Shadow points for self-defence killing

[Evening]

I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't referring to the gross-factor of seeing brains, I was thinking of the psychological effect of killing a sentient being. For which I don't believe slaughtering chickens prepares you.

Slaughtering doe-eyed calves, lambs and all sorts of large and small, cuddly, furry creatures (to eat and to wear) might lend to it. In game terms, hobbits may do so well in the 'outside' world due to their culinary tastes of all things meaty and juicy and the horrific methods (by our standards) they acquire said meals.

1) I don't choose to imagine Tolkien's cultures as reflecting the ugliest historical examples I can find. And I don't believe he would either.

In regards to (most) elves I agree, but I don't think even Tolkien would exact such a purity test. Wouldn't make for a good story.

[Glorelendil]

In regards to (most) elves I agree, but I don't think even Tolkien would exact such a purity test. Wouldn't make for a good story.

Except, ironically, that's exactly what he did, not because of a "purity test" but because that's the sort of world in which he wanted to place his mythology. Unrealistically black & white, perhaps, but typical for the kind of literature he spent his life studying. Tragic flaws are more pronounced when they're not one of a dozen more prosaic (and perhaps realistic) human flaws.

And I think one thing we can agree on is that they're some pretty rockin' good stories.

But, hey, I'm the one always arguing that absence of evidence isn't the same as evidence of absence. If you want your Tolkien world to resemble actual medieval/viking societies, complete with poor hygiene, rotting teeth, disregard for women, and general cheapness of (rather abbreviated) human lives, run with it. To each his own.

[Lumrunner]

I think that the first time someone kills another living being that a shadow point should be given (but if the players are supposed to be somewhat experienced then the killing was done in back story and does not need to be addressed).

Since there is no shame or dishonor in protecting others or ones self even to the point of killing someone I don't think that a shadow point or corruption test is needed every time some one kills in self defense (or even at the end of a prolonged battle). If your players 1st or only solution is to kill then yes by all means give them points and tests - after warning them about misdeeds. After all, they are sliding if not running into shadow.

But, if the intentions of the players was to avoid bloodshed or they pursued other strategies first then they shouldn't be punished for saving their own lives. Instead role play, the instance see if the character expresses guilt or pity or shame. Do they comment on the tragic waste of life, or regret that the incident came to pass? Have a villager or some one of interest to the dead make harsh comments or lay a guilt trip. Have a close companion or patron express concern for the character or relay the possible repercussions of the incident. Have a love interest express concern because they notice the weight the character is carrying but won't speak about.

Make note of this, then use the associated feeling of guilt or shame or regret at a later time to justify or to feed a bout of madness. This is all excellent fodder to feed complexity into the personal saga of the character(s).

Also, you can apply a shadow point/test if the character lets or forces an innocent to have to kill - when the character fails to help or protect them. These can be made worse if the innocent is also killed, or loses his life to pay for the death or has revenge extracted on them.

Otherwise the character would have to perform a killing of an horrendous nature, or on a massive scale to require the shadow point/corruption test for killing in self defense.

[Faire]

Well, again, I do think that it should never be automatic SP but a corruption test - it fits the story better. And I think it really should mark something significant for the character, an inner struggle that occurs. I do think that killing sentient being and non-sentient being is similar, and I do believe that working in a slaughter-house will make it easier for you to cope with consequence of a manslaughter. But over that I am quite sure that this mechanism must make sense to LM and players - i.e. that they must understand what is the temptation in this particular situation and how does it prepare way for possible corruption. I have no problems imagining that for a vegan might be a lot more plausible having corruption test for killing that innocent, cute doe, while for a policeman the border might be where the self-defence is justified.

[Evening]

run with it

We do.

Before our first game, I explained to everyone their characters were essentially lawful good paladins and that they should be run that way. Naturally, that went over like a lead balloon. So then I explained that's how they should be played, but you can play your character however you want. They were relieved and we had a great first session. I have a great group who enjoy playing earthy characters replete with foibles. I consider myself fortunate that they have never considered opening a brothel nor have they been murdering hobos.

They know TOR is no different than any other campaign we've run and as always, actions have consequences. From the SPs I've handed out combined with a series of bad rolls, one character became miserable last game <waves at Dave>. We've also had two character deaths (yes, alot of SP's handed out for those).

