Races

[Quentanur]

Hello,

Does anybody has developped house rules for managing first age characters ? Human or elves ?

[mcb]

What exactly do you mean by first age characters. I would think they would be very much like third age characters. Please explain what you mean by "managing first age characters"??

mcb

[Quentanur]

What do I mean ?
Well, when you read first age tales, compare to third age ones, the feats accomplished are really greater.

Ok, in those books, we are only speaking of the top level characters, but I have in mind a campaign which will lay in Aman then Beleriand, involving the Noldors, especially the people of Finrod.

Characters during this era are walking side by side or against Maiar or even Valar, a lot of them have seen directly the light of the trees, the silmarils and some other great wonders. They are detailed by Pr Tolkien as "special" and most of them are not there anymore in the second age, except some of them (Cirdan, Gil-Galad, Celebrimbor, Galadriel...). The same if you speak about humans, for example Beren, Turin and so on.

That's why I am quite sure their starting and maximum characteristics are not the same as the one of a 3rd age character.

Actually, the only ruling that I have used is to reduce drastically the capacity of a 3rd age character (lower charac, rank 4 at maximum in their skills and only in their professional skills), and so on.

My question was then: does anybody has created a ruling for first age character (their characteristics, skills or so) ?

Thanks in advance

[Liquidator Queeg]

Here are my suggestions:

* Don't limit attribute scores at all
* Starting characters get between 50 and 100 advancements, depending on how "high-powered" you want to play from the get-go
* All starting characters have at least one (3 or 4 might be better) "major" heroic and/or magical items

I'm sure there's more that could be done, but those are just off the top of my head.

LQ

[Quentanur]

Thanks for the suggestion, I was wondering of increasing the characteristics at the creation, but giving more advancement is also a good solution, even better I would say as it is measurable.

But, if you remove the limitation of the attributes, you could have some unexpected overpowered situation, thus I will maybe increase the cost of the increase of a characteristic over a certain value, then increase this cost exponentially.

[Scottomir]

Were it my chronicle, I would take a different tack. When I read The Silmarillion, I don't see invincible superheroes. Most of the characters are slain by the end of the tale (of Feanor's sons, only Maglor is left wandering the shores in agony, sorrow, and isolation), and they do not seem any harder to kill than their Third Age counterparts. Most of the sons of Finarphin are killed in battle against Orcs (and Orcs in the First Age are actually weaker, for the Uruk-hai have not been bred yet), and even the mighty Elwe Singolo (Thingol) is swiftly murdered in his own halls by a few Dwarves. Many great warriors are described (Beren, Turin, Tuor), but I don't see them as necessarily any stronger or more skilled than Boromir (with the exception that Boromir dies performing is great deeds). The Silmarillion and LOTR permit us to compare two Glorfindels--the first dies defeating a Balrog, the latter survives driving nine Ringwraiths into a river. Perhaps the elder Glorfindel is somewhat more powerful than his later reincarnation, but not much.

So, then, what do I think distinguishes the heroes of the First Age? I do not think it is attribute scores, skill ranks, or advancements, nor do I think it is necessarily magic items (though, surely, magic swords are more common in the First Age than the Third). What I think distinguishes the First Age heroes is the propensity for "sudden greatness" in moments of need, much like the moments of ariste in the Homeric epics. I would represent this with Courage. First Age heroes should have a LOT more Courage points, and they should regain them when spent much more readily. If Third Age heroes start with 3 Courage, I might start First Age heroes with 9, 12, or even more. This would permit whole scenes of great accomplishments, like Fingolfin duelling (though eventually losing to) Morgoth.

[Captain Novaes]

Also remember, none of those great heroes faced a Balrog and lived to tell the tale. And even Turin Turambar died when he finally defeated Glaurung.

By the way, Scottomir, great insight about starting Courage Points! I may end up using it someday.

[Green]

I am currently running a Silmarillion game online. If you want some mechanics, rules, game logs, etc., I'd be glad to help you out.

[vgunn]

Originally posted by Scottomir
. Most of the sons of Finarphin are killed in battle against Orcs (and Orcs in the First Age are actually weaker, for the Uruk-hai have not been bred yet)...

Actually this is not true. The Orcs in the First Age are much stronger. Evil, just as the Races of the West, degrades over time. Though it must be fought each time it comes to pass, the incarnations of Evil are weakened. The Race of Men is much stronger (however less numerous) in the First Age than by the time of the War of the Ring. Bloodlines are weakened for all.

