Giving Shadow Points for...

[Faire]

Well I might, sorry about that ) - just as it is OK to cause certain level of pain / distress during apprehension or even self-defence. What level? Not sure. Beating someone? Borderline for me. Evil beyond that. But I understand that your argument was just saying that ends do not always justify the means and I agree that this idea is really strong in ME.

Now I think that this discussion brought about one important point (and I hope I am not wrong about that, I haven't played for some time). Misdeeds = SP (e.g. causing pain for fun, unnecessarily, or excessively). What is the level here is difficult to say and there should be harmony here between the LM and players.

But even being just a part of an act that is just in itself (like killing someone, or being "just a soldier" in a conflict like that which happened in Alqualonde) might require corruption check.

Why? It describes like the evil that is present in the world affects everyone and how on must set his / her determination against it to prevail. Being in war influences you - some for better (they understand more about world and how precious every life is - Faramir), some for worse (trying to win their war at all costs - Boromir or say Artyom in the end of Metro 2033 (the game)). I think that laying a corruption test upon a player whose character just killed for the first time, or whose character had to kill or harm someone they loved, brings about the complexity of moral choices far better then simply awarding SP - or doing nothing at all. I think it can create very strong situation in the game on emotional level.

[PST]

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.

For me I think Elfcrusher described the key point on the subject, different GMs and groups can interpret Shadow Points in different ways, from a Gygaxian Paladinesque approach (anything outside a narrow moral/ethical path results in SPs) to a more fluid style.

From the guidelines on awarding them we know that with the rules as written it's not just about what the characters do, but what they experience and face as well, so for me it cannot be a divine punishment or world ethical standard but an innate quality of soul or personality and how it is burdened. Albeit in LotR this is mostly shown with the ringbearers, with the Sil having some other examples to draw on.

With my group we sat down and had a long discussion about Shadow Points and what they would mean so everyone was on the same page.

[Glorelendil]

As I said in my previous post, it all depends on where on the spectrum you put the boundary for your game.

My personal opinion is that the boundary is not the "point of neutrality", wherever that is. I think neutrality...that is, if the ends do just the means, barely...could result in Shadow. My inflection point is much stricter than that.

Maybe the best way to describe it is: "WWAD" (what would Aragorn do?).

Aragorn would share half his last loaf of bread with a starving stranger. Or he might give him the entire loaf, figuring he could fall back on his survival skills.

A normal person would say, "Sorry, bro, but I might starve if I share it." But that might be worth a Shadow point, imo.

Then again, I ascribe to the belief that Shadow represents a faltering of your own nobility, not punishment for being evil.

EDIT: PST posted while I was writing this. His last sentence is crucial. Figure out where the line is in your game, but make sure everybody is on the same page.

[Valarian]

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.

Sam did come to despair in Mordor. In the end, he gave up his hope of returning to the Shire and focussed purely on getting his master to Mount Doom. That became his hope. A bout of madness on the Plains of Gorgoroth, if only briefly, followed by a strengthened resolve.

Aragorn, too, gave up his dream of a normal life in order to take up his destiny as King of Gondor and Arnor. His will is what saw him through, but he too had his moments of doubt and darkness in the book.

Gandalf passed through fire and death in order to fulfil his task, and was greatly changed by the ordeal. By becoming the white wizard, he gained in power. He sailed west in order to remove the power from Middle-earth before he became another Saruman. His task was done, he retired.

Faramir is the only one of the lot in the book who didn't seem to have a crisis of faith. He is content just to be what he was, a captain of Gondor. A steward in the old sense. He kept the faith that the King would, one day, return and was happy to serve the King when he arrived.

[mirdanis]

Reviving a long-dormant thread...I'm leading a party through TfW.

***SPOILER ALERT FOR LEAVES & STEWED HOBBIT***

We just finished 'Of Leaves & Stewed Hobbit', and my players and I really enjoyed the hilarity of the scene in the Goblin stronghold. One of my party members got some spices from Dindy, and Stealthed into the wine cellar, searching for stronger spirits to make mulled wine to get the goblins even drunker than they already were. He rolled a Gandalf, so I decided there was a small cask of brandy, and his plan worked. This led eventually to a lot of unconscious Goblins; whereupon the party members began debating on whether killing unconscious Goblins, unable to defend themselves, would be a Misdeed or not. I pointed out that once they got the key off the Great Goblin and had looted a bag of jewelry and coins from his bedchamber, their primary goal was to free Dindy and return him to safety. But another party member argued that killing as many Goblins as possible would make the Mountain Pass safer for other travelers; and that the unconscious Goblins would die with no sense of fear or pain. Eventually they decided not to kill them; but I've been turning this over in my mind ever since. Did I make the right decision?

[Falenthal]

Everyone will have his opinion here, but here goes mine:

You did right. Killing unconscious enemies deserves Shadow points, whatever the consequences for the Free People. The act is bad, whether the end is good. They can be congratulated by Beorn himself for making the High Pass safer, but that isn't incompatible with gaining Shadow points along Status and/or Treasure.

Boromir wanted to take the One Ring to kill Sauron and free the lands of his menace. But he gained a lot of Shadow points trying to steal it from Frodo, I'm sure.

[Otaku-sempai]

Everyone will have his opinion here, but here goes mine:

You did right. Killing unconscious enemies deserves Shadow points, whatever the consequences for the Free People. The act is bad, whether the end is good. They can be congratulated by Beorn himself for making the High Pass safer, but that isn't incompatible with gaining Shadow points along Status and/or Treasure.

Boromir wanted to take the One Ring to kill Sauron and free the lands of his menace. But he gained a lot of Shadow points trying to steal it from Frodo, I'm sure.

I agree. There's a big difference between giving a downed enemy an extra stab or two during the heat of battle and killing him when you know that he is unconscious and helpless and poses no immediate threat. "It was pity that stayed his hand."

[Angelalex242]

Technically, Boromir was having a bout of madness when he tried to take the ring. That's my textbook example (along with Thorin looking for the Arkenstone) of what bouts of madness look like.

Anyways...what would Aragorn do is a pretty good indicator. Would Gandalf approve of this is another good indicator. '

That said, Shadow is a bit more passive then the similar Dark Side points of Star Wars. If Imperial Stormtroopers (or orcs) burn an orphanage, you don't gain any Dark Side Points, but you would gain Shadow points.

[Amargen]

killing a helpless foe and saying that "they'll just do more evil" indicates that the killer believes that he knows the future. please. aren't heroes about what is right? otherwise what are shadow points for?

now, having the witch king at your mercy (good luck) and sparing him would be folly. a goblin missing an arm? I'm sure it would be the height of heroism to agree that this un-redeemable goblin has had enough.

still, it's the intention that matters. killing a wounded orc while in a lull in the battle defending an important point in the game shouldn't be a matter for shadow points... they're simply clearing the battlefield to make sure they don't get attacked from within/etc.

it's EXCESS that you keep an eye on in those cases.

[Otaku-sempai]

still, it's the intention that matters. killing a wounded orc while in a lull in the battle defending an important point in the game shouldn't be a matter for shadow points... they're simply clearing the battlefield to make sure they don't get attacked from within/etc.

Well, I can see the argument against this. If you have the luxury of being able to decide whether or not to kill a foe then you have the option to take him prisoner. Not that there isn't something to be said for ensuring that a downed enemy isn't shamming so he can stab you in the back. That last seems to be perfectly acceptable behaviour to me.