dangerous monster list

73 views
Skip to first unread message

Eddie Grove

unread,
Jun 8, 2008, 5:20:33 PM6/8/08
to
It was recently mentioned that it might be useful
to have a list of monsters that are particularly
dangerous for their native depths.

The ones that stick in my mind:

paralyzers, especially ghouls
confusers, particularly umberhulks
colbran
ethereal dragon
Adunaphel
mystics

Among hounds, the worst are
nexus, gravity, time, and ethereal.

How should such a list be organized?
What monsters should be in it?


Eddie

Antoine

unread,
Jun 8, 2008, 5:43:13 PM6/8/08
to

Add: homunculus, hummerhorn?
Dreads?

Some surprisingly tough uniques such as Gorlim?

A.

The Wanderer

unread,
Jun 8, 2008, 5:47:08 PM6/8/08
to
Eddie Grove wrote:

> It was recently mentioned that it might be useful to have a list of
> monsters that are particularly dangerous for their native depths.
>
> The ones that stick in my mind:
>
> paralyzers, especially ghouls
> confusers, particularly umberhulks
> colbran
> ethereal dragon
> Adunaphel
> mystics

I'm not exactly an expert at the game, but I've always had excessive
trouble with Mim and his sons until well past their normal depths. (This
may be biased by the fact that every character I've ever gotten that
deep has been a mage.)

I've also had significant trouble with everything which summons
near-depth underlings - stone watchers, some demons, and (ISTR) some
angels being the primary examples - but I'm not sure that isn't just bad
playing on my part rather than the monsters being unusually dangerous.

> Among hounds, the worst are
> nexus, gravity, time, and ethereal.
>
> How should such a list be organized?

By depth would seem the natural way. Alternately, it might make sense to
group the list by "what you need in order for this monster to not be so
dangerous after all" (free action, rConf, ...), but that wouldn't apply
in all cases; in some cases you just need to be stronger than you're
likely to be when you first meet the thing.

--
The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.

powera

unread,
Jun 8, 2008, 6:11:11 PM6/8/08
to

Floating eyes, perhaps, if only as "You will die if you have <7 AC and
aren't careful".
Lost souls and Moaning spirits for characters without SI are very
annoying.
Homonculus is the first mobile paralyzer. Carrion crawlers come in
groups.
Acidic cytoplasms, though they're more annoying and hard to kill than
deadly.
Mim and Lorgan, especially for mages using elemental spells. Mim is
balanced out by the exceptional drop, though.
Dark elven sorcerers.
Basilisks and their poison breath.
Balance/chaos drakes can breathe for a lot of damage, and chaos can be
a nasty attack.
Time vortex, simply because time attacks are always worrisome.
Perhaps Medusa, since she has good HP, resists fire and acid, and can
summon many hydras?
Drolems.
Undead beholders also fall into "only deadly if you try to kill them".

Ed_47569

unread,
Jun 8, 2008, 6:31:39 PM6/8/08
to
On 8 Jun, 22:20, Eddie Grove <eddiegr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It was recently mentioned that it might be useful
> to have a list of monsters that are particularly
> dangerous for their native depths.

> What monsters should be in it?
>
> Eddie

Kavlax stands out as being quite dangerous - especially as he can be
mistaken for Young MHD.

Ed

Nick

unread,
Jun 8, 2008, 6:54:48 PM6/8/08
to
On Jun 9, 7:20 am, Eddie Grove <eddiegr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It was recently mentioned that it might be useful
> to have a list of monsters that are particularly
> dangerous for their native depths.

I have seen such a list before, but can't remember where - possibly on
the Poet's Unofficial Angband Page, which now seems to have gone to
the big web server in the sky. It included

cave spider
large kobold
Azog
Nar
all the dread family

and many others, each with a description of what made it tough. I
found it very useful.

Nick.

will_...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 8, 2008, 11:58:48 PM6/8/08
to
> On Jun 9, 7:20 am, Eddie Grove <eddiegr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It was recently mentioned that it might be useful
> > to have a list of monsters that are particularly
> > dangerous for their native depths.

On the list I made for myself a while back I have: (besides what's
alreadt mentioned)
wereworm
great crystal drake
dracolisk/lich
illusionist (first monster with the range paralyze spell)
lesser balrog (or any balrog really)

To your list of the nastiest hounds I would add inertia hounds.

On a separate "Never Melee" list, I have:
death mold
gauth or anything else that disenchants
master or grandmaster mystics (stunning)

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 9, 2008, 12:50:16 AM6/9/08
to
Eddie Grove wrote:
> It was recently mentioned that it might be useful
> to have a list of monsters that are particularly
> dangerous for their native depths.
>
> The ones that stick in my mind:
>
> paralyzers, especially ghouls

> confusers, particularly umberhulks

Dangerous only to player that can't melee well. Add Hummerhorns.

> colbran

Berserker

> ethereal dragon

Drolem (to those that don't know what it can do)

> Adunaphel

Why? I have never had any problem with him. Dreads are much worse. Must
be diver problem.

> mystics

Master and Grand Master. Normal mystic is no problem. Annoyingly hard to
kill but not very dangerous.

For hard hitters, Greater Titan (from pit) can be surprise for unwary
adventurer.

> Among hounds, the worst are
> nexus, gravity, time, and ethereal.

Worst being gravity. Second would be nexus, and third time. Ethereal is
rarely dangerous.

Add Dracolich, Black Reaver, Jabberwock, Tarrasque (again for those that
don't know what it can do). Maybe Pit Fiend and Phoenix too.

Timo Pietilä

Eddie Grove

unread,
Jun 9, 2008, 1:01:57 AM6/9/08
to
On Jun 8, 9:50 pm, Timo Pietilä <timo.piet...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Eddie Grove wrote:
> > It was recently mentioned that it might be useful
> > to have a list of monsters that are particularly
> > dangerous for their native depths.
>
> > The ones that stick in my mind:

> > Adunaphel


>
> Why? I have never had any problem with him. Dreads are much worse. Must
> be diver problem.

Also, I doubt most people fear ghouls 1/10 as much as I do.
I rarely have FA when I encounter them in quantity.
This is why someone else needs to collate the final list. :)

Adunaphel has passwall and a ridiculously large detection radius.
Other problems can usually be solved be teleport self or teleport
other.
Adunaphel laughs at those, and is fast enough to return surprisingly
quickly. Often faster than I can make progress toward the nearest
stairs.


Eddie

Christopher Evenstar

unread,
Jun 9, 2008, 1:14:36 AM6/9/08
to

Just met Freesia for the first time as I entered level two. Maybe
that's out of depth, but she killed me SO fast. It was YASD though,
'cuz I was too lazy to buy phase door scrolls before my first dive.

Christopher

The Wanderer

unread,
Jun 9, 2008, 6:55:39 AM6/9/08
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:

> Eddie Grove wrote:
>> It was recently mentioned that it might be useful to have a list of
>> monsters that are particularly dangerous for their native depths.
>>
>> The ones that stick in my mind:

>> Adunaphel


>
> Why? I have never had any problem with him. Dreads are much worse.
> Must be diver problem.

I'm not a diver (and don't recall having had a problem with dreads the
few times I've encountered them), but I have learned to be very wary of
Adunaphel, for largely the reasons Eddie mentions.

(Also, for some reason I think of Adunaphel as being a "her"...)

Matthew Vernon

unread,
Jun 9, 2008, 7:37:20 AM6/9/08
to
The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> writes:

> (Also, for some reason I think of Adunaphel as being a "her"...)

She is described as "A sorceress in life"...

Matthew

--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org

Matthew Vernon

unread,
Jun 9, 2008, 7:38:55 AM6/9/08
to
Eddie Grove <eddie...@hotmail.com> writes:

> Adunaphel has passwall and a ridiculously large detection radius.
> Other problems can usually be solved be teleport self or teleport
> other.
> Adunaphel laughs at those, and is fast enough to return surprisingly
> quickly. Often faster than I can make progress toward the nearest
> stairs.

Adunaphel would have really spoiled my day had I not had a rod of
restoration handy - I'd teleport other her, and she just kept coming
back. Killed her, but was definitely scary.

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 9, 2008, 11:04:58 AM6/9/08
to
The Wanderer wrote:
> Timo Pietilä wrote:
>
>> Eddie Grove wrote:
>>> It was recently mentioned that it might be useful to have a list of
>>> monsters that are particularly dangerous for their native depths.
>>>
>>> The ones that stick in my mind:
>
>>> Adunaphel
>>
>> Why? I have never had any problem with him. Dreads are much worse.
>> Must be diver problem.
>
> I'm not a diver (and don't recall having had a problem with dreads the
> few times I've encountered them),

Dreads are invisible, hit hard, reduce STR, are pack-monsters and can
pass wall. If you don't have ESP or can't detect evil or invisbles you
can be in trouble with them. They also have nether bolt, confuse and
blind spells, so resistances or good saving throw is required to deal
with them.

Not that they are extremely hard, but I think they are harder than
Adunaphel. I have few deaths by surprise Dreads.

> but I have learned to be very wary of
> Adunaphel, for largely the reasons Eddie mentions.

I fear Ethereal Dragon for reasons Eddie mentions. Much much scarier,
but he mentioned that so couldn't compare to that. Also Vecna in NPP
(detection range 100 and teleport toward spell....*VERY* scary)

> (Also, for some reason I think of Adunaphel as being a "her"...)

Not real Tolkien. Tolkien referred ringwraiths only as "great kings of
man". Only one that is described in some detail is The Witch King
(stupid spellcheker tried to change that The Which King. Must be cousing
of Dr Who).

Timo Pietilä

nebul...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 9, 2008, 11:52:48 PM6/9/08
to
This is something of a blanket response. It assumes no especially fast
diving, and lists only *dangerous* monsters. Annoying/hard to kill
monsters you can easily avoid being *fried* by *don't* count.

