"Good, good. Let the hate flow through you..."

[jamesrbrown]

In my view, a Loremaster can only provide challenges that test the spiritual vigour of the player-heroes; he cannot develop the player-heroes themselves. There are many Tolkienian themes that can be introduced in an adventure, but ultimately, the players will choose if their characters end up surviving the corruption of the Shadow or falling into madness. When the Loremaster takes control of a character during a bout of madness, he should follow the core rules concerning this. The chapter in the Loremasters Guide, "Stars and Shadows," beginning on page 56, lays things out nicely.

On a side note, thanks for posting this thread. I have been (so far) reminded of the awkwardness of spending Hope during a misdeed. It doesn't happen that often in a game, but when it does, an extra point of Shadow gain seems to be a good way to capture mechanically what happened in the narrative.

Keep the conversation going. I don't think I am fully understanding your inquiry. Others may grasp it better.

[jamesrbrown]

There are many Tolkienian themes that can be introduced in an adventure, but ultimately, the players will choose if their characters end up surviving the corruption of the Shadow or falling into madness.

This statement needs further clarification. A player-hero could fall into madness by continually failing Corruption tests (which the Loremaster has complete control over). He may not desire this, but it is one way that it can happen to him, instead of it being his choice.

[Akira]

But how does it play out?

I'm not talking game-mechanically. Thus: not just penalizing lying, theft, wanton murder, dominating the will of others with shadow-points but how does the "Psychology of Corruption" come into play?

This is the Hero's Journey, in Joseph Campbell-ian terms. Down into the "Belly of the Beast" to resolve issues and come back victorious, broken&corrupted or not at all - perishing on the way. For me as both a player and as a LM, this in my hook. The heroes risk life&limb or worse - their sanity and/or moral compass along the way.

This is a really complex matter, but at the same time I think everything shall flow naturally with the way the LM tells his/her story. Let's put aside for a moment the whole game mechanic structure and think, as a pure example, about felloship focuses. How corruption should impact on the inner relationships that are builted up between our heroes during the campain? How should lying, theft, murder and so on affect the way a hero looks at his/her focus (or, why not, a trusted companion or a friend)? All I want to say is LM should give his players, with his narration, the chance to explore on their own the consequences of their behaviour. This could work as a starting kick: a chance for the LM to look into the heroes inner fears, desires or moments of madness and put them on the table for enhance the quality of the narration. But this "work" has not to come only from LM. Players ought to deal with these matters and try to put the interpretation of the charachter on top of every decision they make. If a player wants to try out his/her "dark side" and develop a "villain" trend of actions the LM can use this will to make that player really interact with the whole world presented by the game itself (patrons, focuses, random characters and so on).
So, in the end... I shall agree with wise PipeSmoker. The game eventually offers a great deal of starting points (the actual rules are pretty amazing, I must admit that) to shed light (or darkness) into narration.

[PipeSmoker]

Thank you Akira, that's exactly what I mean: rules are good as they are and improving them (which is always possible) should not tap energies better left into narration. You got energy for both? The more, the better.

jamesrbrown I share your view and, as I said, your rule really is an elegant one.
What I meant with "redundant" is that heroes are gonna get shadow anyway when committing vile actions and when they decide to go all the way down I can see them using their "positive energy" to succed. I'm not sure that hope solely means "positive in the sense of good", to me it could also be "positive in the sense of Ego furthering". Think about the words by C.S. Lewis you quoted in your blog (nice one, btw). Of course shadow should kick in shortly afterward.

[jamesrbrown]

PipeSmoker, I see what you are saying about redundant now. A misdeed will trigger Shadow gain anyway and if a player-hero chooses to or needs to spend Hope during the act, it still represents a depletion of their spiritual vigour (positively or negatively), bringing them closer to a bout of madness. Your point about Hope being "positive in the sense of Ego furthering" is interesting. I will think about that some more and chew on it!

Hope and Hate are both measures of inner resolve. One of the non-mechanical differences between them, so I thought, was in how they were generally applied, either positively (good) or negatively (evil). This thought being reinforced by their names. Hope being equal to a positive flow of spiritual energy leading to a truly good end and Hate being equal to a negative flow of spiritual energy leading to an evil end. You have challenged this assumption on my part, and so I am unresolved at the moment.

[Corvo]

There is one thing I want to address, something I see as a misunderstanding of the whole “Hope” question. Let me explain my position, and bear in mind that I'm not lecturing anyone, but just giving my personal interpretation of the game, Tolkien's opus, and life in general. Be forgiving.

Spending Hope isn't equivalent to “using the light side of the force”, and as such opposed to “giving in to the dark side”. Let me reiterate my point of view: this is a misunderstanding.
When a hero uses a Hope point, he's draining himself of his best energies, and is a step closer to succumbing to the shadow.
In other words, the Hope points represents the best, brightest energies in someone's soul. Every time someone use these energies, he's falling a bit toward the shadow, toward being consumed by bitterness and anger and pain. Because Arda is marred, and confronting the darkness is something that can consume even the noblest soul. Gandalf refused the One Ring, because he knew he would use it for good purpose... but the Power would have consumed him, sooner or later, and turned him into a tyrant.
Fighting the Shadow put not only life at risk, but soul too. This is the reason those who leave their homes to fight it are called Heroes. Many are lost, even if they don't died.

The Lure of Power and the Hope/Shadow system is -in my opinion- already an egregious answer to the “Swedish Soldier dilemma” proposed by Oskar. A Hero fight for his people. Peoples are petty, and concerned with petty concerns. He grow resentful, and bitter, and do “what is needed” to fight the shadow. Even if the people cannot understand what it takes to win this battle, and what he's doing to defend their simple, easy lives. He takes the hard decisions they cannot understand or stomach. And becomes an assassin maybe, then a vigilante, then a tyrant. That is the tragedy that befell on Boromir, the most valiant, generous and selfless son of Gondor, that betrayed the very values he spent a life defending.

Well, as they say, these are my 2 cents
Hope it's clear enough, not native speaker and it's a complex matter.

[PipeSmoker]

Brilliant, elegant, "tolkienesque" and hitting the mark, Corvo... Hats off!!!

[jamesrbrown]

It is very difficult to communicate concepts on a forum. I appreciate everyone's bearing.

While I am a HUGE Star Wars fan, I can assure you that my view of the balance of the Force is vastly different from my views of hope and hate in Middle-earth. Lucas drew on more than his Methodist upbringing to create the religion of the Jedi; he also explored Eastern philosophy and Buddhism in particular. That is far from Tolkien's Catholic worldview.

Hope is something I associate with a morally good person. Not a perfect person, but a morally good one. It is the deep down spiritual stuff that believes in the end, everything will turn out right, so long as one makes good with the time he is given. You do not usually associate the idea of hope with a villain. PipeSmoker has helped me a bit in my understanding, however, by mentioning Ego. I can see that a villain may hope for a nasty outcome when committing misdeeds. That hope he has is 'positive' spiritual fervour to him, even though others do not see it as positive. They will see it as the influence of evil.

I've gotta run for now, but I'll be back...

[Corvo]

By the way, JameRBrown, I wasn't referring to your positions, but to the thread's title and Oskar's comparisons with the light/dark side. While I wholly understand what he's meaning, I think it can be a misleading choice of words/comparison.

[jamesrbrown]

Since my comments have been part of the flow of the conversation, I thought I would clarify my position. I didn't mean to come across so defensive. Sorry about that.