Forum

On the question of lying, I think I would always give at least one shadow point. Maybe more. It might seem like there is a good reason to withhold the truth. But when you do, you violate the other party's free will. You are deciding FOR them what is best, instead of giving them the truth and letting them choose. There may be times when it seems necessary for the greater good, but you are still using the enemy's tools, so you take a hit.

Withholding the truth for a serious reason (which requires still respecting the other person's free will), and lying are two different things. The RIDDLE skill is what you roll for when you're trying to avoid revealing certain things -- I think -- even as you tell the truth (that's one of its purposes, anyway). That's the way I see it. I wouldn't give out shadow points for withholding parts of the truth. But perhaps for outright lying, especially on an important matter. (though I don't think the rulebook uses lying as an example, does it?)

Yeah, good distinction. I hadn't considered the Riddle skill. You would obviously withhold information from an enemy.

Faramir tells Frodo, "I would not snare even an orc with a falsehood." But he still wasn't revealing everything he knew until he was sure of the hobbits.

Ah, shades of gray...

Withholding the truth for a serious reason (which requires still respecting the other person's free will), and lying are two different things. The RIDDLE skill is what you roll for when you're trying to avoid revealing certain things -- I think -- even as you tell the truth (that's one of its purposes, anyway). That's the way I see it. I wouldn't give out shadow points for withholding parts of the truth. But perhaps for outright lying, especially on an important matter. (though I don't think the rulebook uses lying as an example, does it?)

The rulebook has “malicious lies” as 1 shadow misdeed, so some deceptions okay, others get a small shadow hit!

You make a good argument. I hadn't considered Gandalf's words to Frodo in Moria concerning Gollum -- kinda says it all. I need to stop thinking of Shadow points as a punishment for bad behavior. They are just a thing that happens when you take certain actions. Like falling when you walk off a cliff.

Not only that, but sometimes they are the price of being a hero -- by being the one who goes out to where hard decisions have to be made, the hero is protecting everyone back home not just from orcs but also from the threat of being corrupted by those hard choices. The Rangers who protect the Shire aren't just there to save them from orcs but also from having to live the kind of life you live when orcs are a threat. They're protecting the Shire's innocence.

Ambushing bandits in their camp at night equals murdering someone in his sleep. For me, that’s a misdeed worth the full amount of shadow points. You could just surround them with weapons on their throats demanding to surrender.

Maybe make it a Skill Endeavor to sneak up on the guards to disarm them. If that plan goes to shit and they draw weapons to fight, all bets are off, no shadow.

Not only that, but sometimes they are the price of being a hero -- by being the one who goes out to where hard decisions have to be made...

Yes, yes, yes! Beautifully said. This hits right at the heart of what I was grappling with and the kind of campaign I hope to create.

Wow. This topic got a lot deeper than my original rules question. Very valuable to me, and cleared up my thinking immensely. Thanks, everyone!

Credit where it's due, I'm mostly paraphrasing something that Jacob "Zedd" Rodgers (one of the game's writers) said on the Discord a few years ago that really crystalized it for me.

Not only that, but sometimes they are the price of being a hero -- by being the one who goes out to where hard decisions have to be made, the hero is protecting everyone back home not just from orcs but also from the threat of being corrupted by those hard choices. The Rangers who protect the Shire aren't just there to save them from orcs but also from having to live the kind of life you live when orcs are a threat. They're protecting the Shire's innocence.

I don't know - I kind of see the Rangers as a people unwilling to allow themselves to be corrupted. They are sworn enemies of Sauron and all he represents. I don't see them as being willing to do anything that would ally them in any way with the shadow that they are fighting. They're saving the Shire from having to live the kind of life you live when orcs are a threat, but for them, I don't think that would mean giving any room for the shadow. Its the hard life in the wild they have to live, endangering their lives, etc., that they're saving the hobbits in the Shire from.

I don't know - I kind of see the Rangers as a people unwilling to allow themselves to be corrupted. They are sworn enemies of Sauron and all he represents. I don't see them as being willing to do anything that would ally them in any way with the shadow that they are fighting. They're saving the Shire from having to live the kind of life you live when orcs are a threat, but for them, I don't think that would mean giving any room for the shadow. Its the hard life in the wild they have to live, endangering their lives, etc., that they're saving the hobbits in the Shire from.

Aw, com'on! I just had it all figured out. Ok, I agree with this too. [Sigh...] It might not be possible to have this subject nailed down completely before play unfolds. Try to have a solid foundation and build from there I guess. My players will probably just embrace the shadow and become bad guys anyway...

Aw, com'on! I just had it all figured out. Ok, I agree with this too. [Sigh...] It might not be possible to have this subject nailed down completely before play unfolds. Try to have a solid foundation and build from there I guess. My players will probably just embrace the shadow and become bad guys anyway...

Yeah .... sorry. That doesn't mean that individual Rangers might not think that way. I just think that from a lore perspective, the Rangers as a whole certainly would not.