And the list is:

Floating eye (contact paralysis)
Cave spiders (fast pack monster; mainly a threat to mages)
Orcs/orc uniques (when first met, you may have trouble getting away
from large packs, pits, and escorts with just phase door)
Yeek uniques (summoning, before ready access to teleportation and
digging)
Carrion crawlers and ghouls (contact paralyzers that move)
Hummerhorns (melee confusion, fast breeding)
Gravity hounds (gravity)
Kavlax (breaths; looks harmless)
Gorlim (mana bolts, nasty melee)
AMHD/Drolem (breaths)
Dracolisk/ch (breaths)
Azrael (nether)
Titans (hit hard to confuse)
Master/Grandmaster Mystic (hit to KO in only a couple rounds)
Ethereal Hounds -- damaging, pass-wall, usual hound tactics don't
apply.
Nightwalker (+20 speed, hits hard and damaging spells)
Eye and skull druj (speed and frequent damaging spells, sometimes
blasting you from out of view around a corner)
The Tarrasque (+20 speed; breaths, *with* resists, do 200-300 damage,
and are very frequent -- immunities needed to make Tarrasque not
seriously dangerous)
Jabberwock (formerly Chaos Beetle) (+20 speed; highly damaging, fairly
frequent breath)
Ancalagon/Tiamat (+20 speed, summons, breaths; looks no worse than
AMHD)
Cantoras (+30 speed and fairly damaging spells; used to look harmless)
Morgoth (+30 speed, mana storm)

Notably LACKING from the list:
* Most late-game heavy hitters as late-game players can
generally tell when they're in trouble and get out of
Dodge easily enough before dying.
* Summoners without another big threat (e.g. all quylthulgs)
as even if you get surprised by summons you can generally
teleport out before they can actually proceed to kill you.
The early-game mass summoners, so basically the yeek
uniques, are the exceptions here.
* Later confusers/paralyzers because you generally have the
needed resists. Divers may have trouble with these, but
should know the monster list backward and forward or use
a savefile with a well-developed monster memory.
* Confusers/paralyzers with an infrequent spell as the only
source, as one tends to be able to survive these, e.g.
using a CCW to get an unconfused round to TP out. If they
can do enough damage quickly enough, these are more
dangerous, at least to low-saving-throw warriors.
* Blinders. Blindness doesn't impair use of staves, so you
can use TP or Word of Destruction while blind. You might
die once to lack of a staff then know better in the future
and carry a staff of escape certain doom until rblind
drops.
* Dreads and many similar monsters, as non-divers will be
equipped to detect them by the time of reaching them
and shouldn't get unexpectedly surrounded, and generally
will get a chance to escape before they can kill you anyway.
* Colbrans pose little threat to non-divers. You find out
they have nasty melee and phase door away. (They're much
worse in O, where they have a quite damaging lightning
spark attack they lack in V. In O they make my list.)
* Hounds, as you quickly learn how to keep more than two
from having LOS at a time, and two of any of the types
can't kill you outright. Teleport if they are too much
trouble and hack away otherwise. Two exceptions:
- Gravity hounds can suck you to where many can breathe
on you at once, and then can cause KO to top it off
- Ethereal hounds can usually surround you in any terrain
and may initially be mistaken for nether hounds, and
a few of them breathing at once can be deadly, and
they're pretty fast. Considerably more dangerous than
Dreads, in particular.
* Umber hulks. They can generally be escaped with either
Speed/CCW potion pair or random melee until you kill
it. Hummerhorns are much worse as they're fast and breed,
so you may get confusion-locked. Titans are much worse
as they're fast and hit hard.
* I don't recall Ring Wraiths or Ethereal Dragons being
highly deadly. Difficult sometimes. Great Crystal Drakes
likewise. These can kill by inattention, but you generally
get a shot at teleporting out before they nail you.
Going too deep without SI these can kill you but SI tends
to be readily available by their depth. Only exceptionally
dangerous to divers IMO.
* Normal Mystic is harmless.
* Lorgan, Mim, etc. either are more annoying than deadly, or
you have time to escape between realizing they pose an
actual threat and winding up dead, as a rule. Azog is
actually worse as you may not have reliable teleportation
yet, and Azog is usually escapable by phase door and letting
Azog's own escorts slow him down.
* Large Kobold killing your mage means you didn't get (enough)
phase door.
* Black Reaver is *scary*, but doesn't do exceptional damage
and all your usual escapes work (tp other, tp, tele level,
destruction). Only +10 speed. An infrequent 550 damage
spell and +10 speed makes him merely a Dracolich that can
tunnel through walls. The only sticky point is that the
550 damage doesn't get any weaker as you fight him, but
you don't *have* to fight him, so...
* Phoenix is a pushover for non-divers and usual escapes work
before you get clobbered.
I took down the Phoenix, native to 3600', at 1800' with
barely 420HP *in Oangband*, for Chrissake. Even though one
breath would knock me into double-digit HPs. (It helped
that I encountered it in Oangband forest terrain -- phase
door gave me a couple of rounds to quaff !Heal. I also had
a fairly strong offense vs. Phoenix that took a star off
every attack or two, and access to haste. Still...he can't
be THAT bad in *Vanilla* then, can he? :))

George Smith

unread,
Jun 10, 2008, 12:21:45 AM6/10/08
to
nebul...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is something of a blanket response. It assumes no especially fast
> diving, and lists only *dangerous* monsters. Annoying/hard to kill
> monsters you can easily avoid being *fried* by *don't* count.
>
> And the list is:
[snip]

Very detailed, in-depth list.

But you missed Grip and Fang. :/

Fast, damaging, and along with the monsters you *did* name fairly
frequent causes of death in ladder dumps and YASD posts.

By the way, for added danger, Cantoras casts nasty spells *very
frequently*, and way back in the days of 2.6.something I seem to recall
chaos beetles confusing you even if you had resist confusion, unless you
also had resist *chaos*, which was not so easy to get or, afterward, to
work into your kit...though that doesn't seem to happen anymore.

I'd argue that AMHD barely makes the list anymore. 2.6.something AMHD
was scarier, often popping up around dungeon level forty or even in the
high thirties, *before* rings of poison resistance started to drop.
Moria AMHD was even worse -- no poison resistance in game, and
characters rarely had even close to 700HP...unless you could severely
wound it before it got a chance to breathe, you were playing Russian
roulette every round you remained in the thing's sight. Usual strategy
on detecting one was Cypher's advice regarding the Matrix agents: "if
you see one, RUN".

Now it's generally "if you see one, THINK LOTS OF LOOT" instead. :P

Antoine

unread,
Jun 10, 2008, 1:09:53 AM6/10/08
to
On Jun 10, 3:52 pm, nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is something of a blanket response. It assumes no especially fast
> diving, and lists only *dangerous* monsters. Annoying/hard to kill
> monsters you can easily avoid being *fried* by *don't* count.
>
> And the list is:
>
> Floating eye (contact paralysis)
> Cave spiders (fast pack monster; mainly a threat to mages)
> Orcs/orc uniques (when first met, you may have trouble getting away
> from large packs, pits, and escorts with just phase door)
> Yeek uniques (summoning, before ready access to teleportation and
> digging)

The unYeeks aren't that bad are they?

Did you ever die to one (or its summons)?

A.

Eddie Grove

unread,
Jun 10, 2008, 2:32:33 AM6/10/08
to

I certainly have.

If I see mixed yeeks, I consider an immediate ?recall.
Of course, that's assuming it is my first trip down.


Eddie

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 10, 2008, 11:15:02 AM6/10/08
to
George Smith wrote:

> frequently*, and way back in the days of 2.6.something I seem to recall
> chaos beetles confusing you even if you had resist confusion, unless you
> also had resist *chaos*, which was not so easy to get or, afterward, to
> work into your kit...though that doesn't seem to happen anymore.

Originally Jabberwock was Jabberwock. It was renamed to Chaos Beetle by
Ben when he made some big (not JLE-big) changes to monster lists. JLE
changed that back.

For Chaos giving/not giving resistance to confusion it went like this if
I recall correctly:

First Chaos resist gave immunity to confusion effect but not damage
except when damage was chaos and confusion resist gave immunity to
confusion effect for both and damage from confusion.

Then Confusion resist didn't give immunity to confusion effect caused by
Chaos. Both elements were dealt completely separate.

Then Chaos resist gave full resistance to confusion like if you had both
resists, while confusion gave immunity to confusion effect for both but
resistance only to confusion damage.

Then Chaos resist gave immunity to confusion caused by chaos, but not
with confusion. Confusion resist gave immunity to confusion effect for
both, but only confusion damage. Because that made several items that
granted confusion effect immunity by having chaos resist not having that
anymore confusion resist was added to all of them.

Then items were tweaked by JLE and several items lost confusion resist
that were given them because that change (including balance/chaosDSM:s,
rationalization was that those don't allow breathe confusion), but
several others were added to compensate. That created a lot of junk
and/or difficulty to choose best gear.

I think the original setup was the best. That way you needed only resist
confusion *or* resist chaos to prevent getting confused. That doubled
the frequency of confusion effect immunity granting random resist items,
and kept balance/chaosDSM:s useful, endgame -quality items without
extra resists. Current setup makes chaos resist nearly useless, because
confusion resist is so common and much more desirable anyway.

Timo Pietilä

Magnate

unread,
Jun 10, 2008, 11:21:40 AM6/10/08
to
"Eddie Grove" <eddie...@hotmail.com> wrote

Categories. In addition to your categories of paralysers and confusers I
would add summoners - not especially dangerous of themselves but things
which can summon gravity hounds, greater undead etc. are worth knowing
about. A breathers category would take care of the ethereal dragon and the
bad hounds. Casters would include colbrans and dark elven sorcerors.
Pugilists would include mystics, berserkers and greater titans (who also
summon - as do mystics) - and Feldisham, in S. Not sure where you put
Tevildo (Cat Lord) - perhaps a category for Stupidly Fast?

