Eriador my way

[Angelalex242]

There's not even a corruption check against the Voice? I'd at least give players a wisdom check (TN 20) to decide listening to Saruman's a bad idea.

Why is it?

Obviously this all depends on the timeline of any particular campaign, but it's arguably not until 2051 when Saruman starts to really lust after the ring. 2053 is when he sets up spies/agents in Bree and Southfarthing, but that could just be because he suspects gandalf is hiding 'something' from him (and he is, afterall, the head of the order).

It's not until 3000 when he uses the Palantir in Orthanc when we can definitively say he'd been ensnared/turned evil.

Arrogant, proud, selfish etc. before hand quite possibly, but I don't think he's not a bad guy until 3000

I assume you mean 2951/2953. But even so, having Saruman as a patron is right down there with having Anakin Skywalker or (more appropriate) Jedi Dooku as a patron. Is he good? Well, TECHNICALLY. Is relying on him for advice a good idea? Probably not.

[Glorelendil]

Wait...I want to hear more about these cookies. What kind? Do I get some immediately upon, you know, "enlisting"?

[PST]

I assume you mean 2951/2953. But even so, having Saruman as a patron is right down there with having Anakin Skywalker or (more appropriate) Jedi Dooku as a patron. Is he good? Well, TECHNICALLY. Is relying on him for advice a good idea? Probably not.

Yep, 2951/53 not 2051/53. My point is more that until he turns to evil he's not, well, evil. Metagaming certainly means that no one would want to heed his advice, but for example he turns up in DoM and doesn't do anything nefarious. Likewise he's a potential source of information and lore for any company.

Albeit I don't think it would be a long campaign, but with the right players you could do something interesting involving them being amongst his agents set to watch Bree/The Shire. And likewise he can have agents searching the Anduin, or Eregion, Anuminas, Fornost and all sorts of places, willing to retain more mercenary companies or convince noble-hearted groups of why they should assist one of The Wise.

But anyways, this is going adrift from the general Eriador thread.

[Otaku-sempai]

Obviously this all depends on the timeline of any particular campaign, but it's arguably not until 2051 when Saruman starts to really lust after the ring. 2053 is when he sets up spies/agents in Bree and Southfarthing, but that could just be because he suspects gandalf is hiding 'something' from him (and he is, afterall, the head of the order).

It's not until 3000 when he uses the Palantir in Orthanc when we can definitively say he'd been ensnared/turned evil.

Arrogant, proud, selfish etc. before hand quite possibly, but I don't think he's not a bad guy until 3000

Saruman definitely goes bad before TA 3000. Probably no later than 2953 when he took Isengard for his own and fortified it. At that point he started gathering Orcs and Dunlendings, secretly sending them against Rohan and Fangorn. It was probably at this time that he began breeding his Half-orcs. He was doing far more than just spying on the Shire. Saruman's corruption took hold long before his mind was ensared by Sauron.

[PST]

Saruman definitely goes bad before TA 3000. Probably no later than 2953 when he took Isengard for his own and fortified it. At that point he started gathering Orcs and Dunlendings, secretly sending them against Rohan and Fangorn. It was probably at this time that he began breeding his Half-orcs. He was doing far more than just spying on the Shire. Saruman's corruption took hold long before his mind was ensared by Sauron.

Where are you finding the source that he started to send Dunlendings and orcs to attack Rohan/Fangorn before 2953?

Actually i'm going to spin this off to another thread in the hope of keeping this focused on Eriador.

[Otaku-sempai]

I did not say 'before'. This was soon after Saruman fortified Orthanc. However, the first signs of Saruman's fall go back to the White Council of TA 2851 when he opposed attacking Sauron at Dol Guldur because he had a secret agenda that he was hiding from the rest of the Council.

[Láthspell]

Thoughts regarding Bree as a Sanctuary are that it is essentially Eriador's equivalent of Lake-Town. It is centrally located and comparatively inclusive and thus seems like an ideal location to be the "Starting Haven" for adventurers West of the Misty Mountains, much like Esgaroth is for Wilderland. Hobbits and Men of Bree already live there, and Hobbits of the Shire could easily journey. Dwarf traders traveling between the Ered Luin and Erebor would undoubtably use it as a stop over and thus no strangers within the city walls. Rangers, while not terribly, welcome are still found there from time to time, and there are the occasional strangers from the South as well. Only the Elves of the Havens and Rivendell would not fit in that well.

