embrace) it.

That's my philosophy on Shadow. Every LM has their own way of looking at it, as long as the system remains balanced; Shadow points must be a constant threat but not excessively so for players who are careful within your boundaries.

[Faire]

Elfcrusher: what you said has merit, but there is one inherent problem: just killing man, even in self-defence, meets your criteria. If I kill someone for the first time, it will affect me emotionally. If I kill second time, it makes it easier to do it the third time. So the question is: shouldn't we than award shadow points for every (major) battle?

[Glorelendil]

Elfcrusher: what you said has merit, but there is one inherent problem: just killing man, even in self-defence, meets your criteria. If I kill someone for the first time, it will affect me emotionally. If I kill second time, it makes it easier to do it the third time. So the question is: shouldn't we than award shadow points for every (major) battle?

Just further evidence that there's no black & white standard on what gives Shadow and what doesn't.