This business about Shadow points for killing is actually an old subject for our group. A couple of years back, some people on the forum here held the opinion that every time you lay in wait to ambush orcs or bad guys, you should be required to make a corruption test. I brought this up at our next game and one of my players made the argument that as per the RAW, this was perfectly reasonable, and not only that it should be expanded. Namely, one should be required to make a test for EVERY violent act and anytime you lose endurance by injury.

Then, as now, I believe it should be put into context. That plus, your characters are heroes, made of sterner stuff than the average joe (peasant).

disregard for women

Wrong game. That would be Pendragon as per RAW.

[Corvo]

Everyone is going to run their game world as they see it, especially in terms of what they consider ‘right and wrong’, but I would like to suggest an alternate viewpoint. I read these threads on doling out Shadow Points and I can’t help notice they are (IMO) heavily influenced by modern timidity and squeamishness, when it come to blood, guts and mud, and what is right and wrong, according to modern mores.

We can look to the (not so distant) past and remember that husbandry also involves wringing chickens’ necks or lopping them off while alive. And let’s not forget that cows, pigs, sheep, lambs, and calves all have their throats slit and the gushing blood is collected to drink there on the spot or saved to make pudding. (Can’t you just hear the hobbits cheering on the prospect of pig trotters and blood sausage with some nicely braised lamb chops?)

And again, remember these people (both real and imagined) all do these vivisections without giving it a second thought.

For a less bloody example we can use the 'modern sensibilities' of Ahmad ibn Fadlan, a 10th arabic ambassador of sorts. He is completely disgusted and appalled by the hygiene and social norms of the Varangians (vikings) he is exposed to (no pun intended). Apparently vikings don’t wash their rears or their hands after taking a crap (gasp!), nor do they clean their junk after sex. How could Ahmad possibly know the latter? (or the former for that matter). Because these vikings apparently have no compunction or modesty when it comes to ‘using’ slave girls in front of all and sundry. We can only imagine that Ahmad did alot of shoe gazing while all this was going on. He also notes they are always armed to the teeth.
(...)

Hi Evening, thank you for your post.
You wrote some more since this, but I will address this one at the moment.

Your arguments touch something I addressed in the first draft of this thread, but later excised for brevity.
That is, the cultural differences concerning violence. As an (ex) medievalist the subject isn't lost on me.
While there were types of violence that were socially acceptable -expected, even-, that doesn't mean that they were insensible to it.
Let see St. Francis: a wealthy, headstrong young man with a penchant for weapons and glory. He went to war proudly, as was expected to a man of his time, yet the experience changed him so much that he embraced -after many doubts- the road of non-violence. Something in war bothered him enough to have him change drastically his life. Yes, he was a saint, but many many peoples of his own time related to his feelings.

Let examine the thing from another perspective.
Spiteful, resentful, brutal, haughty... How many medieval warriors can be described like this? How many chieftains, captains and knights were like this?
These are the disadvantages listed at page 226 of ToR manual for peoples with permanent Shadow points.
Because Shadow points aren't a stick to punish people, they are a description of what a person naturally becomes living in a harsh, brutal world.

Maybe it's my catholic upbringing speaking here, but man is imperfect, and lives in an imperfect world. Likewise, for Tolkien Arda was marred. It takes an exceptional man like Aragorn to take the sword and not losing himself.
But Aragorn is the man every man should strive to be.

So, to sum up my points, I believe that even in Middle Ages killing wasn't something without consequences for one's soul, even if life was relatively cheap and being a warrior was an accepted, cherished lifestyle. It was a glorious lifestyle that -in TOR game terms- entails some Shadow points.

ANY time a character could be shocked, disgusted, or horrified is a good time to call for a Corruption test.

I like this statement, and I would also balance it by using the character's culture and family upbringing as context. Obviously 'citified' folk will be more easily horrified with killing/death than those who have lived hand-to-mouth all their lives and have known fathers, uncles, cousins, brothers that have killed others or have who been killed.

About Corruption rolls for wounds, shock, disgust, etc, well, I have no firm position. I follow the rules as written here, but I'm wary of making Corruption too similar to Sanity rolls in Call of Cthulhu. Maybe it's appropriate, but I don't want to turn this game into Cthulhu Dark Ages
No dog in this fight, so to speak (again, a metaphor that reminds us of changing social mores)

[Rocmistro]

Just want to chime in here on this very good and interesting discussion.

