LG, NG, CG

Remove all ads!

To me Chaotic, in the D&D sense of the term, means not only not following the law or what is accepted by your society as the law, but to be a free spirit as well. Elves in tolkiens world fit this description. In the D&D world, most of the fairy creatures all are considered CG(by TSR and Wotc at least). Fairy creatures are all free spirits, roaming their environments without a care. Satyr's, Dryads, Pixies, Sprites, etc... I use the D&D example because this alignment system we are trying to fit the Fellowship into uses these parameters. That's the fun of it! Trying to mold Tolkien's characters into the D&D world is not easy and takes alot of consideration. I have tried to make a campaign world in the past using the 3rd edition rule set of D&D, using Middle Earth as the setting. It's a hard conversion to make. Probably why I have never finished it.

 

I agree with the free spirit bit but not with the lawlessness. I've never had the impression that elves in Tolkien's books were lawless creatures. It seems very odd to me.

According to that definition of Chaotic there can hardly be any organized elven society if we consider all elves to be chaotic by default.

Tolkien elves are more than just fairies (except in the Hobbit of course).

I think you may be sticking too close to the D&D ruleset. You clearly know more about the Forgotten Realms and D&D niceties than I do but if you were to take more liberties with D&D you'd probably find it easier to make up a Middle Earth campaign as I'm convinced that the way D&D considers elves is irrelevant and probably ill adapted to play elves from Middle Earth.

IMO the D&D ruleset never really captured the essential spirituality and otherworldliness of Tolkien's elves. I can't blame D&D for that though as it is a game and such an endeavour would be quite daunting indeed.

 

Sorry Caradhras, I meant that Elves are free descriptor, not the completely lawless type. I could of typed that one up a little more clearly. They do have Lords, that to me would imply laws. As a whole, they are a Free people.

Creating rules for the different types of Elves was a big obstacle, as you would probably need to use ECLs. As were the classes. Tolkien's Ranger is not the D&D Ranger. Same for Wizards. Radagast is definitely a Druid. The magic system in Tolkiens world is the biggest obstacle to convert in my opinion. I.C.E. made a mess of it.

 

I think that in that case less is more.

You don't have to make rules about every other details but if you go for ECL then your average Tolkien elf (I'm not even considering Glorfindel) is going to suffer from a very high ECL unless you decide to drop that and assume the fact that elves (and Dúnedain or rangers) are vastly superior to humans and that elves as immortal beings gather more experience than any human could dream of in a lifetime. How can you balance that with being a human? Besides, should you balance that? It would be quite rare anyway in the Third Age for an elf to be adventuring with humans.

You're right about classes too. If you think about Gandalf you realize that some of his powers must have come from his ring (Narya, the ring of fire which Cirdan gave him) it's certainly not easy to define him according to the D&D ruleset.

Alignments are probably the easier part. If I were to make a Middle Earth campaign with D&D I'd drop all the rules that don't fit, I wouldn't focus too much on balance and I'd make all spellcasting (with the exception of minor cantrips) for NPC only as I wouldn't intend for my players to play an Istari anyway.

I'm pretty sure that simplifying the game would help capturing the magic of Middle Earth in a more satisfying way than using one of the most complicated (not complex) ruleset as a basis which is exactly what ICE did when they decided to use Rolemaster to create MERP. The biggest fault was to allow too much spellcasting in that game when magic in the books is both extremely rare and powerful.

 

The only way I see to balance the racial abilities of elves to Humans was this. Don't change them. At least not drastically. Elves in Tolkien's world are vastly superior to most humans. But, they have been living for a very long time and have experienced much. So, when making new pcs, they will still be "weak". Is a Noldor born with tons of knowledge or does he learn it from his teachers, parents and kin? I think with a little bump in ECL, a Noldor could be as follows....

Noldor Elf
ECL 3
Dex+2, Int+2, Wis+2
- Base Speed 40.
- Size - Medium
- Darkvison 60'
- Proficient in Large & Short Swords & Bows
- Immune to all non-magical diseases
- +4 S.T. vs. Non-Magical poisons.
- Immune to Sleep-Magic, +2 S.T. vs. Enchantment magic
- +2 Listen, Serach & Spot skills
- +2 Bonus to all S.T.
- Favored Class: Any(must choose at Character Creation)
- Bonus Languages: To Be Determined....

 

That's a good start but perhaps giving Grey Elves to players would be a better option as they wouldn't be too powerful. IMO Legolas would have a hard time trying to compete with Glorfindel or Galadriel.

By the way if we're going to discuss Tolkien and D&D it would perhaps be a good idea to create a different topic as we're no longer discussing alignments.

 

My answers are based on consequences of actions (consequentialism) :

The lawful good character is generally seen as lawful because he seeks to limit the conscience of individuals. The chaotic good is seen as good because everything he does is usually limited by the fact he is good i.e A chaotic good character usually wouldn't steal for himself. The means he is using however to bring such good disrupts order in society.

Once again, people don't understand the concept of the law/chaos axis very well. Lawful characters limit possibilities be it by limiting the conscience of others or his own. Neutral characters generally follow the law because they do not disrupt groups/individuals/society (chaotic). There is a difference between following the law (neutral) and obeying orders (generally lawful depending on the situation). Chaotic characters promote anarchy because they prevent orderly structures from reaching her goals without disruption.
And IMO, lawful characters should not be obliged to be undisruptive to society as long as she doesn't cross the line.

Law/chaos doesn't necessarily have anything to do with who is better between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good. It really depends on the needs of the society. Like I mentioned earlier in one of my posts, if you got a Lawful Evil government who prevents any signs of rebellions and make commoners pay outrageous amount of taxes, you definitely want a Chaotic Good character to change the Status-Quo in this situation and promote individual freedom forbidden by the Lawful Evil government.

But then, if you got a Chaotic Evil government where Egoist anarchism is prominent, than you definitely want a Lawful Good character to promote Order that will benefit evolution.

Hope this helps a little bit

Ahh the alignment!