Giving Shadow Points for...

[Glorelendil]

If you need to justify why you did something, then probably there's something you want/need to hide.

There's a meaning to justify that requires agency, i.e., "I justified my actions to the authorities", but there's also a meaning that refers to moral algebra, i.e. "the ends justify the means". I meant the latter. No human intent required.

(But even with the first definition I would dispute your assertion. It could simply be the case that your reasons aren't readily apparent to others.)

[Valarian]

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."

I like this, a lot, and may nick the words to show my players next time I run a game of The One Ring. The shadow mechanic is not something that the players should be scared of. Instead, embrace this part of the game. The loss of Hope is, I think, an inevitable part of the adventuring life. The choices adventuring puts in your path means that difficult decisions are going to have to be made, and there are consequences for those decisions. Characters faced with taking life frequently should become grimmer and hardened. Only those who live in the protected areas can have the luxury of hope. The rest see the darkness in the world, and have decided to take a stand against it. All you can hope for is to retire before you become the monster you fight. It will be willpower alone that stops this.

[Faire]

Than you can not possibly replicate characters like Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf, or Faramir, who went through severe trials and yet did not bear any visible sign of corruption. It would also mean that Gondor or Rohan soldiers are having bouts of madness sooner or later and that being a hero inevitably means that you are becoming an enemy to those you are trying to protect - unless you retire soon enough. That doesn't seem to be quite right to me.

[Stilts]

Than you can not possibly replicate characters like Sam, Aragorn, Gandalf, or Faramir, who went through severe trials and yet did not bear any visible sign of corruption. It would also mean that Gondor or Rohan soldiers are having bouts of madness sooner or later and that being a hero inevitably means that you are becoming an enemy to those you are trying to protect - unless you retire soon enough. That doesn't seem to be quite right to me.

Those are all characters with exceptional wisdom and/or willpower (and actually, Sam clearly showed signs of the taint of the One Ring when he kept it for a time). They are very good at resisting and removing corruption, even though their hope would dwindle as Sauron's power grows. I think the point is that for a character who doesn't invest in Wisdom and continues a long life of struggle against the Enemy, it's only a matter of time.

That being said, I don't think you should expect to replicate those characters because they are not typical by any means. In fact, during the War of the Ring, many of the Free Peoples who withstood the might of Mordor had given over to despair or apathy.

[Aeglosdir]

In fact, during the War of the Ring, many of the Free Peoples who withstood the might of Mordor had given over to despair or apathy.

Or they are gradually embracing the ways of the Enemy (justifying each choice with Sarumanish Newspeak -- there is no real change).

[Faire]

I think I am not really comfortable with auto-gaining SP because of emotional distress, though rules for sure allow for that. I think that that should be more punishment for misdeeds than consequence of what happened to the character (as in how the perceived actions or his surrounding influenced him). I understand that the circumstances can have such influence (being raped can change the personality of the victim, if we go for the extreme) but it has to be a corruption test, not automatic award of SP. That explains the exceptionality of fore-said characters fat better than just saying the common rule for some reason didn't apply do them (let's not get stuck with Faramir ). I just do not see that the brave characters taking up the fight are being corrupted just because they are fighting and killing - I believe that when we look at specific occasions through the Silm and LOTR we will find that decision and actions were usually source of the corruption (though it is true that those decisions can sometimes be influenced from outside, like it was with the Ring).

So my argument is that characters should not be automatically awarded SP for actions taken within reasonable moral range of battle. Being awarded SP from the emotional backlash of being doing terrible things (and killing someone is a terrible thing - even in self-defence) or perceiving terrible things should only happen through a corruption roll. Otherwise we have to acknowledge that fighting the evil (which often means killing sentient beings in Middle-earth) would automatically corrupt such a warrior which would go against the ethos of Tolkien's world.

[Glorelendil]

You will, of course, never be able to map the books exactly to the mechanics ("where are the rules for iron collars and notched axes? You call this a LoTR game?"), but the Hope/Shadow mechanic does very nicely represent one of the main themes of the book.

[Hermes Serpent]

where are the rules for iron collars and notched axes?

Iron collars are used by some Northmannish peoples to indicate thralldom and mark captured and enslaved people from other clans. Wearing an iron collar prevents Hope recovery and requires a Corruption test every day with the loss of a point of hope should the test be failed.

I'll think about notched axes.

[Aeglosdir]

This discussion did not start out by asking whether warriors should be automatically awarded SPs because of the terrible things they experience in battle. (I think it's better to stick to awarding SPs due to actions that the PCs take and their justifications for doing so.) Also I think that in Middle-earth, heroes are defined by their mercy as well as by other qualities such as their resolution to stand up against the shadow.

[Faire]

You will, of course, never be able to map the books exactly to the mechanics ("where are the rules for iron collars and notched axes? You call this a LoTR game?"), but the Hope/Shadow mechanic does very nicely represent one of the main themes of the book.

No disagreement here!

This discussion did not start out by asking whether warriors should be automatically awarded SPs because of the terrible things they experience in battle. (I think it's better to stick to awarding SPs due to actions that the PCs take and their justifications for doing so.) Also I think that in Middle-earth, heroes are defined by their mercy as well as by other qualities such as their resolution to stand up against the shadow.

For sure! That is one of the main themes of the LOTR trilogy at least (as is quite suitable for such as strongly Catholic book). It is only in particulars where we might not agree, which is quite clear from the discussion. I have nothing to add now, but will go on watching the discussion.