Talk:J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (3.5e Campaign Setting)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Isn't there already a full blown Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game? I'm not sure if this is something that belongs on a Dungeons and Dragons Wiki. If this is already a discussion someplace and I just missed it, let me know. --Calidore Chase 11:30, 19 August 2007 (MDT)

There is a LotR roleplay game, but it really isnt fullblown: it is out of print, badly made, and uses a poor set of rules. Having actuially seen the rules I was disapointed with the result: it appeared rushed, porly written and not worthwile playing. Using the Dungeons & Dragons system with a LotR campaign setting would have better results (I actually read MERP1 while I was creating the 1st edition of the campaign setting, and thought that I needn't continue with the creation of a LotR campaign setting, but was disapointed with its rules system). Merp is actually very rare now (and for good reason). Why learn a new, game system of inferior quality when you can just use a system we all already play?
There is another discussion, but that was on copyright stuff (a problem eventually solved with help from "One Wiki to Rule Them All").
1Middle Earth Role Playing
--Sam Kay 02:42, 20 August 2007 (MDT)
Groovy, wasn't too concerned about copyright as I'm sure it would have been pulled right quickly if there had been a problem in that regard. Have fun stating out the LOTR. --Calidore Chase 14:10, 28 August 2007 (MDT)
Apparently one has too much of DM of the Rings. Regardless, this seems like a awesome idea to have on the wiki. -- Flession 08:12, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
Where did you find that? It's brilliant. Although I still prefer The Soddit and The Sellamillion for LotR parodies... only problem is, you don't get clerics is D&D LotR (no Deities to worship, and the Valar don't really accept worship) :) I figured a wood elf druid would replace the cleric, while the shaman would replace it for orcs (clerics for orcs, but slightly different, and arcane). --Sam Kay 09:00, 18 September 2007 (MDT)

Legal Disclaimer[edit]

Since all the legal disclaimers are the same I have made a template (Template:Legal Disclaimer (LotR Supplement)). This way if they need to be quickly modified it will be a lot easier to do. I hope you do not mind. --Green Dragon 17:15, 26 August 2007 (MDT)

No, I prefer it as a template. --Sam Kay 06:51, 30 August 2007 (MDT)
Thats always good! Also, do you want the color switched to a more D&D-Wiki look? --Green Dragon 11:32, 3 September 2007 (MDT)
Yeah. How do I do that? --Sam Kay 11:34, 3 September 2007 (MDT)
Well, I gave it a shot. I do not think it looks all that great, however to see what I changed you can look at the diff. What do you think needs to be improved? --Green Dragon 11:48, 3 September 2007 (MDT)
It's looks much better now. Thanks! I don't think any more alterations are needed to it now. --Sam Kay 11:50, 3 September 2007 (MDT)
Glad to have helped. --Green Dragon 11:55, 3 September 2007 (MDT)


Currently I have placed all the LotR deities under the "LotR Supplement" identifier, however once they are brought up to the standards that are set by DnD Deities they need to be added to DnD Deities and their identifiers need to be changed to "DnD Deity". --Green Dragon 17:51, 26 August 2007 (MDT)

I would like to keep ther Valar and Maiar seperate from D&D deities, please. My reasoning for this is that the Valar, though they are Gods, are quite differnt from standard Gods; you don't really worship them, and you don't have clerics of the valar. The only reason I set them out in the same way as a deity is because some orc shamen draw powers granted from morgoth (the evil valar) or some of the greater Maiar Demons. I can't really see a "Cleric of Manwe" in any D&D game...
I would also like too keep them from having the (D&D Deity) identifier, on the account of the fact that they aren't worshiped in the same way as a Deity is. --Sam Kay 07:10, 30 August 2007 (MDT)
Sounds fine. --Green Dragon 17:56, 6 September 2007 (MDT)
Shall I leave the "LotR Supplement" identifier, or change it back to ",LotR (Valar)" and ",LotR (Maiar)? --Sam Kay 08:30, 7 September 2007 (MDT)
Everything that does not have a specific identifier needs to be "LotR Supplement" so people know what it relates to. However, you could have it ", Valar (LotR Supplement)". Anyway, I hope you see the reason for everything having an identifier. --Green Dragon 08:59, 7 September 2007 (MDT)
Of course. I'll get right on it... --Sam Kay 09:10, 7 September 2007 (MDT)