CC


Otto Martin

unread,
Jun 10, 2008, 6:07:59 PM6/10/08
to
Timo Pietilä <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>Tolkien referred ringwraiths only as "great kings of man".
>Only one that is described in some detail is The Witch King
>(stupid spellcheker tried to change that The Which King.
>Must be cousing of Dr Who).

Well, that makes for an even more interesting baseball game...

As for the topic, Ethereal dragons and Greater Titans are the
first two that I think should be mentioned. (There are other,
more dangerous ones, but they are usually more warned about.)


Otto Martin - now, what other monster are we missing? <g>
--
"I've noticed you really don't trust your own brain."
"I do try to keep a close eye on it."
http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20080318.html

Eddie Grove

unread,
Jun 11, 2008, 1:54:20 PM6/11/08
to
On Jun 9, 9:52 pm, nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:

I like your list and particularly this section:

> Notably LACKING from the list:

but let me explain two of my choices you consider non-worthy.

> * Hounds, as you quickly learn how to keep more than two
> from having LOS at a time, and two of any of the types
> can't kill you outright. Teleport if they are too much
> trouble and hack away otherwise. Two exceptions:
> - Gravity hounds can suck you to where many can breathe
> on you at once, and then can cause KO to top it off
> - Ethereal hounds can usually surround you in any terrain

The reason I put nexus hounds on my list is that a single breath can
change your stats so that you will win faster if you start over than
if you continue. That's an implicit instakill attack in my book even
if it is rare and technically does not kill.

> * Umber hulks. They can generally be escaped with either
> Speed/CCW potion pair or random melee until you kill

Quite true. They do not show up on detect evil or infravision so they
can get close before a non-mage-caster notices. The reason they make
my list is EAT_WALL. You are running down a lit corridor, things look
safe, and suddenly an umber hulk is next to you and you are blinded
and confused by the pack of gnome mages trailing it. They also let
nastier monsters out of dangerous rooms.


Eddie

Antoine

unread,
Jun 11, 2008, 5:00:30 PM6/11/08
to
On Jun 12, 5:54 am, Eddie Grove <eddiegr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 9:52 pm, nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I like your list and particularly this section:
>
> > Notably LACKING from the list:
>
> but let me explain two of my choices you consider non-worthy.
>
> > * Hounds, as you quickly learn how to keep more than two
> >   from having LOS at a time, and two of any of the types
> >   can't kill you outright. Teleport if they are too much
> >   trouble and hack away otherwise. Two exceptions:
> >   - Gravity hounds can suck you to where many can breathe
> >     on you at once, and then can cause KO to top it off
> >   - Ethereal hounds can usually surround you in any terrain
>
> The reason I put nexus hounds on my list is that a single breath can
> change your stats so that you will win faster if you start over than
> if you continue.  That's an implicit instakill attack in my book even
> if it is rare and technically does not kill.

Could you not hang round the hounds until your stats were re-swapped?
Or is that unlikely to happen in practice?

A.

zai...@zaimoni.com

unread,
Jun 11, 2008, 6:41:54 PM6/11/08
to
On Jun 11, 4:00 pm, Antoine <antoine.from.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 5:54 am, Eddie Grove <eddiegr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 9:52 pm, nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I like your list and particularly this section:
>
> > > Notably LACKING from the list:
>
> > but let me explain two of my choices you consider non-worthy.
>
> > > * Hounds, as you quickly learn how to keep more than two
> > > from having LOS at a time, and two of any of the types
> > > can't kill you outright. Teleport if they are too much
> > > trouble and hack away otherwise. Two exceptions:
> > > - Gravity hounds can suck you to where many can breathe
> > > on you at once, and then can cause KO to top it off
> > > - Ethereal hounds can usually surround you in any terrain
>
> > The reason I put nexus hounds on my list is that a single breath can
> > change your stats so that you will win faster if you start over than
> > if you continue. That's an implicit instakill attack in my book even
> > if it is rare and technically does not kill.

It's not that rare, even. It's why RNexus is almost a no-brainer, and
it's practically never available in time even with a non-diving game.

> Could you not hang round the hounds until your stats were re-swapped?
> Or is that unlikely to happen in practice?

It is rather unlikely (pre-statgain) that @ would survive hanging
around long enough. Assuming ideal probabilities, it should be 1/15
that a second swap would just invert the first swap. After that, the
probability gets rather remote (e.g., after two swaps it will take at
least two swaps to get back).

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Jun 11, 2008, 10:35:57 PM6/11/08
to
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:04:58 +0300, Timo Pietilä
<timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>The Wanderer wrote:

>> (Also, for some reason I think of Adunaphel as being a "her"...)
>
>Not real Tolkien.

True enough. The title "Witch-King of Angband" and the name "Khamul the
Easterling" are Tolkien, the rest from Iron Crown Enterprise's
Middle-Earth Role-Playing. However, given that Tolkien's deliberately
faceless, undifferentiated Nazgul would make rather duller game uniques,
I wouldn't change this even in a "Tolkienized" Angband.

>Tolkien referred ringwraiths only as "great kings of man".

Given that ruling females have historically taken masculine titles, one
of these vaguely defined "kings" could have been female. There's no
basis for that in Tolkien, but his description really doesn't rule it
out.

Whereas allowing Hobbits to be any class that casts spells directly
contradicts Tolkien. I'd also point out that there is no textual basis
for the idea that they favor slings (as followed by some variants). They
are mentioned *throwing*, not slinging, rocks and using bows. ADOM's
"hurthlings" are actually the best-realized roguelike Hobbits.

>Only one that is described in some detail is The Witch King

And little detail at that.

--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
Holy Avenger should be a Paladin title,
not an ego item.

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 12, 2008, 1:05:45 AM6/12/08
to
R. Dan Henry wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:04:58 +0300, Timo Pietilä
> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>>> (Also, for some reason I think of Adunaphel as being a "her"...)
>> Not real Tolkien.
>> Tolkien referred ringwraiths only as "great kings of man".
>
> Given that ruling females have historically taken masculine titles, one
> of these vaguely defined "kings" could have been female. There's no
> basis for that in Tolkien, but his description really doesn't rule it
> out.

Tolkien world was quite sovinistic, but OTOH I think entire medieval
ages (in real world) was quite sovinistic, so it is quite fitting for
Tolkien world. It is mens world. There are few strong females in Tolkien
books so even that his world was sovinistic his stories were not (or at
least not so strongly).

> Whereas allowing Hobbits to be any class that casts spells directly
> contradicts Tolkien.

And entire existence of Half-troll is non-Tolkien. I'm considering
changing that to half-giant for my version (if I ever get time to do
something for it).

> I'd also point out that there is no textual basis
> for the idea that they favor slings (as followed by some variants). They
> are mentioned *throwing*, not slinging, rocks and using bows. ADOM's
> "hurthlings" are actually the best-realized roguelike Hobbits.

They are described dangerous with bows. When Frodo and his companion
cleaned Shire at the end of the LoTR it was pretty obvious that Hobbits
were dangerous with bows. I don't recall anyone using sling in Tolkien
books.

>> Only one that is described in some detail is The Witch King
>
> And little detail at that.

Timo Pietilä

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 12, 2008, 1:15:02 AM6/12/08
to
zai...@zaimoni.com wrote:
> On Jun 11, 4:00 pm, Antoine <antoine.from.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 5:54 am, Eddie Grove <eddiegr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 9, 9:52 pm, nebulou...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I like your list and particularly this section:
>>>> Notably LACKING from the list:
>>> but let me explain two of my choices you consider non-worthy.
>>>> * Hounds, as you quickly learn how to keep more than two
>>>> from having LOS at a time, and two of any of the types
>>>> can't kill you outright. Teleport if they are too much
>>>> trouble and hack away otherwise. Two exceptions:
>>>> - Gravity hounds can suck you to where many can breathe
>>>> on you at once, and then can cause KO to top it off
>>>> - Ethereal hounds can usually surround you in any terrain
>>> The reason I put nexus hounds on my list is that a single breath can
>>> change your stats so that you will win faster if you start over than
>>> if you continue. That's an implicit instakill attack in my book even
>>> if it is rare and technically does not kill.
>
> It's not that rare, even. It's why RNexus is almost a no-brainer, and
> it's practically never available in time even with a non-diving game.

OTOH, it can work in favor for you. I have got my stats scrambled in
favor of me as many times as opposite. So it is gamble to let them
breathe to you.

Good saving throw helps. With 100% saving that doesn't happen any more.
So to get your stats scrambled with priests, paladins or mages is pretty
slim.

>> Could you not hang round the hounds until your stats were re-swapped?
>> Or is that unlikely to happen in practice?
>
> It is rather unlikely (pre-statgain) that @ would survive hanging
> around long enough.

Sometimes I gambled with nexus vortex when I had my stats swapped or I
had found zillion !oINT with Priest, but no !oWIS (or whatever I
needed). Sometimes it worked, sometimes not. Gets pretty boring fast,
though. You can't get your stats swapped with rNexus and without it you
might get level teleported, and every breath teleports you around.

> Assuming ideal probabilities, it should be 1/15
> that a second swap would just invert the first swap. After that, the
> probability gets rather remote (e.g., after two swaps it will take at
> least two swaps to get back).

Depends of your stats. If two 18/10 stats get swapped you can't tell the
difference.

Timo Pietilä

Billy Bissette

unread,
Jun 12, 2008, 2:42:47 AM6/12/08
to
zai...@zaimoni.com wrote in news:e5c174d3-1e7d-40c5-83f9-
cb1e47...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 11, 4:00 pm, Antoine <antoine.from.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 5:54 am, Eddie Grove <eddiegr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> > The reason I put nexus hounds on my list is that a single breath
>> > can change your stats so that you will win faster if you start
>> > over than if you continue. That's an implicit instakill attack
>> > in my book even if it is rare and technically does not kill.

>> Could you not hang round the hounds until your stats were re-swapped?


