Giving Shadow Points for...

[Yusei]

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.

I don't give shadow points for "just" killing someone in battle, but your post made me think about it, and now I'm seriously considering giving it a try. It would make sense, and as long as getting rid of shadow is not too hard, why not? You can't possibly fight evil for months without being affected, and then spending time in a sanctuary would help you recuperate from battle.

[Hermes Serpent]

@Yusei, Your response seems to me to conflate PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder associated with combat and otehr stressful situations) with the Hope and Shadow mechanisms of TOR. Imposing/Awarding Shadow points for participating in battle seems to be outside the general Shadow mechanism which is, I believe, supposed to cover the creeping effect of Sauron imposing his will on Middle-earth leading to feelings of depression, weariness and hopelessness. While PTSD has similar symptoms to these I don't believe that using Shadow points is really the correct mechanism for this.

[Otaku-sempai]

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.

Agreed. And I would add that there is a difference between slaying surrendering foes and attacking enemies in retreat, especially in the heat of battle. The former can be justified because the heroes are preventing the fleeing antagonist from returning with reinforcements. I would only rule the latter a misdeed if there was a pattern of such behavior or if the heroes were enjoying such activity. I would not have given Shadow Points to Gimli or Legolas over their little competion over who would kill the most Orcs.

[Stormcrow]

attacking enemies in retreat, especially in the heat of battle [...] I would only rule the latter a misdeed if there was a pattern of such behavior or if the heroes were enjoying such activity.

I wouldn't even do that. Joy of battle is not in itself worthy of Shadow points, and you're most likely to be joyful when the enemy is retreating.

[Aeglosdir]

the creeping effect of Sauron imposing his will on Middle-earth leading to feelings of depression, weariness and hopelessness

While I agree with your post in principle, I'm not sure that it comes down to depression and weariness as much as despair and also a tendency to exert power 'for personal gain or the domination of others'.

For example, when there is no immediate reason to believe that a 'villain' running for his life is going to regroup or fetch some nearby reinforcements and come back with a vengeance, but you decide to put an arrow in his back anyway -- because it's simpler for you than taking prisoners; or because you're getting rid of witnesses to cover your own tracks; or 'just in case' because he might cause you trouble later in some way... also when doing so with poor self-justifications like 'he might come back later to murder other people' (countered in the book by he might also come back later as your ally) or 'he deserves to die, I am Justice' (many who dies deserved to live, can you give it to them?)... then you are on the slippery slope of doing terrible things for personal gain and a SP may be justified IMO.

For starters, the PCs are not at war with the Woodmen of Tyrant's Hill. So it seems reasonable that when you start killing them, showing no mercy, they will respond in kind. When at the folk-moot Mogdred is able to point out that "you may accuse me of shady alliances, but what of your own allies: my own men have been killed in these parts of the forest, and not by orc-arrows", then the folk-moot will be darker, and a peaceful solution will be harder to achieve. When or if a PC speaks up against Mogdred at the folk-moot, then because of the Shadow that he himself has earned, the Woodmen may be less inclined to believe him or more inclined simply to despair (they are just as bad all of them, let's not trust in anyone but ourselves) and only Sauron would be pleased.

A bit rambling, but hopefully you see anyway what SPs may represent IMO. Not a punishment of the Valar or anything like that but the darkness that you bring with you.

[Stormcrow]

I'm not sure that it comes down to depression and weariness as much as despair and also a tendency to exert power 'for personal gain or the domination of others'.

Agreed.

'he deserves to die, I am Justice' (many who dies deserved to live, can you give it to them?)

Nice parallel!

A bit rambling

Not at all. An excellent post!

[Rocmistro]

A point that I think needs consideration is the meting of punishment/law for villainry.

A cop (knight/constable) using deadly force in apprehending a criminal; does this merit shadow points?

A judge/justice/Lord pronouncing a death sentence; does this yield shadow points?

The executioner doing his deed...shadow points?

I think of Ned Stark cutting off the Knight's Watch dude's head in accordance with the law at the beginning of AGoT. Realizing these are two very different worlds (Middle-earth and Westeros), did that action produce SP's for Ned? I'm inclined to say no. The law was certainly harsh and final, but it was just and Ned Stark acted in accordance and without relishing the act.

There are many anecdotes of "battlefield" executions amongst military officers. Are these worthy of shadow points? I suppose it all depends on the commander.

If a party of heroes, especially ones with the favor of leaders such as Beorn, Radagast, King Bard/Thranduil and/or other Lords in their pocket, pursued (or were attacked by) a bunch of bandits, subdued them, and then carried out a field "court", that was fair/impartial, and determined and delivered a death sentence (assuming the bandits had done such things as rape/murder, etc) would you grant SP's? I don't think I would, to be honest.

[Glorelendil]

How about the frontier practice of hanging horse thieves, because it was too difficult to hail them to a judge?

Anyway, in none of this have I been arguing for when shadow points should be given or corruption tests made, I'm just saying its a continuous moral spectrum with no distinct boundaries. It's up to you to choose the cut-off. But it's all shades of gray.

[Rocmistro]

Right, agreed Elf.

It's just that I saw a lot of the previous discussion centering around one of only 2 options; that Heroes were either acting in self-defense or out of bloodthirst (shorthand for any base emotional response such as anger, rage, vengance, indignation that resutls in purusing and or attacking killers that were running away).

A cop is permitted to shoot at / use deadly force at a villain who is running away if they have witnessed them doing something brutal/violent.

In the context of who heroes are in Middle-earth, I think of that scenario as a more appropriate analogy to what heroes are generally doing than the dude on the street minding his own business that gets assaulted from 'point-em-out, knock-em-out', and whether he uses deadly force in response.

[Ferretz]

Whoa! I missed one of the mails saying there was a respons to my initial post, so I had to read through some pages.

So, DoM spoilers ahead...

I don't agree with the "end justifies the means" argument. Of course, the fleeing warriors could cause trouble later. They will, most likely, as the characters now have an emnity towards everyone from Tyrant's Hill. They are actually planning to spy on the place, and even kidnap and interrogate one of the people living there.

Also, being somewhat vocal, they will most likely speak out against allying with Tyrant's Hill on the Folk-Moot... if they don't cause a war by their actions against Mogdred first.

But as for the Shadow points, what if they had caught one of the warriors from Tyrant's Hill alive, and, in need of information, went a head to torture him for it. Of course, it would be for the greater good. They would get information about a new potential enemy. But they would also get heaps of Shadow points. I don't think anyone would disagree on that, right?

Eirik