The New Shadow: A Middle Earth Campaign Setting Idea

One of the things I noodle around with from time to time is campaign world concepts; I sometimes draw maps, jot notes or otherwise brainstorm. So it was in that vein that I came across Professor Tolkien's ideas on New Shadow.

Before getting to the main idea itself consider the story we know: after Frodo and Sam haul the One Ring to Mt Doom and Gollum does his part in the story the tale is essentially over; everything that comes after is wrap up. While I like the Scouring of the Shire it's not vitally important to the story as a whole. While the interaction after the Downfall and the crowning of the King is interesting, it's also epilogue.

Considering the publication history of the Lord of the Rings trilogy the only thing the good professor would (nearly) finish afterwards (in the major book sense) is the epic Silmarillion (published in 1977 four years after his death). I say nearly as his son Christopher had to edit it a lot to make it into a story.

Before the Silmarillion however he contemplated a story about the transience of good and the flawed nature of Man, he called this idea The New Shadow. Again, to me the idea has some merit which he apparently wrote in the 1950's and again near the end of his life in 1968. In this we have the Professor's own words on the matter:

I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall, but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage. I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discovery and overthrow — but it would have been just that. Not worth doing.

I bring this up because with the proper fleshing out this could actually be a very good campaign world, consider:

• The New Shadow story line eliminates the "War of the Ring Problem" as I call it. It's the issue of THE event hovering over the world. Dragonlance also suffers from this problem. The New Shadow means a familiar world, but not encumbered by the War of the Ring per se.
• A world likewise far enough into the future means that none of the "personages" of the Third Age and specifically the War of the Ring are going to be around with the possible exception of Gimli and Legolas. This is a new, wide open tableau to work with.
• Along with very few if any of the main characters there is going to be very few elves left, and the dwarves retreating further into the mountains. That leaves humans and hobbits. For evil a reappearance of orcs and undead (like skeletons and barrow wights) works for evil.
• Middle Earth isn't all that of a clerical world, at least in the D&D sense. Because of this it makes undead that much more of a fearsome foe.
• The New Shadow Cult could be greatly expanded upon and taken in any number of directions.
• The High King of the Reunited Kingdom is Aragorn's (Elessar) son Eldarion. Going with some of the points above it allows for a great latitude as Tolkien didn't write too much about the Fourth Age. Plus due to his elven parentage through Arwen it's possible to place Eldarion's reign even further into the future. A small but added bonus is he's not "really" in the movies other than the dream sequence of Arwen.

In short, I think a Middle-earth a few centuries after the Downfall could be a very viable campaign setting for your favorite RPG, it doesn't necessarily have to be AD&D, I simply used it as a guide. ICE MERP could work as I think 1st or 2nd edition Warhammer role-play rules would work very well. Clearly overall it needs to be made much more grim for most people's taste but there are some good hooks there to build upon.

I've also since acquired the Lord of the Rings rule set by Decipher heavily influenced by the movies, obviously that would work well. 

For more info on the New Shadow story begun, but not finished by the Professor click here.

For more info on the New Shadow story itself look here. The actual text appears in The History of Middle-earth, specifically the The Peoples of Middle-earth I have only ready excerpts and it is on my list to read this year (at least sections.)

How about you, do you think that a campaign set in the New Shadow would work? 

Peter Jackson and Faramir: How the Movies Missed the Mark on Tolkien’s Most Noble Character

As a family, we’ve been sitting down and watching the Lord of the Rings movies, and the kids have really enjoyed them. My son, being younger, has fidgeted around a bit, but my daughter has watched all the way through.

Last night we finished The Two Towers. As a quick aside, she likes (as I do) both Samwise and R2D2. There are a lot of parallels there, and maybe I’ll cover that down the road. But back on topic…

As we watched The Two Towers last night, I took another look at Faramir and how much Peter Jackson bungled the character — or at least the context of the character as written by the good Professor.

Tolkien is on record as saying that of all the characters, Faramir is the one he identified with most — a personification of his own values. Before I get into this, I’ll state upfront that I enjoyed the movies immensely. Most of the changes made sense within the constraints of film (the Elves at Helm’s Deep being a good example). I’m not a rabid purist, and no, all you fatbeards, Tom Bombadil still sucks and is entirely unnecessary, certainly for the movies.

I’m not that unreasonable. But in the case of Faramir, it looks like even Jackson realized he erred in the theatrical cut and tried to “correct” some of it in the extended edition of The Two Towers.