>> Or is that unlikely to happen in practice?
>
> It is rather unlikely (pre-statgain) that @ would survive hanging
> around long enough. Assuming ideal probabilities, it should be 1/15
> that a second swap would just invert the first swap. After that, the
> probability gets rather remote (e.g., after two swaps it will take at
> least two swaps to get back).

Only if you want to return to your exact pre-nexus state, which may
not be necessary.

If your 18 primary is swapped with an 8 tertiary, and then that
tertiary is swapped with a 10 tertiary, then you only need swap your
primary with that second tertiary to return to a playable state.
It won't matter which tertiary is an 8 and which is a 10, it only
matters that the 18 goes back to your primary.


The problem that may be greater is even if you return to
playable status through additional nexus attacks, you will still
likely be vulnerable to nexus and another attack may put you
right back in the same kind of predicament. And of course that
getting hit by things that use nexus isn't exactly helping your
life expectency in general.

If playing for turn count, the effort might still cost you too
much anyway.

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Jun 12, 2008, 6:16:00 PM6/12/08
to
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:05:45 +0300, Timo Pietilä
<timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:04:58 +0300, Timo Pietilä
>> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>>>> (Also, for some reason I think of Adunaphel as being a "her"...)
>>> Not real Tolkien.
>>> Tolkien referred ringwraiths only as "great kings of man".
>>
>> Given that ruling females have historically taken masculine titles, one
>> of these vaguely defined "kings" could have been female. There's no
>> basis for that in Tolkien, but his description really doesn't rule it
>> out.
>
>Tolkien world was quite sovinistic, but OTOH I think entire medieval
>ages (in real world) was quite sovinistic, so it is quite fitting for
>Tolkien world. It is mens world. There are few strong females in Tolkien
>books so even that his world was sovinistic his stories were not (or at
>least not so strongly).

Middle-Earth is *not* the medieval world. Numenor and its colonies were
analogized with Egypt by Tolkien, and a woman ruled as pharaoh (she even
wore a fake beard). It was only after Numenoreans started down the road
of corruption that women could not rule. Numenor itself had three Ruling
Queens in its history. Even ignoring the non-human Galadriel, a woman
ruler is hardly out of the question in Middle-Earth.

>> Whereas allowing Hobbits to be any class that casts spells directly
>> contradicts Tolkien.
>
>And entire existence of Half-troll is non-Tolkien. I'm considering
>changing that to half-giant for my version (if I ever get time to do
>something for it).

That's also non-Tolkien. At least for half-trolls one can argue that if
sun-resistant orcs were a result of interbreeding them with men,
sun-resistant trolls would have been created in the same way. (Although
that's still quite iffy.)

>> I'd also point out that there is no textual basis
>> for the idea that they favor slings (as followed by some variants). They
>> are mentioned *throwing*, not slinging, rocks and using bows. ADOM's
>> "hurthlings" are actually the best-realized roguelike Hobbits.
>
>They are described dangerous with bows. When Frodo and his companion
>cleaned Shire at the end of the LoTR it was pretty obvious that Hobbits
>were dangerous with bows. I don't recall anyone using sling in Tolkien
>books.

They also sent archers to aid the King when the war with Angmar was on.

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 13, 2008, 12:13:49 AM6/13/08
to

Not out of question, but unlikely. Womans were not voted to leadership,
they inherited their status, and only when there was no man to inherit
that status.

I have always wondered _which_ "great kings" those nine were. Usually
Tolkien did make very detailed explanations about things like that, but
for this one thing he did not. As you said it probably was deliberately
kept vague.

>>> Whereas allowing Hobbits to be any class that casts spells directly
>>> contradicts Tolkien.
>> And entire existence of Half-troll is non-Tolkien. I'm considering
>> changing that to half-giant for my version (if I ever get time to do
>> something for it).
>
> That's also non-Tolkien. At least for half-trolls one can argue that if
> sun-resistant orcs were a result of interbreeding them with men,
> sun-resistant trolls would have been created in the same way. (Although
> that's still quite iffy.)

AFAIK giants have not been described in any detail, so I make a small
leap of assumption and say that they are oversized humans similar to
hobbit which are basically just very small humans. Trolls are Morgoth
creations with no relationship with humans, so interbreeding would be
impossible. Orcs OTOH are either corrupted elves or humans with their
own lives and half-orc is completely possible.

>>> I'd also point out that there is no textual basis
>>> for the idea that they favor slings (as followed by some variants). They
>>> are mentioned *throwing*, not slinging, rocks and using bows. ADOM's
>>> "hurthlings" are actually the best-realized roguelike Hobbits.

>> They are described dangerous with bows. When Frodo and his companion
>> cleaned Shire at the end of the LoTR it was pretty obvious that Hobbits
>> were dangerous with bows. I don't recall anyone using sling in Tolkien
>> books.
>
> They also sent archers to aid the King when the war with Angmar was on.

And, based on how well Pippin and Merri handled tough situations, not
quite harmless in hand to hand combat either.

Timo Pietilä

Nick

unread,
Jun 13, 2008, 1:46:01 AM6/13/08
to
On Jun 13, 2:13 pm, Timo Pietilä <timo.piet...@helsinki.fi> wrote:


> I have always wondered _which_ "great kings" those nine were. Usually
> Tolkien did make very detailed explanations about things like that, but
> for this one thing he did not. As you said it probably was deliberately
> kept vague.

At least some (maybe 2?) were Numenoreans (although I assume they were
not in Numenor when Sauron recruited them); IIRC some were from "the
east" as well (and certainly Khamul is an example there).

> AFAIK giants have not been described in any detail

Apart from being big enough to pick up a dwarf and kick them sky-high
like a football...

Nick.

The Wanderer

unread,
Jun 13, 2008, 7:12:23 AM6/13/08
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:

> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:05:45 +0300, Timo Pietilä
>>
>> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>>> And entire existence of Half-troll is non-Tolkien. I'm
>>> considering changing that to half-giant for my version (if I ever
>>> get time to do something for it).
>>
>> That's also non-Tolkien. At least for half-trolls one can argue
>> that if sun-resistant orcs were a result of interbreeding them with
>> men, sun-resistant trolls would have been created in the same way.
>> (Although that's still quite iffy.)
>
> AFAIK giants have not been described in any detail, so I make a small
> leap of assumption and say that they are oversized humans similar to
> hobbit which are basically just very small humans. Trolls are
> Morgoth creations with no relationship with humans,

That would not be possible - except in some very early versions of the
legends, Morgoth explicitly could not create, only warp and otherwise
modify.

As you mention, Orcs were (at least suspected to have been) originally
made by corrupting Elves. Balrogs and Dragons were essentially Maiar in
his service. Trolls are AFAIR not mentioned prior to "The Hobbit", but
someone (Treebeard?) speculated that they might have been derived from
Ents (ironically appropriate, since the Ents themselves were originally
conceived of as hostile giants and may even once have been called
Trolls); that would of course make interbreeding even less plausible,
but they certainly would not be creations of Morgoth.

I do not honestly remember off the top of my head whether giants
appeared at all in the legendry prior to The Hobbit (or for that matter
afterwards), so I do not have a real comment on that point except for
the original conception of Ents. I do, however, seem to recall once
confirming that the only giants mentioned in Tolkien were the storm
giants from the Misty Mountains in The Hobbit, who could perhaps be
excused as Bilbo being imaginative...

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 13, 2008, 12:00:22 PM6/13/08
to
The Wanderer wrote:
> Timo Pietilä wrote:
>
>> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:05:45 +0300, Timo Pietilä
>>>
>>> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>>>> And entire existence of Half-troll is non-Tolkien. I'm
>>>> considering changing that to half-giant for my version (if I ever
>>>> get time to do something for it).
>>>
>>> That's also non-Tolkien. At least for half-trolls one can argue
>>> that if sun-resistant orcs were a result of interbreeding them with
>>> men, sun-resistant trolls would have been created in the same way.
>>> (Although that's still quite iffy.)
>>
>> AFAIK giants have not been described in any detail, so I make a small
>> leap of assumption and say that they are oversized humans similar to
>> hobbit which are basically just very small humans. Trolls are
>> Morgoth creations with no relationship with humans,
>
> That would not be possible - except in some very early versions of the
> legends, Morgoth explicitly could not create, only warp and otherwise
> modify.

Not create anything living. But just like Aule created dwarves he could
have created things that are not really alive. And maybe he created them
when they were still singing and he had not yet lost his ability to
create things.

> As you mention, Orcs were (at least suspected to have been) originally
> made by corrupting Elves. Balrogs and Dragons were essentially Maiar in
> his service.

Dragons were not Maiar. Balrogs were. Dragons were overgrown lizards
with part of Morgoths spirit in them IIRC.

> Trolls are AFAIR not mentioned prior to "The Hobbit", but
> someone (Treebeard?) speculated that they might have been derived from
> Ents

Not derived from, but created as a mockery.

> (ironically appropriate, since the Ents themselves were originally
> conceived of as hostile giants and may even once have been called
> Trolls); that would of course make interbreeding even less plausible,
> but they certainly would not be creations of Morgoth.

Maybe corrupted earth spirits? Turning to stone by sunlight would feel
approriate to those. Anyway no relation to humans.

> I do not honestly remember off the top of my head whether giants
> appeared at all in the legendry prior to The Hobbit (or for that matter
> afterwards), so I do not have a real comment on that point except for
> the original conception of Ents. I do, however, seem to recall once
> confirming that the only giants mentioned in Tolkien were the storm
> giants from the Misty Mountains in The Hobbit, who could perhaps be
> excused as Bilbo being imaginative...

I do recall some sentence where Gandalf says that he will look for
peaceful giant in order to get some help to fix something. Can't really
say what and in which book. The Hobbit probably. Also something in LoTR
when they were trying to go over Caradhras. Something about "storm
giants" or such (don't have english version handy, so can't check).

hmmm... This page seems to agree with me:
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/giants.html

Anyway, if I have to have giants in angband they will be race of men and
half-troll will be gone in favor of half-giant.

