Evil cannot create, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made

Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made - JRR Tolkien.

Apparently people have started using that phrase to critizice the new series: The Rings of Power. Not getting into reviewing the series because I have not seen it, nor have an intention to (despite that, or maybe because, I love Lord of the Rings)

Not only that, but I'm of those who advocate that there are bigger implications on media today that go beyond the theatrical political stances of left and right, and step into social engineery. 

It seems that Tolkien's quote has been so appropiately poignant that ThE pOwErS oF tHe InTeRnEt have spent the last year trying to cover it up as a "falsely attributed opinion" to Tolkien. The Shadow's disinformation pages that call themselves "Fact Checkers" have flooded the net with the undisputed fallacy that it was spread by a "group of astonishingly organized racist persons" annoyed by the appearance of a black elf on the show. 

I know of the title quote for years, and have struggled against it many times by trying to create an RPG magic system that is appropiate for the Middle Earth. You can see some of my latest attempts on this very blog. 

I have also seen the media erase and instaurate truths a lot of times along my life. Every time they get more effective as the hivemind structure of the internet and the social media algorythms make it easier than ever. But as a fan of Tolkien I feel that I must make my humble stand against Wormtongue's lies by making this entry, where, from now on, you can easily check that Tolkien's vision was once recognized as true as it might be: THIS LINK leads to a google search of the quote filtering results from 1990 to 2019, before the series were disclosed to the public. And here you can see a 2016 entry on Quora where a person asks: If evil cannot create things in Tolkien's mythology, how did Melkor create dragons?

Frodo itself makes the best in-setting appreciation of this idiosyncrasy on a conversation with Sam in The Return of The King:

"No, they eat and drink, Sam. The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own. I don't think it gave life to the orcs, it only ruined them and twisted them; and if they are to live at all, they have to live like other living creatures."

Furthermore, evil uncapable of creating must not be seen as a Tolkien's design choice: His work draws its power from the Monomyth (and that is why Lotr and other great works of all ages ring so true and have passed the test of time). It has basis on deeper, magical/spiritual/natural truths that we all know inside, and from which all fantasy, myth and visions emerge. We roleplayers know first hand that necromancers draw their armies from the unwilling corpses of the dead. We who mantain and read blogs know how true gamers create games, rules and worlds in here. Converselly, one would think that Twitter could be a blogspot degradation operated by the Shadow: reducing the character number and the fast propagation it allows not for creating, but encourages fast endorphines through insults, ego wank and mockery. Then, even gaming related accounts end up following the same path of deceit as the common man does: they are eventually lured into a political slot (left or right) and once there, they are presented straw enemies tailored to their hole (bigoted racists for one, retarded feminists for the other) and start fighting a fake war, which in the end only turns them into something they were not at the beggining (bigoted racists and retarded feminists). 

But back to Rings of Power: you can go into the link above and search as many proof as you wish, there is plenty. I don't know how much it will last, though: TV tropes have been forced recently to mark the quote as "badly attributed" and Quora's thread has been recently deleted from most of its tolkien related subs, leaving only that one available. The shadow's agents of pseudotruth are everything but lazy. So, this entry might sound stupid for some, but as both a truth and a Tolkien lover, if the dark wisps try to drown the world in dark lies, what can I do but to light a candle for as much time as I can. 

Ideas for mass combat (notes)

 I had some ideas today for running mass combat in the frame of rpgs. Never ran one in D&D and im not familiar with all the OSR rules around for that; I only ran one on a homebrew cyberpunk themed game  and it was a real mess. Nonetheless, I had some ideas on how I'd like to do one if I did it now, and I'll put them down here for reference.

First, I'd treat "the big melee" scenario as a zone with random encounters. This table below is an example (1d8). You take +1 if you are some kind of leader, and -1 if you are not an actual fighting man (like a woman or a kid just trying to sneak around a battlefield)

1-2-3: Nobody engages with you this turn. You can help an ally on their encounter, search for an enemy, perform any action, etc

4-5: you face a common troop

6-7: a gang of 1d4 enemies fights you at once

8: You draw the attention of an enemy lieutenant or elite troop.

Then, after all the PCs have done their turn, you check how is the battle going. You roll 2d6 plus modifiers, positive if your side is more numerous or has any advantage, or negative if the other side is. Then use a table similar to this:

12 Enemy is defeated or repelled. This doesn't mean necessarily that all enemies are killed: they might try to surrender, retreat or even make a final phyrric charge for 1 turn; GM will decide.

11 Somewhere an enemy leader has been defeated. +1 on further rolls in this table.

10 Enemy numbers are greatly decreasing. +1 on further rolls in this table.

9: If there is a potential advantage, it is succesfully exploited (enemy lured into a canyon, weak point succesfully applied, etc) and you get +1 on  further rolls on this table. This result might require that the PCs perform a quest first to get the relevant information or setup (GMs discrection). If this result is rolled a second time, it automatically works.

8: You see a known NPC. He rolls a save, on a pass he is fighting, otherwise is dead or unconscious.

7 Battle rages. If you declared that you were searching for something or somebody on the heat of battle, you find it.

6 You see a known PC or NPC wounded or in trouble, asking you for help.

5: Your side is hosed to a disfavorable position or is otherwise forced back. -1 on further rolls in this table. This result can be ignored once if your PCs did any quest to prevent it (GM's discrection)

4: Ally numbers are greatly decreasing. -1 on further rolls in this table.

3 An important leader in your side has been defeated. -1 on further rolls in this table

2 Your side is defeated or repelled

Of course, a battle has more facets than just a big melee. Things like firing from atop of a wall, ambushes, catapults, etc should be handled each on their own way; but succesful and meaningful actions of this type can grant bonuses to the 2d6 roll every battle turn, making them count narrativelly and mathematically at the same time; or even trigger a roll on the table by themselves. Even if thePCs are just watching the battle from atop of a tower, you can use the table to narrate the battle to them by rolling every turn.

Handling big battles this way has the upside that every possible "gamist" aspect counts (character levels, gear, actual battle tactics in the big scale, alongside normal combat tactics, characters dying, characters facing multiple opponents or ganging up on a single enemy, etc) and it makes the battle unfold "from the inside", as if it was seen through the fighting character's eyes; which is the aspect I think that should be highlighted on an RPG as opposed to a wargame where you see battles from an "eagle's view". 

I can see how people might like wargames, and I can see how d&d came from chainmail and such. But in my opinion they are very different concepts and don't mix as well as one might think. Also, in this way, PCs fight using the same combat rules they use in the rest of the game; instead of a simplified or tailored ruleset.