Peter Jackson missed the whole point of Faramir and the two sons, Boromir and Faramir. It’s easy to say, and I don’t think there will be much disagreement here. For those not in the know, here’s a quick recap, as these three characters all revolve around each other beyond their familial ties.

Denethor (played by John Noble)), the last Steward of Gondor. The Steward of Gondor is just that — not a king, but the caretaker of the throne. Flawed, slightly unhinged, and certainly no better for using the palantír, Denethor has major blind spots concerning his two sons. He can see no fault in his eldest and no use for his second.

Boromir (played by Sean Bean), eldest son of Denethor. Especially well portrayed in the movies by Sean Bean. He tries to claim the Ring from Frodo in The Fellowship of the Ring but dies protecting Merry and Pippin. In the end he realizes his error, but in his own way he shares some of his father’s flaws. I don’t see this as a fault. He is not weak in willpower per se — it’s just that he is no Faramir.

Faramir, younger son of Denethor, well portrayed in the movies by David Wenham. In the books Faramir is likeable, eager to please, focused, well-meaning, and above all just and even-tempered. He is also very much a martial character. But as written by Jackson in the theatrical cut, he totally misses the mark.

To what am I referring, in a roundabout way? In the extended DVD version of The Two Towers, where we meet Faramir, we see how badly Jackson failed to understand this seemingly minor character as Tolkien wrote him.

Faramir is depicted as succumbing to the power of the One Ring and willing to hand it over to his father. The problem is that Faramir was the one character Tolkien wrote who the One Ring had no sway over. Think about that statement for a minute. Of the entire myriad of characters that appear in the books, it is Faramir alone who is immune to it. (Bombadil doesn’t count — he’s so nonsensical he’s in his own category.) In the books even Sam considers the possibilities for the brief time he is a ring-bearer, but not Faramir.

With the extended version of the movies it gets worse, in my opinion. Jackson basically admits two things with Faramir. One, that the movie needed something else, with the shift of some scenes from Two Towers to Return of the King. So some of it was dictated by the needs of the film. Okay, on that level I understand what he did.

Two, he is on record (paraphrasing here) as saying “having someone immune to the power of the Ring lessens its effect.” (Double blink. Double facepalm.)

Well, Peter, maybe you missed the whole point entirely — even with the changes in your version of the story. In fact, if you had taken a step back you would have seen it plain as day.

Rather than have Faramir trying to prove himself in the movies (“a chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to prove his quality”), you should have considered who and what Faramir was. Instead of having Faramir trying to be just like his older brother and win his father’s love, it’s as simple as comparing the three and how Denethor treats his sons.

Consider that the “prized” eldest son fails and is tempted by the Ring, thereby not justifying the faith his father places in him. This makes it an easy contrast when his second son — the one he has no use for (“Do not speak to me of Faramir, I know his uses and they are few”) — is actually, at least in these terms, superior to his brother.

Instead of rushing to make Faramir the kid brother who desperately wants to prove himself to his father, it would have been better to use Faramir directly out of the books. It was such a simple, powerful contrast that I don’t know how he could have missed it. I think he fails to give the moviegoer credit here.

I can’t state it any better. Jackson created a wonderful set of movies and I have no doubt about his zeal. But on this one thing he whiffed — and whiffed badly. He and his wife/writing partner Fran (who took an excessive glee in my opinion) in mangling some key parts of the story missed the point of Faramir entirely.

Perhaps even more so than Frodo,, Faramir has a Galahad quality to him. Faramir was designed to be immune to the Ring, but for a reason that Jackson missed entirely. Faramir succeeding where Boromir failed highlights the differences between the two brothers and the flaws in Denethor’s powers of observation.

Jackson could have used this masterfully but didn’t. Denethor grossly underestimates Faramir, and as a result highlights his own failings all the more — and by contrast, those of Boromir. If there is any doubt, consider this:

Page. 280, The Two Towers, The Window on the West- "But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo." 

One would think that this is hardly open to interpretation, Peter.

The changes to Faramir greatly alter his character and cheapen him in my honest opinion. In essence, he is dumbed down simply to keep things consistent in the movies. Most moviegoers will never know of this, but for those who have read the books it leaps off the screen as a clear example of missing the mark on a small but important part of The Lord of the Rings. No wonder some have dubbed him “Filmamir.”

For more about Faramir and some details on Jackson’s thoughts on why he changed the character in the movies, check here: http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Faramir or here: http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Faramir

What is your take on Faramir in the Lord of the Rings movies?