Timo Pietilä

The Wanderer

unread,
Jun 13, 2008, 5:00:21 PM6/13/08
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:

> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Timo Pietilä wrote:

>>> AFAIK giants have not been described in any detail, so I make a
>>> small leap of assumption and say that they are oversized humans
>>> similar to hobbit which are basically just very small humans.
>>> Trolls are Morgoth creations with no relationship with humans,
>>
>> That would not be possible - except in some very early versions of
>> the legends, Morgoth explicitly could not create, only warp and
>> otherwise modify.
>
> Not create anything living. But just like Aule created dwarves he
> could have created things that are not really alive. And maybe he
> created them when they were still singing and he had not yet lost his
> ability to create things.

The latter would not I think be consistent with the "empty" state of the
world when they first entered it, and possibly with a few other things
which I'm not quite pinning down (I haven't read the historical parts of
the source material in Quite Some While Now).

The former would not be consistent with the fact that, as depicted in
The Hobbit, trolls do appear to have minds and "motive force" of their
own, not just whatever they derive from the driving will of a master
they may be serving. (Even Aule's dwarves were like that - mindless
except as extensions of him - before Iluvatar intervened.)

>> As you mention, Orcs were (at least suspected to have been)
>> originally made by corrupting Elves. Balrogs and Dragons were
>> essentially Maiar in his service.
>
> Dragons were not Maiar. Balrogs were. Dragons were overgrown lizards
> with part of Morgoths spirit in them IIRC.

I wasn't entirely sure about Dragons, but I couldn't think what else
they could have been. I do seem to recall them being "created things"
(at least partly in the sense of "mechanical monstrosities") in one
iteration of the legend, but the "creatures with Morgoth's spirit in
them" view would not be consistent with their having continued to have
initiative and "motive force" after Morgoth was reduced in power (by
infusing so much of it into the world at large) and removed from the
world.

>> Trolls are AFAIR not mentioned prior to "The Hobbit", but someone
>> (Treebeard?) speculated that they might have been derived from Ents
>
> Not derived from, but created as a mockery.

The line I recall runs in part "in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of
Elves". While Orcs are to some degree what you referred to as "not
really alive" - lacking "motive force" without a master to drive them,
as per their disproportionate demoralization with the fall of Sauron in
ROTK - I do recall statements that they were made by twisting
already-existing things, not from whole cloth; the obvious thing to have
twisted, given the above line, would be the Elves (and thence the Ents).
Thus, "derived from".

Of course, this discussion is all somewhat pointless, since the question
of the origin of Orcs is IIRC one of the points on which Tolkien himself
was still reconsidering matters when he - er - left off writing; it is
entirely possible that the legendry was in an inconsistent state in this
respect, and that he would have gone back and changed this again at some
point.

>> (ironically appropriate, since the Ents themselves were originally
>> conceived of as hostile giants and may even once have been called
>> Trolls); that would of course make interbreeding even less
>> plausible, but they certainly would not be creations of Morgoth.
>
> Maybe corrupted earth spirits? Turning to stone by sunlight would
> feel approriate to those. Anyway no relation to humans.

If I'm not mistaken, such earth spirits would have to be (lesser) Maiar,
for a lack of anything else to possibly fill that role; the trolls we
know anything about don't seem to remotely fit that. Regardless, I do
agree that they would almost certainly not be remotely human (except in
appearance) and would therefore not be able to interbreed.

>> I do not honestly remember off the top of my head whether giants
>> appeared at all in the legendry prior to The Hobbit (or for that
>> matter afterwards), so I do not have a real comment on that point
>> except for the original conception of Ents. I do, however, seem to
>> recall once confirming that the only giants mentioned in Tolkien
>> were the storm giants from the Misty Mountains in The Hobbit, who
>> could perhaps be excused as Bilbo being imaginative...
>
> I do recall some sentence where Gandalf says that he will look for
> peaceful giant in order to get some help to fix something. Can't
> really say what and in which book. The Hobbit probably. Also
> something in LoTR when they were trying to go over Caradhras.
> Something about "storm giants" or such (don't have english version
> handy, so can't check).

The only storm giants I recall (unless you allow the malevolent spirit
of Caradhras - itself a bit of a mystery - to fall into that category)
were from The Hobbit, the ones I mentioned above as being possibly
Bilbo's imagination.

> hmmm... This page seems to agree with me:
> http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/giants.html

I don't have time and/or interest to read that right now, but I'll try
to get to it before the next response if any.

> Anyway, if I have to have giants in angband they will be race of men
> and half-troll will be gone in favor of half-giant.

For pure Tolkien-authentic mythology, I would get rid of both. For
practicality and handwaving vague plausibility, I would find the
half-troll to be at least as plausible as the half-giant, particularly
given the way the trolls we saw were depicted.

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 13, 2008, 6:24:33 PM6/13/08
to
The Wanderer wrote:
> Timo Pietilä wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>>> Timo Pietilä wrote:
>
>>>> AFAIK giants have not been described in any detail, so I make a
>>>> small leap of assumption and say that they are oversized humans
>>>> similar to hobbit which are basically just very small humans.
>>>> Trolls are Morgoth creations with no relationship with humans,
>>>
>>> That would not be possible - except in some very early versions of
>>> the legends, Morgoth explicitly could not create, only warp and
>>> otherwise modify.
>>
>> Not create anything living. But just like Aule created dwarves he
>> could have created things that are not really alive. And maybe he
>> created them when they were still singing and he had not yet lost his
>> ability to create things.
>
> The latter would not I think be consistent with the "empty" state of the
> world when they first entered it, and possibly with a few other things
> which I'm not quite pinning down (I haven't read the historical parts of
> the source material in Quite Some While Now).

To me that song looked like a timeline for what did/will happen in Ea.
Morgoth did create things in there for entire existent of the Ea. Just
like Ents were created. They were not added there later by Valar, but
were created by that song.

It is quite interesting song actually. First were elves (first part)
which were almost destroyed by Melkors version, then probably humans
(second part) which refused to die, but were corrupted and constant war
was going on with original song and Melkors version of it. Then Eru
stopped that entirely (End of the World).

> The former would not be consistent with the fact that, as depicted in
> The Hobbit, trolls do appear to have minds and "motive force" of their
> own, not just whatever they derive from the driving will of a master
> they may be serving. (Even Aule's dwarves were like that - mindless
> except as extensions of him - before Iluvatar intervened.)

So former could work.

>>> As you mention, Orcs were (at least suspected to have been)
>>> originally made by corrupting Elves. Balrogs and Dragons were
>>> essentially Maiar in his service.
>>
>> Dragons were not Maiar. Balrogs were. Dragons were overgrown lizards
>> with part of Morgoths spirit in them IIRC.
>
> I wasn't entirely sure about Dragons, but I couldn't think what else
> they could have been. I do seem to recall them being "created things"
> (at least partly in the sense of "mechanical monstrosities") in one
> iteration of the legend, but the "creatures with Morgoth's spirit in
> them" view would not be consistent with their having continued to have
> initiative and "motive force" after Morgoth was reduced in power (by
> infusing so much of it into the world at large) and removed from the
> world.

They could have been literally given life from Morgoth just like Sauron
did for The One Ring. The One Ring had his own mind too, but it was just
an extension of Sauron himself. And just like The Ring, dragon mind
could be active even when Morgoth is not around, it is enough that he is
not dead. Morgoth is not dead. He can't really be killed except by his
creator. Valar and Maiar are truly immortal, death is impossible for
them. They can be diminished (like Sauron when his Ring was destroyed)
and hurt, but not killed.

>>> Trolls are AFAIR not mentioned prior to "The Hobbit", but someone
>>> (Treebeard?) speculated that they might have been derived from Ents
>>
>> Not derived from, but created as a mockery.
>
> The line I recall runs in part "in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of
> Elves". While Orcs are to some degree what you referred to as "not
> really alive"

Orcs are definitely really alive. This is clear from both Silmarillion
and LoTR.

Actually IIRC that part were this is said also says _when_ Morgoth lost
his ability to create things. I must read it again.

> - lacking "motive force" without a master to drive them,
> as per their disproportionate demoralization with the fall of Sauron in
> ROTK - I do recall statements that they were made by twisting
> already-existing things, not from whole cloth; the obvious thing to have
> twisted, given the above line, would be the Elves (and thence the Ents).
> Thus, "derived from".

If they were derived from tree-like ents to stone-like trolls that
change is enormous. I can't buy it.

> Of course, this discussion is all somewhat pointless, since the question
> of the origin of Orcs is IIRC one of the points on which Tolkien himself
> was still reconsidering matters when he - er - left off writing; it is
> entirely possible that the legendry was in an inconsistent state in this
> respect, and that he would have gone back and changed this again at some
> point.

Origins of orcs were either corrupted elves or corrupted humans. Much
else could not be changed. Not even by Tolkien himself without rewriting
too much.

>>> (ironically appropriate, since the Ents themselves were originally
>>> conceived of as hostile giants and may even once have been called
>>> Trolls); that would of course make interbreeding even less
>>> plausible, but they certainly would not be creations of Morgoth.
>>
>> Maybe corrupted earth spirits? Turning to stone by sunlight would
>> feel approriate to those. Anyway no relation to humans.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, such earth spirits would have to be (lesser) Maiar,
> for a lack of anything else to possibly fill that role; the trolls we
> know anything about don't seem to remotely fit that. Regardless, I do
> agree that they would almost certainly not be remotely human (except in
> appearance) and would therefore not be able to interbreed.

I think there are a lot more more or less magical beings in Tolkien
world than just Valar and Maiar. Just like Ents were created by that
song so had many other things. Things and places that were more or less
magical by nature.