I'm giving this a provision rating of a 5 (under construction). I am positive that this will grow into a true 5 as you work on it. --Dmilewski 09:05, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Hm... I think rating should reflect the current progress, not things that could be. What do you think a good current rating would be? --Green Dragon 20:21, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
The setting is already well understood by those who want to use that setting. All of the fluff for the setting exists as an entire wiki dedicated to that subject. That's worth 5/5. What remains to be done is writing the game stats for those elements that need statistics. In comparing this setting to most 3/5, this setting already surpasses those setting in development. Right now, the supplement is usable by others, but still needs development as a supplement. That makes it a 4/5. For me, it's very close to a 5.
To get a 5, the supplement really needs to help get me into Middle Earth and adventuring. That's the bit that is missing. As a DM, I want to know how to get into this world. --Dmilewski 05:52, 13 September 2007 (MDT)
It has been made a 4, for the moment. --Green Dragon 16:38, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
Thanks, though the background is not really my work... (got to thank Mr. Tolkien there). I'm just getting the rest of the rules done (monsters... such a pain). I haven't done much in the last few days due to my huge amount of warhammer to paint (I am really unorganised when it comes to painting), but it is now one of my top priorities... should be done soon. Plus some more tweaks. --Sam Kay 07:49, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
Wait... You do know that you'll be able to go into the hole of Arda, not just Middle Earth... INTERESTING FACT: The Lord of the Rings is set in our own planet, earth, in a mythological time period created by Mr. Tolkien himself. Arda means "the world that is". --Sam Kay 13:53, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
That's part of the 4/5 rating. There's so much to Arda that I don't know where to begin. What does it mean to set an adventure in each age? How are racial relations different? How is the outlook of the world different? How does the presence and relationship with magic differ? What are the major themes of the age? Who are the primary personalities? How does your party make a difference to that age? Right now, I'm hip deep in the same questions with the 800 CE setting. It's entirely historical, but there's so much to take in that any new GM will need help getting a handle on the setting. Not only do you want the facts of the setting correct, you want the FEEL correct. There's a tough job.--Dmilewski 18:35, 15 September 2007 (MDT)
And that is why I can only provide the rules for the world, not the background info. For that you'll need to do abit of reasearch- I recommend The Simarillion for aspiring LotR D&D Dms. --Sam Kay 11:06, 17 September 2007 (MDT)
I think it is finished (though others are free to add to my work!), ands so is ready for a new rating. What do you think? --Sam Kay 10:47, 28 September 2007 (MDT)
Let's crank the rating to a 5. Some advice for a game is still desired. You don't need to reference the setting. Just discuss the topic a little. If you aren't sure, then I can write an essay for you. --Dmilewski 10:58, 28 September 2007 (MDT)
Great, thanks (for the rating)! I'll sit down and write up some advice and add it at a later date.--Sam Kay 11:55, 28 September 2007 (MDT)


I wish to add a quote to the title page (and possably others as well). To help me decide which one(s) to add, go here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam Kay (talkcontribs) 13:56, 22 September 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