Orcs were corrupted from Elves (no debate intended) and the race was "fresh" having not mingled with its own kind for thousands of years. Degradation was the reason for Sauron creating the Uruk-Hai. He was trying to upgrade the species back to its original strength. In my opinion, Sauron attempted to do the same thing - putting the Elf back into the Orc.

Another example are Wargs. They are what once were in the Werewolves of the First Age - though very dangerous, nothing in comparison to its ancestors.

[Scottomir]

Originally posted by vgunn
Actually this is not true. The Orcs in the First Age are much stronger. Evil, just as the Races of the West, degrades over time. Though it must be fought each time it comes to pass, the incarnations of Evil are weakened.

This is one interpretation, but not the only. The Orcs in The Silmarillion don't strike me as any different from the later goblins in LOTR--they are still craven, they still die in droves, and they still are hurt by the sun. But dragons are a good counterexample: the wyrms of the First Age at first couldn't even fly and were barely a match for the Great Eagles; in the Third Age, Scatha and Smaug could take on entire armies themselves.

As for your comment about Men declining over time, I agree that this is a fairly obvious theme in Tolkien's works. However, I would still argue that Men in the First Age are more powerful in spirit but not overtly: the Men in the First Age are not superheroes who perform feats of super strength or shrug off violent injuries. So this is why I still contend that First Age heroes should get lots of extra Courage but not inflated attributes.

[vgunn]

Originally posted by Scottomir
But dragons are a good counterexample: the wyrms of the First Age at first couldn't even fly and were barely a match for the Great Eagles; in the Third Age, Scatha and Smaug could take on entire armies themselves.

No, no, no!

Tolkien himself stated that the greatest of all dragons was Ancalagon.

Ancalagon the Black - the mighty Winged Dragon known as "Rushing-jaws". This was the culmination of Dragon-breeding in its highest form and this occured during the First Age.

It must be remembered that the first encounter of Glaurung, the Father of Dragons was done when it was still immature. Even then he was terrible and powerful burning the fields of Ardgalen and taking on Fingon and the Elves of Dorthonion. Later, Glaurung returned mature and mighty. He successfully led the forces of darkness in the struggle to break the siege of Angband in the Battle of the Sudden-Flame. Glaurung He slaughtered hundreds of Elves (Noldor!) and razed large areas of the eastern Beleriand.

Scatha and Smaug were the brood of these great dragons and were most likely born and were still very young at the end of the First Age but managed to escape the destruction and went elsewhere in Middle-earth, only to emerge later.

Think of them as Shelob in comparison to Ungoliant. Strong, but not near as her mother.

Multiple Balrogs vs a single Balrog
Ancalagon was greater than Smaug
Morgoth was greater than Sauron
Werewolves were greater than Wargs
Ungoliant was greater than Shelob
The Three Houses of Edain were stronger than 3rd Age Men.

The list can go on and on, but does show that the Power of the First Age was clearly greater than the next two. Why would the race of Orcs be any different?

What I would do is the opposite. Boost abilities and lower courage for First Age characters and the reverse for those in the Third Age.

[Scottomir]

Originally posted by vgunn
No, no, no! Tolkien himself stated that the greatest of all dragons was Ancalagon.

Glaurung He slaughtered hundreds of Elves (Noldor!) and razed large areas of the eastern Beleriand.

Scatha and Smaug were the brood of these great dragons

The Three Houses of Edain were stronger than 3rd Age Men. Why would the race of Orcs be any different?

What I would do is the opposite. Boost abilities and lower courage for First Age characters and the reverse for those in the Third Age.

Again, I reinforce that this is your interpretation...but not the only interpretation. Ancalagon was the "great of dragons" in the Quenta Silmarillion written long before the end of the Third Age. But as a member of the "brood of Ancalagon" he would be in the same league as Smaug and Scatha...except that those wyrms had a good five thousand years to germinate. But I hold up Glaurung as an example: he is the daddy dragon, and even at his full power (the sack of Norgothrond) he could be slain by a single sword-stroke in the belly (granted, by a great warrior using an epic--and talking!--sword). Flash-forward a few thousand years and we have Scatha (also slain by a great warrior with a sword) and Smaug (slain by a great warrior with an epic arrow). Strikes me as more similar than different.