>>> I do not honestly remember off the top of my head whether giants
>>> appeared at all in the legendry prior to The Hobbit (or for that
>>> matter afterwards), so I do not have a real comment on that point
>>> except for the original conception of Ents. I do, however, seem to
>>> recall once confirming that the only giants mentioned in Tolkien
>>> were the storm giants from the Misty Mountains in The Hobbit, who
>>> could perhaps be excused as Bilbo being imaginative...
>>
>> I do recall some sentence where Gandalf says that he will look for
>> peaceful giant in order to get some help to fix something. Can't
>> really say what and in which book. The Hobbit probably. Also
>> something in LoTR when they were trying to go over Caradhras.
>> Something about "storm giants" or such (don't have english version
>> handy, so can't check).
>
> The only storm giants I recall (unless you allow the malevolent spirit
> of Caradhras - itself a bit of a mystery - to fall into that category)
> were from The Hobbit, the ones I mentioned above as being possibly
> Bilbo's imagination.

Caradhras "giants" were probably just imaginative, but Caradhras itself,
like Gimli said, had a malevolent spirit. In Tolkien world beings of
great power seem to affect surrounding things giving them character
without actually doing anything. Aura of power or something like that.
Deep under Caradhras were "nameless things" and Balrog.

>> hmmm... This page seems to agree with me:
>> http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/giants.html
>
> I don't have time and/or interest to read that right now, but I'll try
> to get to it before the next response if any.
>
>> Anyway, if I have to have giants in angband they will be race of men
>> and half-troll will be gone in favor of half-giant.
>
> For pure Tolkien-authentic mythology, I would get rid of both.

Well, I have to keep giants. Otherwise there is too much to change. I
might change description of them. Greater Titan is said to be 40' tall.
Considering that one level is only 50' that is "a little bit" too much.
Kobold as a player race will be gone (can't figure out why it was added
in first place, it is not Tolkien) and giant uniques will be gone.

Very large humans as giants make perfect sense. Real life tallest man
was 272cm (8'11.1"). If you just make "giants" in average 3-3.5m
(10'-11.6') tall you have a giant that is way bigger than normal human
and more than twice the size of a dwarf. Not exactly same as Ents that
were much bigger, but big enough to be "giants".

> For
> practicality and handwaving vague plausibility, I would find the
> half-troll to be at least as plausible as the half-giant, particularly
> given the way the trolls we saw were depicted.

Can't play too realistic. Any really realistic game would be either
extremely horrifying to play or very boring to play.

Timo Pietilä

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Jun 15, 2008, 12:32:10 PM6/15/08
to
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:13:49 +0300, Timo Pietilä
<timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:05:45 +0300, Timo Pietilä

>>> Tolkien world was quite sovinistic, but OTOH I think entire medieval

>>> ages (in real world) was quite sovinistic, so it is quite fitting for
>>> Tolkien world. It is mens world. There are few strong females in Tolkien
>>> books so even that his world was sovinistic his stories were not (or at
>>> least not so strongly).
>>
>> Middle-Earth is *not* the medieval world. Numenor and its colonies were
>> analogized with Egypt by Tolkien, and a woman ruled as pharaoh (she even
>> wore a fake beard). It was only after Numenoreans started down the road
>> of corruption that women could not rule. Numenor itself had three Ruling
>> Queens in its history. Even ignoring the non-human Galadriel, a woman
>> ruler is hardly out of the question in Middle-Earth.
>
>Not out of question, but unlikely. Womans were not voted to leadership,
>they inherited their status, and only when there was no man to inherit
>that status.

In Numenorean culture, but not all of the ring-wraiths were Numenorean.
And the difficulty of achieving sovereign power as a woman would be an
excellent motivation for accepting aid from a mysterious foreigner.

>I have always wondered _which_ "great kings" those nine were. Usually
>Tolkien did make very detailed explanations about things like that, but
>for this one thing he did not. As you said it probably was deliberately
>kept vague.

I do think ICE was "realistic" in spreading some of the rings quite far
east and south (where we know almost nothing of Middle-Earth), as that
would have been a plausible part of Sauron solidifying his power over
these regions.

>>>> Whereas allowing Hobbits to be any class that casts spells directly
>>>> contradicts Tolkien.
>>> And entire existence of Half-troll is non-Tolkien. I'm considering
>>> changing that to half-giant for my version (if I ever get time to do
>>> something for it).
>>
>> That's also non-Tolkien. At least for half-trolls one can argue that if
>> sun-resistant orcs were a result of interbreeding them with men,
>> sun-resistant trolls would have been created in the same way. (Although
>> that's still quite iffy.)
>
>AFAIK giants have not been described in any detail, so I make a small
>leap of assumption and say that they are oversized humans similar to
>hobbit which are basically just very small humans. Trolls are Morgoth
>creations with no relationship with humans, so interbreeding would be
>impossible. Orcs OTOH are either corrupted elves or humans with their
>own lives and half-orc is completely possible.

Or soulless mechanisms. Or any of several other explanations Tolkien
considered, while never really finally deciding on any one of them.
(Although the corrupted elves and/or humans scenario does appear the
most plausible.) Frankly, the scale of the giants suggested in the
Hobbit would seem to prohibit interbreeding.

>>>> I'd also point out that there is no textual basis
>>>> for the idea that they favor slings (as followed by some variants). They
>>>> are mentioned *throwing*, not slinging, rocks and using bows. ADOM's
>>>> "hurthlings" are actually the best-realized roguelike Hobbits.
>
>>> They are described dangerous with bows. When Frodo and his companion
>>> cleaned Shire at the end of the LoTR it was pretty obvious that Hobbits
>>> were dangerous with bows. I don't recall anyone using sling in Tolkien
>>> books.
>>
>> They also sent archers to aid the King when the war with Angmar was on.
>
>And, based on how well Pippin and Merri handled tough situations, not
>quite harmless in hand to hand combat either.

Well, Pippin and Merry were only butt-kicking action heroes after
powering up on Entish energy drinks.

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 1:51:42 AM6/18/08
to
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:24:33 +0300, Timo Pietilä
<timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>The Wanderer wrote:

>> The latter would not I think be consistent with the "empty" state of the
>> world when they first entered it, and possibly with a few other things
>> which I'm not quite pinning down (I haven't read the historical parts of
>> the source material in Quite Some While Now).
>
>To me that song looked like a timeline for what did/will happen in Ea.
>Morgoth did create things in there for entire existent of the Ea. Just
>like Ents were created. They were not added there later by Valar, but
>were created by that song.

The Ents were, however, created later by Eru, in response to Yavanna
complaining about the threat of the Dwarves IIRC. Don't think that the
song *is* the world. If it were, there would have been no need for Eru
to then create a world to express that song. Secondly, humans are part
of the world and they (we) have freedom; we are not bound by the song in
the same way that the Elves and Valar are.

>> - lacking "motive force" without a master to drive them,
>> as per their disproportionate demoralization with the fall of Sauron in
>> ROTK - I do recall statements that they were made by twisting
>> already-existing things, not from whole cloth; the obvious thing to have
>> twisted, given the above line, would be the Elves (and thence the Ents).
>> Thus, "derived from".
>
>If they were derived from tree-like ents to stone-like trolls that
>change is enormous. I can't buy it.

It has been suggested that this was the fate of the ent-wives, but I
doubt the timing is correct for that. In any case, I suspect Tolkien did
not decide on an origin for Trolls. He never settled the much more
significant question of the origin of Orcs.

>Origins of orcs were either corrupted elves or corrupted humans. Much
>else could not be changed. Not even by Tolkien himself without rewriting
>too much.

Actually, little would need to be changed, since nobody but Morgoth and
his servants (and Eru and the Valar) were in a position to *know*. All
we learn is the best guesses of others.

>> For pure Tolkien-authentic mythology, I would get rid of both.
>
>Well, I have to keep giants. Otherwise there is too much to change. I
>might change description of them. Greater Titan is said to be 40' tall.

Giants as monsters, yes. Half-giant player-characters, no.



>Considering that one level is only 50' that is "a little bit" too much.
>Kobold as a player race will be gone (can't figure out why it was added
>in first place, it is not Tolkien) and giant uniques will be gone.

Well, kobolds are no worse than gnomes, which are completely non-Tolkien
except as an outdated name for what we know as the Noldor.

Actually Tolkienesque race ideas: Ents, Druadain (e.g., the Woses), and
generally chances to differentiate different types of Elves, Men, and
Halflings. Talking Spider would be good as an extreme option if you want
to represent the dark side. That's the one strain of "monster" that
could plausibly go against Morgoth.

The Wanderer

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 6:41:09 AM6/18/08
to
R. Dan Henry wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:24:33 +0300, Timo Pietilä
> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>>> The latter would not I think be consistent with the "empty" state
>>> of the world when they first entered it, and possibly with a few
>>> other things which I'm not quite pinning down (I haven't read the
>>> historical parts of the source material in Quite Some While Now).
>>
>> To me that song looked like a timeline for what did/will happen in
>> Ea. Morgoth did create things in there for entire existent of the
>> Ea. Just like Ents were created. They were not added there later by
>> Valar, but were created by that song.
>
> The Ents were, however, created later by Eru, in response to Yavanna
> complaining about the threat of the Dwarves IIRC.

I don't recall seeing any indication that Tolkien had decided anything
about where the Ents came from, and I did look. Where did you run across
this tidbit?

>>> - lacking "motive force" without a master to drive them, as per
>>> their disproportionate demoralization with the fall of Sauron in
>>> ROTK - I do recall statements that they were made by twisting
>>> already-existing things, not from whole cloth; the obvious thing
>>> to have twisted, given the above line, would be the Elves (and
>>> thence the Ents). Thus, "derived from".
>>
>> If they were derived from tree-like ents to stone-like trolls that
>> change is enormous. I can't buy it.
>
> It has been suggested that this was the fate of the ent-wives, but I
> doubt the timing is correct for that.

I have always presumed that the Entwives - or at least some of them -
were, in fact, now living in the vicinity of the Shire, as per Sam's
argument in (the Green Dragon?) about a walking elm tree on the North
Downs, and Treebeard's comments that the Shire was the sort of place the
Entwives would have liked.