Where are these quotes going to be added? Are they going to be repeated and repeated, or what is happening with them exactly? --Green Dragon 22:28, 23 September 2007 (MDT)
One on the title page, and others once I find suitable quotes on subpages (such as races).--Sam Kay 10:09, 24 September 2007 (MDT)
Oh, so the voting is about a good quote for the title page? --Green Dragon 15:32, 24 September 2007 (MDT)
Yeah, but remember we need one that works for the hole of Arda, not just LotR. Which is why we need a vote, as I am not sure the top one would be suitable. --Sam Kay 07:20, 26 September 2007 (MDT)
Honestly, you should just decide on your own. I know almost nothing about LotR (I, actually, know about as much as the movies show :P) and since you running this CS you should pick. I highly doubt anyone else will vote, other than you, and you would know best. --Green Dragon 10:00, 26 September 2007 (MDT)
Ok, I see your point. You can delete the quotes page. Thanks, anyway. --Sam Kay 08:37, 27 September 2007 (MDT)
If you want it reverted just let me know :). --Green Dragon 22:52, 27 September 2007 (MDT)

Homebrew LotR Content[edit]

If you wish to add your own homebrew class, character option, NPC etc in any of the homebrew areas, feel free to do so. The title should have; ", LotR" (like "Shelob, LotR (DnD NPC)"), and have [[Category:LotR Setting]]. --Sam Kay 10:33, 28 September 2007 (MDT)

PDF File In The Works[edit]

Just thought I'd post that I am working on a PDF file for Sam Kay so that you may download and look at the LOTR campaign setting in a nice pretty document. Work has been started on most of the images and I'm just waiting for Sam to email me the word document containing a compilation of the latest rules. --ShadowyFigure 15:36, 6 November 2007 (MST)

As a side comment, just so you know, D&D Wiki does not have structured hosting or downloading for non-image files (like .pdf's). Just giving you a heads up. --Green Dragon 21:11, 6 November 2007 (MST)
How ever I could upload it somewhere else and post a link to the download site couldn't I? --ShadowyFigure 05:43, 7 November 2007 (MST)
Of course. --Green Dragon 21:56, 7 November 2007 (MST)
Where would you put the PDF? Alternatively, you could make it a word doccument, wikimedia supports that, doesn't it? --Sam Kay 06:53, 9 November 2007 (MST)

LotR and the SRD Wizard?[edit]

Discussion moved from SRD Talk:Wizard#Wizards It pertains to LotR, not the SRD wizard --Green Dragon 13:37, 24 December 2007 (MST)

Is this class appropriate to a LoftR setting? Tolkien's Wizards were five in number, and were actually demi-gods in human form. None of them, so far as we know, passed their magical knowledge along. The use of "socercery" by humans was invariably presented as corrupting and evil, as in the fall of Numeror, the decline of Gondor, etc.

Obviously this is an important class to gamers, but I'd like to hear a little more of the (article) author's ideas as to how the DnD wizard fits in with Tolkien's legendarium. -- S1Q3T3 12:24, 17 December 2007 (MST)