Wait...I want to hear more about these cookies. What kind? Do I get some immediately upon, you know, "enlisting"?

Er... yes? Or so I've been led to believe... they also give out free* trinkets... Rings and seeing-stones... nothing you'd be interested in I'm sure, but it is free* loot.

[Falenthal]

About Eriador, I always liked the idea of Fornost Ruins (Deadman's Dike) being a Sanctuary for Rangers of the North, that hide their...well, hide-out behind ghost stories and maybe some tricks to keep watchers away. I suspect orcs and goblins are as afraid of undead as hobbits and men.

It might fit the quote from the LotR:

"And many folk used to dwell away North, a hundred miles or more from here, at the far end of the Greenway: on the North Downs or by Lake Evendim."

"Up away by Deadman's Dike?" said Butterburr, looking even more dubious. "That's haunted land, they say. None but a robber would go there."

"The rangers go there," said Gandalf. "Deadman's Dike, you say. So it has been called for long years; but its right name, Barliman, is Fornost Erain, Norbury of Kings."

If the Rangers are befriended, it might qualify as Sanctuary and a Patron might be put there, in charge of the Ranger's activities. Who was the Chief of the Rangers in that time period? Arathorn, the father of Aragorn, maybe?

[Tolwen]

As far as developing settlements and 'people for the heroes to care about' we have Tolkien's 100 leagues quote to contend with, which I'm going to be wavy-handed about. Nothing the size of Bree, nothing new but some old settlements, cities, towns and villages might still linger as very faded remnants of their former glories. Which is, in essence the overall feel of the whole region, faded glory, the lost and near-forgotten lands that once-were.

Man, am I glad you posted this - I'm struggling with many of the same issues. In particular, how are you handling the 100 leagues problem in terms of one of these forgotten villages?

I also saw the "100 leagues" quote in a similar way in the OM13 essay.

“In those days [at the time of the LotR] no other men had settled dwellings so far west [as Bree], or within a hundred leagues of the Shire.”
—The Lord of the Rings.At the Sign of the Prancing Pony

Of course it shouldn't be easily dismissed if you're trying to emulate Tolkien's vision as closely as possible. But even then, the context suggests IMO that it speaks of organized settlements, i.e. with a minimum size to make some kind of "political" organization (and be it only a mayor or alderman) necessary. I guess the example of Bree, Archet and Staddle might be seen as appropriate minimum sizes.

Thus, your isolated homestead, trapper's hut or hidden hamlet trying to survive on subsistence (and not so few of them failing in this) should always be fine. You have to keep in mind though to keep their size and importance low enough to make them not worth mentioning as a "settled dwelling"; i.e. a settlement being able to reasonably secure and safe in terms of survival. On the reverse, all of your "small" settlements are fine as long as they sufficiently weak to be constantly threatened by destruction even without any supernatural means. Wild animals (wolves), bandits, small parties of orcs and especially inclement weather or harvests would and should be always more than sufficient to put an end to any of these small "wilderness dwellers". In a word, they would always be more or less on the brink of destruction even through "minor" causes.
Due to this precarious situation, they could probably hardly be counted as sanctuaries, though well-suited as stopover or temporary refuge during an adventure.

Cheers
Tolwen

[Tolwen]

Who was the Chief of the Rangers in that time period? Arathorn, the father of Aragorn, maybe?

Arathorn got killed in TA 2933 and Aragorn was revealed his ancestry in TA 2951 (by Elrond) and probably officially declared Chieftain of the Rangers. This is IMO implied by that passage, though it is not explicitly stated in that words.
However, durin the 18 years in-between, probably some senior Ranger (likely descended from a previous Chieftain in a cadet branch) was likely some kind of Steward until the young heir was ready to take office. And even after that, the Rangers needed a sufficiently capable corps of senior officers to organize and keep up the watch over Eriador. From TA 2957-80 Aragorn is out adventuring on his great errantries, probably being absent from Eriador for many years at a time. Likewise, the Rangers then needed a robust system of senior "officers" - and some kind of Steward - that keep the business in Eriador up and running.

Cheers
Tolwen