>>> For pure Tolkien-authentic mythology, I would get rid of both.
>>
>> Well, I have to keep giants. Otherwise there is too much to change.
>> I might change description of them. Greater Titan is said to be 40'
>> tall.
>
> Giants as monsters, yes. Half-giant player-characters, no.

Agreed.

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 6:49:55 AM6/18/08
to
The Wanderer wrote:
> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:24:33 +0300, Timo Pietilä
>> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>>
>>> The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>>>> The latter would not I think be consistent with the "empty" state
>>>> of the world when they first entered it, and possibly with a few
>>>> other things which I'm not quite pinning down (I haven't read the
>>>> historical parts of the source material in Quite Some While Now).
>>>
>>> To me that song looked like a timeline for what did/will happen in
>>> Ea. Morgoth did create things in there for entire existent of the
>>> Ea. Just like Ents were created. They were not added there later by
>>> Valar, but were created by that song.
>>
>> The Ents were, however, created later by Eru, in response to Yavanna
>> complaining about the threat of the Dwarves IIRC.
>
> I don't recall seeing any indication that Tolkien had decided anything
> about where the Ents came from, and I did look. Where did you run across
> this tidbit?

It is in Silmarillion. Yavanna was worried about that anything that grow
on the ground cannot defend themselves and then Eru made her hear the
song again and showed that there are defenders for forests. It was the
song that created Ents.

Timo Pietilä

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 11:41:05 AM6/18/08
to
R. Dan Henry wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:24:33 +0300, Timo Pietilä
> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>> Origins of orcs were either corrupted elves or corrupted humans. Much
>> else could not be changed. Not even by Tolkien himself without rewriting
>> too much.
>
> Actually, little would need to be changed, since nobody but Morgoth and
> his servants (and Eru and the Valar) were in a position to *know*. All
> we learn is the best guesses of others.

Well it was said that orcs, unlike other Morgoth creations had real
life, which means that they were corrupted forms of something with life,
because Morgoth (or Melkor) had no ability to create anything that had
life. At least that part would need changing if that would not be true.

>>> For pure Tolkien-authentic mythology, I would get rid of both.
>> Well, I have to keep giants. Otherwise there is too much to change. I
>> might change description of them. Greater Titan is said to be 40' tall.
>
> Giants as monsters, yes. Half-giant player-characters, no.

Why not? Giants could be just overgrown humans. They are vague enough
that it wasn't even sure if they existed at all. 3-4m tall humans could
be giants just fine.

>> Considering that one level is only 50' that is "a little bit" too much.
>> Kobold as a player race will be gone (can't figure out why it was added
>> in first place, it is not Tolkien) and giant uniques will be gone.
>
> Well, kobolds are no worse than gnomes, which are completely non-Tolkien
> except as an outdated name for what we know as the Noldor.

At least there is that "outdated name". But I probably introduce three
elven types instead of two, so gnome could be replaced with one of them.
I'm not sure I keep half-elves, those were so rare in Tolkien world.

> Actually Tolkienesque race ideas: Ents,

I have hard time imagining tree-like ents crawling in dungeons. So no
for them.

> Druadain (e.g., the Woses),

This, however, is very good suggestion. Human, Dunedain, Druadain.

> and
> generally chances to differentiate different types of Elves, Men, and
> Halflings.

Not sure yet which and how I add/remove.

> Talking Spider would be good as an extreme option if you want
> to represent the dark side. That's the one strain of "monster" that
> could plausibly go against Morgoth.

Well, half-orc would work for that (not that any of those are in any of
the books). I like to keep things humanoid, because all wearable items
in game are made for humanoids.

Maybe rebellious Balrog that tries to grab control of the world to
himself? What was that Ulmos servant? Water-spirit of some sort that had
been in service of Melkor, but later reverted back in forces of good. He
was violent by nature. I think any Maiar had true choise which side to
settle if any. Like Saruman and Gandalf. Power corrupts. I would make it
muncking race. Score/3 or something like that for them.

Timo Pietilä

The Wanderer

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 4:23:04 PM6/18/08
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:

> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:24:33 +0300, Timo Pietilä
>> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>>> Well, I have to keep giants. Otherwise there is too much to
>>> change. I might change description of them. Greater Titan is said
>>> to be 40' tall.
>>
>> Giants as monsters, yes. Half-giant player-characters, no.
>
> Why not? Giants could be just overgrown humans. They are vague enough
> that it wasn't even sure if they existed at all. 3-4m tall humans
> could be giants just fine.

That would not fit with (my impression of) the storm giants described in
The Hobbit, which are the only non-Ent giants I remember appearing in
the books at all; those giants would have been vastly larger and more
formidable, as befitting the strength of a storm. Do you have a
different impression of those giants, or are you remembering giants
appearing somewhere else in the mythology?

>> Talking Spider would be good as an extreme option if you want to
>> represent the dark side. That's the one strain of "monster" that
>> could plausibly go against Morgoth.
>
> Well, half-orc would work for that (not that any of those are in any
> of the books).

Eh? It's "strongly speculated" that the Uruk-hai are exactly that,
half-orcs who take after their orcish side in mindset.

Nick

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 4:58:55 PM6/18/08
to
On Jun 19, 1:41 am, Timo Pietilä <timo.piet...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> R. Dan Henry wrote:


> At least there is that "outdated name". But I probably introduce three
> elven types instead of two, so gnome could be replaced with one of them.
> I'm not sure I keep half-elves, those were so rare in Tolkien world.
>
> > Actually Tolkienesque race ideas: Ents,
>
> I have hard time imagining tree-like ents crawling in dungeons. So no
> for them.
>
> > Druadain (e.g., the Woses),
>
> This, however, is very good suggestion. Human, Dunedain, Druadain.
>
> > and
> > generally chances to differentiate different types of Elves, Men, and
> > Halflings.
>
> Not sure yet which and how I add/remove.

Having a look at FAangband races might help. There are some new ones
from O, plus I went through the process of only allowing First-Age-
plausible ones; there are three types of elves, Druedain, ents,
Beornings (!), etc. And UnAngband has even more, including lots of
human types.

> Maybe rebellious Balrog that tries to grab control of the world to
> himself? What was that Ulmos servant? Water-spirit of some sort that had
> been in service of Melkor, but later reverted back in forces of good. He
> was violent by nature. I think any Maiar had true choise which side to
> settle if any. Like Saruman and Gandalf. Power corrupts. I would make it
>   muncking race. Score/3 or something like that for them.

That was Osse; your idea for Maiar is pretty much how they are done in
O/FA.

Nick.

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 6:19:45 PM6/18/08
to
The Wanderer wrote:
> Timo Pietilä wrote:
>
>> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:24:33 +0300, Timo Pietilä
>>> <timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>>>> Well, I have to keep giants. Otherwise there is too much to
>>>> change. I might change description of them. Greater Titan is said
>>>> to be 40' tall.
>>>
>>> Giants as monsters, yes. Half-giant player-characters, no.
>>
>> Why not? Giants could be just overgrown humans. They are vague enough
>> that it wasn't even sure if they existed at all. 3-4m tall humans
>> could be giants just fine.
>
> That would not fit with (my impression of) the storm giants described in
> The Hobbit, which are the only non-Ent giants I remember appearing in
> the books at all; those giants would have been vastly larger and more
> formidable, as befitting the strength of a storm. Do you have a
> different impression of those giants, or are you remembering giants
> appearing somewhere else in the mythology?

I just checked and in The Hobbit they really saw those giants (at least
in finnish version, can't tell what the wording is in english version).
Stone giants, not storm giants, but in the situation they were in a
storm. Those giants throw rocks at each other for fun and are big enough
that Thorin is worried about getting picked up by one and kicked sky
high as a football.

There is no actual mention about their size, but three or four meter
tall human could pick up a dwarf and make it fly by kicking it. Not sky
high, but still. You don't need 6-12 meter tall mysterious giant
elemental to do that. When size doubles mass is quadrupled, so 3 meter
tall slim human would weight about 300-350kg or even more. I quess dwarf
would weight about 40kg. Size difference is huge, and because of huge
size giant legs would need relatively more strenght in comparison to
average human in order to be able to move smoothly.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wight times 1.5 :-) I still laugh
about his comment about wearing an airplane he made in Late Night with
Conan O'Brien.)

I'm pretty much in same line with this:
http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/g/giants.html

>>> Talking Spider would be good as an extreme option if you want to
>>> represent the dark side. That's the one strain of "monster" that
>>> could plausibly go against Morgoth.
>>
>> Well, half-orc would work for that (not that any of those are in any
>> of the books).
>
> Eh? It's "strongly speculated" that the Uruk-hai are exactly that,
> half-orcs who take after their orcish side in mindset.

Urgh. I totally forgot those Sarumans creations. How stupid of me.

Timo Pietilä

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Jun 18, 2008, 7:30:39 PM6/18/08
to
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:05 +0300, Timo Pietilä
<timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>Well, half-orc would work for that (not that any of those are in any of
>the books). I like to keep things humanoid, because all wearable items
>in game are made for humanoids.

It's pretty strongly suggested that Saruman was interbreeding orcs and
humans. His spy in Bree may have been a half-orc.

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Jul 3, 2008, 9:47:56 PM7/3/08
to
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:35:57 -0700, R. Dan Henry <danh...@inreach.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:04:58 +0300, Timo Pietilä
><timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:

>>Tolkien referred ringwraiths only as "great kings of man".
>
>Given that ruling females have historically taken masculine titles, one
>of these vaguely defined "kings" could have been female. There's no
>basis for that in Tolkien, but his description really doesn't rule it
>out.

And thanks to roguebasin, I've learned about another female queen.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadwiga_of_Poland

Specifically, "Jadwiga finally came to Kraków and at the age of ten, on
November 16, 1384, was crowned King of Poland — Hedvig Rex Polonić, not
Hedvig Regina Polonić. The masculine gender of her title was meant to
emphasize that she was monarch in her own right, not a queen consort."