Not true. A common mistake. In Unfinnished Tales, it states:
Of this order the number is unknown, but of those that came to Middle-Earth, where there was most hope (because of the remenants of the Dûnedain, and of the Eldar that abode there), the cheifs where five.
—J.R.R Tolkien, Unfinished Tales, part IV, II: The Istari, page 503.
The cheifs of those in Middle Earth where five, not all the wizards in total. Therefore a player could play an Istar without going against something Tolkien stated. --Sam Kay 10:21, 23 December 2007 (MST)
Saruman explicitly refers to the Staffs of the "Five Wizards," and five are named, in total. I don't have "Unfinished Tales," but the passage you've quoted seems to suggest that there could be others. That is a minority position, however; the number five is not just a "common" idea but a generally accepted one, citing another passage in which the five were chosen ( Of course, you are welcome to your own interpretation, and it is certainly my philosophy to go with the interpretation that serves your game and your vision (for my approach to integrating Tolkien's magic and DnD, see here and here). But even if there were more Wizards, they would still be Maiar, powerful, immortal beings with 34,000 years of knowledge and the light of the Trees in their eyes. I can't see them as an ECL 1.
Thank you for providing that quote; I'm going to look into this matter further. I've often had the experience of feeling that the conventional wisdom flew in the face of the available evidence, so I in no way am dismissing your interpretation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by S1Q3T3 (talkcontribs) 11:39, 23 December 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts!
That quote on the blue wizards is in the same essay, and is less explicit than mine. And the "staffs of the five wizards" could easily be refuring to the cheifs- neither explicitly states that there weren't other wizards. About the thing about ECL 1 wizards, yes, that is a good point, wizards where mighty and powerful. Which is why Ganalf would be ECL higher than Elminster. But the strength of wizards would vary, and there is evry possibility of ECL 1 wizards. Plus, playing a wizard would be fun. I can't stifle that fun with realism. Just like I had to reduce the strength of the Balrog to make it CR 20 so that it could be used in a ordinary games. You still have the option of ruling that all wizards have at least 20 levels or increasing Balrog's strength to CR 50. --Sam Kay 07:44, 24 December 2007 (MST)
Later in that same section of Unfinished Tales the published LotR trilogy is quoted. From appendix B: "The two highest of this order (of whom it was said there were five) were called by the Eldar . . . ."
That in itself ends the debate. Materials published under the author's name and supervision while they were alive take precedence over anything collected and published by executors after their demise. Furthermore, the following quote from 1956 shows Tolkien held to the view cited above: "[T]he names of the other two wizards (five minus Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast) . . . ." Page 401, emphasis mine.
In this case the majority opinion is the correct one. -- S1Q3T3 17:49, 26 December 2007 (MST)
Just because Tolkien calls something a Wizard and so do WotC doesn't mean they're the same thing. There are others who use magic in LotR- a lot of Elves, Elrond for example, and some evil people- they could use the Wizard D&D class (although Sorcerer might be more appropriate). MorkaisChosen 08:41, 24 December 2007 (MST)
Which is why elves can be sorcerers, druids and bards, and several other things, I think... Good point about the wizard thing. Could add that to the chart. --Sam Kay 09:36, 24 December 2007 (MST)
Another point is that is says "of whom it was said there where five"- that is by no means difinitive, all it means is that people believed there to be five. It's like the balrog thing- there where probably no more than seven. That just means that there could have been 50, but there probably wasn't. There are so many such conflictions, nobody could say there where only 5 for cirtain. --Sam Kay 04:29, 27 December 2007 (MST)
I'm not sure you're hearing me when I say that these are fictional worlds, that elaborating on them is a creative right like any other, and that you are right to interpret the text in line with what serves your campaign. That said, the published works say five. Published trumps unpublished. This isn't an issue of Tolkien or RPGs; it's a basic rule of textual scholarship. As it happens, I have some training in that area, so I know something about it. The issue is not whether you can imagine there might be more, but whether there is anything in the work published under the supervision of the author that would suggest it. As far as I know, there is not. The characters refer to five wizards. The appendix refers to five wizards. If you want to assume that the appendix is in error, and that unpublished works reflect the author's true view, that is your prerogative. But that does not make the contrary position a "mistake" common or otherwise. -- 15:39, 4 January 2008 (MST)
When discussing a text one cannot use a wikipedia article about a book with only references to other web pages. If I could be bothered there are a lot of templates that need to be added to that page stub, citations needed etc. When you are breaking a text down you need to read it very carefully as Sam mentions the grammar of the quote does not say conclusively there are five it says that in arda common knowledge dictates their are five, it also says "of this order" tolkien never documented the whole of the world nor all ages this line is very open to their being more orders of wizards unmentioned in his books (that sentence would so get me flamed to hell on a Tolkien forum). --Hawk 09:08, 5 March 2008 (MST)


When I first saw this I thought, cool! I can use this. But as I looked over the fluff and characters I realised it really isnt even close to be finished, considering how poor the formating is. This campaign setting is way incomplete. It needs to be rerated, I think that 3/5 would be generous.

Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew, pages!
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors