forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

The Istari are not a culture, they are five named individuals whose story is already written (at least three of them, the other two are sketched).

Nothing wrong if you want to play as Gandalf, Radagast or Saruman (or Allatar or Palando but these guys went to east lands and the far south), but then I guess the rest of the players will want to play famous characters as well.

Phaide

Check the Wizard LM character in my Fan Supplement ( I forget who provided it ) in my Resources page

I am working on my own character for my updated Magic Rules which I hope to have ready by the end of this year.

Robin S.

With the development of the Eye of Mordor rules we did discuss how far they could stretch and some consequences of allowing Istari (and other notables outside the current scope of The One Ring) as playable characters. So never say never. But don't hold your breath either.

Speaking from a personal standpoint, rather than for any part of the team, (though I doubt I'm alone here) I'd be very wary of us building rules that by necessity have us reveal or codify too much of the inner workings of Middle-earth. Once you start adding names and numbers to things that should be mysterious I think atmosphere and "feel" can run into trouble fast. It'd be one to be handled with even more extreme care than usual. And I don't know that the care dial goes that high.

Are Istari specifically mentioned in The Hobbit or LoTR? If not then M-eE are going to come down or rather Christopher Tolkien will appear from the heavens and spout fire and lawyers and rage about his father not signing away that part of his work.

Elfcrusher wrote:Basically anything supernatural & immortal (but not undead) is actually a Maia.

Definition of a Maia: any Ainu who entered Ëa who is not a Vala.

The trick is deciding which entities are Ainur, which are Children of Ilúvatar, and which are part of Ëa itself.

Jon Hodgson wrote:With the development of the Eye of Mordor rules we did discuss how far they could stretch and some consequences of allowing Istari (and other notables outside the current scope of The One Ring) as playable characters. So never say never. But don't hold your breath either.

Speaking from a personal standpoint, rather than for any part of the team, (though I doubt I'm alone here) I'd be very wary of us building rules that by necessity have us reveal or codify too much of the inner workings of Middle-earth. Once you start adding names and numbers to things that should be mysterious I think atmosphere and "feel" can run into trouble fast. It'd be one to be handled with even more extreme care than usual. And I don't know that the care dial goes that high.

Interesting stuff there Jon and I quite agree. I do think the Eye of Mordor rules are excellent for adding such complications to a game and give a really good 'game mechanic' reason for why high-powered characters stay in their havens, demesnes and sanctuaries. I remember play-testing them around Christmas time with my 'Return to the Marsh Bell' scenario and being really impressed with what Francesco had come up with; although I didn't get to use them fully as the player characters fled the sunken city too soon!

Jon Hodgson wrote:With the development of the Eye of Mordor rules we did discuss how far they could stretch and some consequences of allowing Istari (and other notables outside the current scope of The One Ring) as playable characters. So never say never. But don't hold your breath either.

Speaking from a personal standpoint, rather than for any part of the team, (though I doubt I'm alone here) I'd be very wary of us building rules that by necessity have us reveal or codify too much of the inner workings of Middle-earth. Once you start adding names and numbers to things that should be mysterious I think atmosphere and "feel" can run into trouble fast. It'd be one to be handled with even more extreme care than usual. And I don't know that the care dial goes that high.

Agreed. The care dial very much does NOT go to 11.

Wow, this is a lot more complex than I anticipated. Although I must admit I have enjoyed watching this discussion unfold. I can understand both sides of the the argument for and against. I for one want the ability to play one, or at the very least run one as an NPC. Having one of them started out in some fashion would help me know the limits of what they are capable of.

Now, with that said, I'm also the guy that wants to play the dragon in D&D. Why? Because they are cool. Simple as that. My desire to play an Istari is a little more complicated than the cool factor, but at its heart don't we all want to play someone like Gandalf at some point?

I'm not sure any of us are capable of playing Gandalf

He would know more or as much as the Loremaster, would have so many pans on the fire and so many to watch - it would be no easy task to a) roleplay him or b) loremaster for him.

Gandalf is the primary mover and shaker in the later half of the third age for the free peoples, (should have been Saruman but he got distracted with a ring obsession).

poosticks7 wrote:(should have been Saruman but he got distracted with a ring obsession).

... And all those Tupperware parties as well, don't forget. You can get the containers in many different colours.