Tolkienizing the Gibbet King

[Corvo]

Thank you for your time and ideas, Tolwen.
By the way, I'm well aware that comparing Nazgul, Barrow-wights and WW is like comparing apple to oranges to shoes: they are three things with diferent natures. I was wondering if the narrative tool of having a material anchor could somehow be used for the WW, too.

I agree with your suggestion: changing completely the way it works would be the neat way to go. But Since I already narrated a death of the WW (by Orphal), I'm bound to follow this path
What I'm mulling about at the moment is Sauron providing an anchor to the WW in exchange for his servitude. Something hugely powerful, that was destroyed or terribly diminished when the WW was defeated, so that killing the beast was an huge blow to the Enemy.
I'm straying into heretical territory now, but I'm thinking about one of the Seven* (admittedly, some of my favourite "forgotten" topics).
Well, just brainstorming, really. But the beast was effectively killed once in my campaign, and it came back some weeks later, and this I cannot change.

*by the way:

(...)Having an artifact like a Great Ring (see the Nine) might help to preserve and enhance your power/strength (it will likely do so), but once you are killed you have a problem as the item is then no longer under your control (your enemy that just slew you can grab it) and you might face a problem (...)

In another topic there was a discussion about the nine rings, and I think the general consensus was that they were kept by Sauron, and weren't to the fingers of the Black Riders.
So maybe there is some room for a Great Ring as an anchor

[Tolwen]

Thank you for your time and ideas, Tolwen.

In another topic there was a discussion about the nine rings, and I think the general consensus was that they were kept by Sauron, and weren't to the fingers of the Black Riders.
So maybe there is some room for a Great Ring as an anchor

I thought that this might be mentioned sooner or later

Here we have to keep in mind one thing though. The Nine Rings are indeed in Sauron's keeping and they are his tools to control the Nazgûl from afar even when he lacks the One. The point is though, that this is possible since the Nine were totally enslaved by their respective ring, and by controlling this item, Sauron can keep his servants securely under his thumb even though he lacks the One. When he had the Ruling Ring, he could control them from afar even if they wore their Rings as well, and this would make them even more powerful - as hinted at by Gandalf.
But transferring the concept to the Werewolf would mean that he had to be totally and irrevocably enslaved to an item that is now controlled by Sauron

As I understand the concept (which is good IMO) the Werewolf had to be independently acting to draw suspicions away from Dol Guldur. Thus to me this "powerful item" thing doesn't seem to be an easy solution as well

Cheers
Tolwen

[Corvo]

Food for thoughts
In my campaign Sauron already declared himself openly, so there is little need for "distancing" himself from the beast.
And since my (main) fellowship is completely from Dale, I gave the whole DoM campaign a different bent:
the "fall" of Dol Guldur was a prepared ploy. What Sauron was unprepared to was the killing of the dragon and the restauration of Erebor and Dale. In my version of DoM, Dale is the beacon of Hope for the Wilderlands that can ultimately rally the Men against the Shadow. In that context, the Enemy is striving to keep the Men weak and divided, a necessity previously unforeseen and that warranted extreme measures (three of the Nine, the WW, later the forest d.).

[Tolwen]

Food for thoughts
In my campaign Sauron already declared himself openly, so there is little need for "distancing" himself from the beast.

Of course. We have to keep in mind though that this is but the very end of a long tale. The story of the Werewolf in Mirkwood begins (according to the CB, IMHO sensibly) in the 11th or 12th century TA, roughly 1,800 years before the DoM era. Its apparent independence of DG and the "decoy" function were important prior to TA 2850 (or even TA 2060 if we take into account the earlier suspicions). After Sauron's cover was officially blown, the Werewolf's primary role changed IMO from that of a decoy (probably one of many) to a tool of terror.
When thinking about the beast, its background and nature, all this should be considered as well to make the whole package fit well
Subtle plans with a long running time (on the scale of the temporal perception of Elves rather than Men or even Dwarves) and slow but clever fruitition are the hallmark of Sauron

Cheers
Tolwen

[Corvo]

Food for thoughts
In my campaign Sauron already declared himself openly, so there is little need for "distancing" himself from the beast.

Of course. We have to keep in mind though that this is but the very end of a long tale. The story of the Werewolf in Mirkwood begins (according to the CB, IMHO sensibly) in the 11th or 12th century TA, roughly 1,800 years before the DoM era. Its apparent independence of DG and the "decoy" function were important prior to TA 2850 (or even TA 2060 if we take into account the earlier suspicions). After Sauron's cover was officially blown, the Werewolf's primary role changed IMO from that of a decoy (probably one of many) to a tool of terror.
When thinking about the beast, its background and nature, all this should be considered as well to make the whole package fit well
Subtle plans with a long running time (on the scale of the temporal perception of Elves rather than Men or even Dwarves) and slow but clever fruitition are the hallmark of Sauron

Cheers
Tolwen

(bolding mine)
To me, it's just a matter of deciding when the beast was anchored. Between 2850 and 2950 is fair for me: I don't need it to be an ancient event.

That said, I'm so interested on this possible explanation (the "anchor" solution) because I want to avoid the whole body-hopping thing, yet the beast has already cheated death once in my campaign.
If someone gives a more interesting explanation for his "reincarnation", I'm all too eager to ditch the whole "one-of-the-seven" thing

Edit: Tolwen, can you tell me what book is "CB"? I don't recognize it
And thanks again for your ideas

[Tolwen]

To me, it's just a matter of deciding when the beast was anchored. Between 2850 and 2950 is fair for me: I don't need it to be an ancient event.

That said, I'm so interested on this possible explanation (the "anchor" solution) because I want to avoid the whole body-hopping thing, yet the beast has already cheated death once in my campaign.
If someone gives a more interesting explanation for his "reincarnation", I'm all too eager to ditch the whole "one-of-the-seven" thing

The timing is an important question here. First, why would the Werewolf seek such a thing in the first place? It would rob him of his ancient independence. The incentive must be truly great. Else Sauron might have "convinced" him in a nice and relaxed personal chat that it was in his own best interest

Second, when (time lapse after the first killing) is he supposed to be around again in your campaign? As outlined earlier, a "reconstruction" takes some time. In addition, the "subjugation" to the item also takes some time that has to be factored in.

IMO this has to be considered before a final solution can be found. IMO it's the second-best solution but as you said - you already have facts in your campaign

Edit: Tolwen, can you tell me what book is "CB"? I don't recognize it
And thanks again for your ideas

I use 'CB' for 'Core Book', i.e. the Core Rulesbook. And it's good to see that my ramblings help someone

Cheers
Tolwen