As for the orcs, why would they be any different? Because Morgoth's evil stagnated. The strenght of the orcs in the First Age was their number. Morgoth just kept making more and more. Many times Tolkien describes that the orcs were virtually wiped out in the Battles of Beleriand, and Morgoth only paused in his assaults long enough to make more. The orcs of the later ages of Middle-earth are merely "feral" versions of Morgoth's creation...and it is only in the Third Age during the War of the Ring that they regained numbers comparable (though surely not equal) to Morgoth's time.

You, of course, are free to interpret your First Age heroes in any way you choose. But I simply suggest that boosting their attributes would yield characters more in-line with a Marvel Superheroes game than Tolkien's world. Super high attributes create characters who are inordinately hard to kill...and when I read Tolkien's books, I see characters who die far too readily. Extra Courage would give the characters "moments of epic greatness" (very much like we see in The Iliad, which surely had some influence on Tolkien) without making them invulnerable. Fingolfin didn't beat Morgoth, he merely fought with greatness for a short time.

[Manveru]

One thing I'd be very careful about here is outgrowing the scale too far or too quickly. To be honest, CODA LotR is not very forgiving to 'stacking' or 'boosting' the numbers.

I like the Courage suggestion above because, although it does result in mod. stacking, it's contextually relevent stacking. I'm always looking for ways to allow a player to futz with their rolls in some manner besides simply adding/subtracting numbers. The 'roll three dice, keep highest (or lowest) two' trick is a good one. It increases the median roll, but not by a fixed, statistical amount. It gives the impression of being advantageous, without actually being as predictable or fixed as a modifier.

I believe that something along the lines of the Courage idea is a better way to support First Age games using the CODA LotR system. I also think that the rules as written are not really that appropriate to a First Age game, as much of the material is written from a 'Fading of the Old World and Powers' perspective, which is appropriate for a Third Age game. Things like the Loremaster Ability 'Ancient Scripts', is a bit out of place, to me. There's the impression that everything from the First Age was bigger, better, etc., but it may be better to assume that the POTENTIAL for bigger, better, crazier stuff was higher, not necessarily that EVERYONE was bigger, better, crazier themselves.

Magic and Power in the First Age is a whole 'nother story. The CODA LotR system is definitely not equipped to accurately handle FA magic out of the box. For one thing, most of the "Spells" are really just examples of power display from the text that were given a spell description and sent on their way. Don't get me wrong, it obviously took a lot of research, and it does a lovely job of representing a given EFFECT in the system, but it's a very minimalist and shallow magic system because there's no HOW, WHY, etc. of magic or of these powers, it's just a list of wacky special effects as written. It works well enough to reproduce certain effects that readers encountered in the books, but doesn't really try to do more than that most of the time. I think a truely flavourful, faithful, and evocative First Age game would require an overhauled magic system. But that's easy for me to say, safely rambling away on a forum and not actually spending the time to rework the magic system myself .. ;-)

Anyway, yeah, keep an eye on the 2-12 scale to make sure you don't break it by starting out too high ...

[vgunn]

Originally posted by Scottomir
Ancalagon was the "great of dragons" in the Quenta Silmarillion written long before the end of the Third Age. But as a member of the "brood of Ancalagon" he would be in the same league as Smaug and Scatha...
As for the orcs, why would they be any different?
You, of course, are free to interpret your First Age heroes in any way you choose. But I simply suggest that boosting their attributes would yield characters more in-line with a Marvel Superheroes game than Tolkien's world. Super high attributes create characters who are inordinately hard to kill...and when I read Tolkien's books, I see characters who die far too readily. Extra Courage would give the characters "moments of epic greatness" (very much like we see in The Iliad, which surely had some influence on Tolkien) without making them invulnerable. Fingolfin didn't beat Morgoth, he merely fought with greatness for a short time.

Scottomir,

Quote:
Ancalagon Greatest of the winged dragons of Morgoth, destroyed by Eärendil.

Incorrect. Ancalagon was STATED by Tolkien as being the greatest dragon EVER to appear in Arda. No Scatha or Smaug are not at that level. The "first battle" Ancalagon participated in, was also the greatest battle there ever was - they were up against the host of the Valar. It was Ancalagon who led the attack that drove back the forces of the Valar, until Eärendil showed up and slew him. Ancalagon's fall caused the towers of Thangorodrim to crumble to bits. Nothing like this was even close from later dragons.