Let us also not forget that this is a game which provides an alternate means for escapism. In my real life, I have to negotiate and be a diplomat, understand diverse viewpoints and perspectives, and follow a path of mature, sober, moral decision making.

What I don't get to do, in real life, is solve problems with a broadsword.

To some extent, (a major extent, in fact), I want to play a game where I get to solve problems with a broadsword. I want to be the doler of justice, the bringer of pain, and make the bad guys tremble in their boots. I dare say others feel the same way.

[Evening]

Just want to chime in here on this very good and interesting discussion.

Agreed.

No dog in this fight, so to speak (again, a metaphor that reminds us of changing social mores)

Nice catch.

[Wbweather]

Really interesting discussion. I am one who gets irritated by our tendency in modern western culture to apply our current values and morals to ancient cultures and judge them by those standards.That being said, there are universal moral prohibitions against killing and abuse of other individuals. Every culture has had to deal with these issues. Unfortunately that usually has resulted in the dehumanization of a culture's enemies. You see the attitude of "killing us is bad, killing them is good".

How did Tolkien deal with this? I think the Free Peoples of Middle Earth in general display an idealized Judeo-Christian morality to various degrees, because that was Tolkien's moral background, and a reflection of the moral underpinnings of European culture for the last 1500+ years. So you see empathy for some enemies. There are no Free Peoples who seem completely beyond redemption (other than the Ringwraiths who have permanently lost their humanity). Gollum, Saruman, Grima, Théoden , Denethor, Boramir are all characters who have succumb to evil to some extent and are spared and given a chance to redeam themselves. Some do, some do not. “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

That being said, I do not remember any passages where one of the characters is haunted by remorse for slaying a foe in battle. I do remember a competition between a certain dwarf and elf as to who had the highest kill count at the Battle of Helm's Deep. Now granted those were orcs, but it does seem that there is a different moral code on the battlefield than off the battlefield.

I like the idea of corruption tests for certain events, because there is a corrupting nature to the stress of life and even the toil of fighting against the Shadow takes its toll on Tolkien's heroes. I think in my mind, an unavoidable combat scenario against legitimate evil enemies would be exempt from a corruption test, mostly because Tolkien didn't seem to convey any negative consequences to his characters from combat. However if a company could avoid a confrontation and escalates it into a fight, then I think a corruption test would be in order.

Just my thoughts.

[Corvo]

Really interesting discussion. I am one who gets irritated by our tendency in modern western culture to apply our current values and morals to ancient cultures and judge them by those standards.That being said, there are universal moral prohibitions against killing and abuse of other individuals. Every culture has had to deal with these issues. Unfortunately that usually has resulted in the dehumanization of a culture's enemies. You see the attitude of "killing us is bad, killing them is good".

How did Tolkien deal with this? I think the Free Peoples of Middle Earth in general display an idealized Judeo-Christian morality to various degrees, because that was Tolkien's moral background, and a reflection of the moral underpinnings of European culture for the last 1500+ years. So you see empathy for some enemies. There are no Free Peoples who seem completely beyond redemption (other than the Ringwraiths who have permanently lost their humanity). Gollum, Saruman, Grima, Théoden , Denethor, Boramir are all characters who have succumb to evil to some extent and are spared and given a chance to redeam themselves. Some do, some do not. “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”

That being said, I do not remember any passages where one of the characters is haunted by remorse for slaying a foe in battle. I do remember a competition between a certain dwarf and elf as to who had the highest kill count at the Battle of Helm's Deep. Now granted those were orcs, but it does seem that there is a different moral code on the battlefield than off the battlefield.

I like the idea of corruption tests for certain events, because there is a corrupting nature to the stress of life and even the toil of fighting against the Shadow takes its toll on Tolkien's heroes. I think in my mind, an unavoidable combat scenario against legitimate evil enemies would be exempt from a corruption test, mostly because Tolkien didn't seem to convey any negative consequences to his characters from combat. However if a company could avoid a confrontation and escalates it into a fight, then I think a corruption test would be in order.

Just my thoughts.

I agree with your thoughts. Like I said, I'm still on the fence about (mild) corruption rolls for killing orcs "legitimately". Because in Tolkien there is apparently no problem or remorse about it, yet I'm not comfortable in negating orcs any "humanity" (so to speak).
So... I'm reading any contribution, trying to make up my mind