Quote:
Before the rising of the sun Eärendil slew Ancalagon the Black, the mightiest of the dragon-host, and cast him from the sky; and he fell upon the towers of Thangorodrim, and they were broken in his ruin.

The Shadow of the Past:

Quote:
‘Your small fire, of course, would not melt even ordinary gold. This Ring has already passed through it unscathed, and even unheated. But there is no smith’s forge in this Shire that could change it at all. Not even the anvils and furnaces of the Dwarves could do that. It has been said that dragon-fire could melt and consume the Rings of Power, but there is not now any dragon left on earth in which the old fire is hot enough; nor was there ever any dragon, not even Ancalagon the Black, who could have harmed the One Ring, the Ruling Ring, for that was made by Sauron himself. There is only one way: to find the Cracks of Doom in the depths of Orodruin, the Fire-mountain, and cast the Ring in there, if you really wish to destroy it, to put it beyond the grasp of the Enemy for ever.’

If Gandalf felt Smaug was in the same league, then why not just mention him instead of Ancalagon - his account was much more recent to the memories of those around him?

As for Glaurung being taken down easily, that is a statement which is a re-occuring theme throughout his works. Smaug was felled by a single arrow from Bard. Sam defeated (or at least fought off) Shelob and so on.

The Orcs were a "New" race in the First Age (As were the others). Their bloodline - even if its only an Orc, has not been weakened by time. Melkor took Elves he captured and twisted them into this foul race, the first of these would be much stronger since breeding (orc to orc) dilutes the strain and thus it is weakened. The First Battle of Beleriand is still greater than any of the Third Age and it was not even on par with later battles of that same age. In this battle it was Orcs vs. Elves and there the Eldar took many losses. I cannot see this happening in the Third Age, the Orcs were much weaker.

Am not not saying to make it a "Marvel Superheros" type game or to jack the attributes sky high. But to say the folks in the Third Age were equal to those of the First Age is simply incorrect. It is not just my interpretation - its Tolkien's as well (and I tend to agree with what he says).

Quote:
"The beginning the Eldar Chidlren of Iluvatar were stronger and greater than they have since become; but not more fair."

Now for how that may equate to issues in LOTR RPG using the CODA rules, I would again agree with you. It is problematic and one of the reasons I'm not a fan of the system.

BTW - this post or others by me are no way meant to be a slight against you, just a good debate. I hope you see it as this and nothing else.

[Scottomir]

Originally posted by vgunn
"The beginning the Eldar Chidlren of Iluvatar were stronger and greater than they have since become; but not more fair."

BTW - this post or others by me are no way meant to be a slight against you, just a good debate. I hope you see it as this and nothing else.

I certainly don't take anything as a slight against me. I welcome debate and disagreement. I appreciate your digging into the text to back up your arguments. By the by, my "Marvel Superheroes" remark was not meant to belittle your valid position but rather to express a concern about how attribute boosts might disrupt the game mechanics.

I think I am persuaded by your argument about dragons. If Scatha and Smaug were on par with Ancalagon, then Gandalf might just as well have mentioned them instead. However, I'm not sure that Ancalagon's fall smashing Thangorodrim is necessarily indicative. After all, Smaug's fall apparently wiped out an entire town. Whenever anything big and heavy falls fast from the sky, stuff on the ground is going to get mooshed.

Your quote about the Eldar is useful...I had it in mind, too, and tried unsuccessfully to find it. However, I think it can be interpreted to support either of our positions. Does "stronger" and "greater" refer to physical prowess, or to the might of their realms and magic and spirit? I think you stress the former, I stress the latter. The theme of "fading" that Manveru mentions is important--much of the "greatness" of the First Age had faded by the Third. But I think that greatness was in spirit, beauty, nobility, and feats of magic. The First Age witnessed more and greater feats of creation, and all that remained by the Third Age were a few surviving fragments of that early glory. Elves and Dunedain, the "great" folk of the First Age, had dwindled in numbers and collective power. Their realms had dwindled to scattered havens or divided kingdoms. No longer were the Elves or Dunedain capable of the great works of magic or feats of prowess...but that is why I favor using Courage to distinguish the ages.