R. Dan Henry

unread,
Jul 4, 2008, 1:11:07 AM7/4/08
to
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:47:56 -0700, R. Dan Henry <danh...@inreach.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:35:57 -0700, R. Dan Henry <danh...@inreach.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:04:58 +0300, Timo Pietilä
>><timo.p...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
>>>Tolkien referred ringwraiths only as "great kings of man".
>>
>>Given that ruling females have historically taken masculine titles, one
>>of these vaguely defined "kings" could have been female. There's no
>>basis for that in Tolkien, but his description really doesn't rule it
>>out.
>
>And thanks to roguebasin, I've learned about another female queen.

Female *king*.

Andi Sidwell

unread,
Jan 30, 2009, 12:19:25 PM1/30/09
to
On 2008-06-10 16:15, Timo Pietilä wrote:
> George Smith wrote:
>
>> frequently*, and way back in the days of 2.6.something I seem to
>> recall chaos beetles confusing you even if you had resist confusion,
>> unless you also had resist *chaos*, which was not so easy to get or,
>> afterward, to work into your kit...though that doesn't seem to happen
>> anymore.
>
> Originally Jabberwock was Jabberwock. It was renamed to Chaos Beetle by
> Ben when he made some big (not JLE-big) changes to monster lists. JLE
> changed that back.
>
> For Chaos giving/not giving resistance to confusion it went like this if
> I recall correctly:
>
> First Chaos resist gave immunity to confusion effect but not damage
> except when damage was chaos and confusion resist gave immunity to
> confusion effect for both and damage from confusion.
>
> Then Confusion resist didn't give immunity to confusion effect caused by
> Chaos. Both elements were dealt completely separate.
>
> Then Chaos resist gave full resistance to confusion like if you had both
> resists, while confusion gave immunity to confusion effect for both but
> resistance only to confusion damage.
>
> Then Chaos resist gave immunity to confusion caused by chaos, but not
> with confusion. Confusion resist gave immunity to confusion effect for
> both, but only confusion damage. Because that made several items that
> granted confusion effect immunity by having chaos resist not having that
> anymore confusion resist was added to all of them.
>
> Then items were tweaked by JLE and several items lost confusion resist
> that were given them because that change (including balance/chaosDSM:s,
> rationalization was that those don't allow breathe confusion), but
> several others were added to compensate. That created a lot of junk
> and/or difficulty to choose best gear.
>
> I think the original setup was the best. That way you needed only resist
> confusion *or* resist chaos to prevent getting confused. That doubled
> the frequency of confusion effect immunity granting random resist items,
> and kept balance/chaosDSM:s useful, endgame -quality items without extra
> resists. Current setup makes chaos resist nearly useless, because
> confusion resist is so common and much more desirable anyway.

If you or anyone else were interested in creating a patch (or providing
a list of things that would have to be changed) that would implement the
original behaviour again along with reverting the relevant changes to
items that have occured along the way, I would be happy to incorporate
it, since the original behaviour makes the most sense to me.

Also, the entire thing makes my head spin a bit. :)

Andi

Eddie Grove

unread,
Jan 30, 2009, 5:38:22 PM1/30/09
to
Andi Sidwell <an...@takkaria.org> writes:

As far as I see, the hardest part about reverting to the original behavior
will be to write a simple explanation for manuals and in-game help that will
be easily understood by a new player.

Is there any compelling reason that chaos resistance should not be a superset
of confusion resistance? It would just be a one-line patch if rChaos gave
implicit rConf.

OTOH, if you are opening this to discussion, IMO rBlind and rFear and rConf
should be random powers rather than high resistances, and confusion breath
should be removed entirely. It would still be fine in this context for rChaos
to grant rConf. By reducing the number of high resists, each individual one
remaining would be a bit more likely to show up on random high resist items.
I have not playtested this idea, so I can't guess about unintended side
effects.


Eddie

Wally the Grey

unread,
Jan 30, 2009, 7:29:32 PM1/30/09
to
Eddie Grove wrote:
> OTOH, if you are opening this to discussion, IMO rBlind and rFear and rConf
> should be random powers rather than high resistances, and confusion breath
> should be removed entirely. It would still be fine in this context for rChaos
> to grant rConf. By reducing the number of high resists, each individual one
> remaining would be a bit more likely to show up on random high resist items.

Current high resists (* indicates really mission-critical):

poison*
light
dark
blind*
confusion*
chaos
nether
nexus
shards
sound
disenchantment
fear

about 1/4 are starred.

Under your proposal:

poison*
light
dark
chaos
nether
nexus
shards
sound
disenchantment

about 1/9 are starred.

Elvenkind armors and the like will have a really important resist on
them less than half as often WITH your proposed change.

That is not good.

Items granting random powers will more often have something useful,
because sometimes they'll have rBlind or rConf, and now rFear is more
useful.

However, this just means people will have to id every blessed dagger and
the like to find rBlind and rConf.

Eddie Grove

unread,
Jan 30, 2009, 6:53:09 PM1/30/09
to

Well, I was including chaos granting confusion resistance, so it would be 2/9.

I also disagree about which things you have with a *, as rNexus is more
important to me than rBlind for example. A mage with intrinsic rLight can use
rDark nearly as well as rBlind, and for non-mages I often play dwarves with
rBlind, so that surely influences my viewpoint. I would find elvenkinds more
useful rather than less useful, but that comes down to playstyles.

> Elvenkind armors and the like will have a really important resist on them less
> than half as often WITH your proposed change.
>
> That is not good.
>
> Items granting random powers will more often have something useful, because
> sometimes they'll have rBlind or rConf, and now rFear is more useful.
>
> However, this just means people will have to id every blessed dagger and the
> like to find rBlind and rConf.

Well, there are also Lordliness hats and other stuff could be added if random
powers were too rare.

You may be right that it would be a change for the worse. I can't even guess.


Eddie

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Jan 30, 2009, 10:49:01 PM1/30/09
to
Andi Sidwell wrote:
> On 2008-06-10 16:15, Timo Pietilä wrote:

>> For Chaos giving/not giving resistance to confusion it went like this if
>> I recall correctly:

> If you or anyone else were interested in creating a patch (or providing

> a list of things that would have to be changed) that would implement the
> original behaviour again along with reverting the relevant changes to
> items that have occured along the way, I would be happy to incorporate
> it, since the original behaviour makes the most sense to me.

I would be interested, but I probably don't have time. My work is
consuming pretty much all my time now.

I actually already did that once, but it was with lots of other changes
too (not very good IMO), and items have changed after that, so I would
need to do that again. Code was easy part, tweaking items is the hard
part (or time consuming part).

Major JLE change was rConf in Amulet of Magi. I suggest giving Amulet of
Magi rBlind instead (even if we don't change this behavior back).

JLE removed rconf from many items that had it when he made his patch,
but didn't have it originally, so item original items are actually
closer to original now (for rconf) than they were before JLE changes,
but he also added a lot of things so you would need to think if those
new ones need rconf or not (if there are any, can't really remember just
now).

> Also, the entire thing makes my head spin a bit. :)

:-)

Timo Pietilä

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Feb 6, 2009, 4:12:03 AM2/6/09
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:
> Andi Sidwell wrote:
>> On 2008-06-10 16:15, Timo Pietilä wrote:
>
>>> For Chaos giving/not giving resistance to confusion it went like this if
>>> I recall correctly:
>
>> If you or anyone else were interested in creating a patch (or
>> providing a list of things that would have to be changed) that would
>> implement the original behaviour again along with reverting the
>> relevant changes to items that have occured along the way, I would be
>> happy to incorporate it, since the original behaviour makes the most
>> sense to me.
>
> I would be interested, but I probably don't have time. My work is
> consuming pretty much all my time now.

I might have time this weekend for this. For some reason someone in
higher position thinks that "work" means "a lot of meetings" and I
decided that I won't even try to go to all of them. It is just waste of
my time.

Suddenly I have quite a bit time to actually work, and I have actually
managed to do something.

So no more weekend work. I at least try to make some list about what
items should/could be changed and suggestion how.

Code change is pretty easy: for all confusion-based attacks check if
character has chaos resist and if it does don't make him confused. That
is just one OR -statement (in C-language) for each case. Chaos-based
attacks stay same as it is now (confusion resistance already prevents
confusion from chaos).

Timo Pietilä

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Feb 6, 2009, 7:43:31 PM2/6/09
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:
> Timo Pietilä wrote:
>> Andi Sidwell wrote:
>>> On 2008-06-10 16:15, Timo Pietilä wrote:
>>
>>>> For Chaos giving/not giving resistance to confusion it went like
>>>> this if
>>>> I recall correctly:
>>
>>> If you or anyone else were interested in creating a patch (or
>>> providing a list of things that would have to be changed) that would
>>> implement the original behaviour again along with reverting the
>>> relevant changes to items that have occured along the way, I would be
>>> happy to incorporate it, since the original behaviour makes the most
>>> sense to me.
>>
>> I would be interested, but I probably don't have time. My work is
>> consuming pretty much all my time now.
>
> I might have time this weekend for this. For some reason someone in
> higher position thinks that "work" means "a lot of meetings" and I
> decided that I won't even try to go to all of them. It is just waste of
> my time.
>
> Suddenly I have quite a bit time to actually work, and I have actually
> managed to do something.
>
> So no more weekend work. I at least try to make some list about what
> items should/could be changed and suggestion how.

Surprisingly few items:

Adamantine Plate Mail 'Soulkeeper', Golden Crown of Gondor, Leather
Boots 'Dal-i-thalion' and Great Axe of Durin have all both rConf and
rChaos, so I suggest all of them to lose rConf. Thengel and Holhenneth
have been given rConf, but I don't think that is too much (both of them
would be way less attractive without it).

Original (2.8.3h) has only these with rConf:

objects: Bronze DSM (note that PDSM doesn't have rConf in original)
ego: none
artifact: Bladeturner, Isildur, Rohirrim, Caspanion, Iron Crown of
Morgoth, Totila.

Current list is pretty similar, difference is only these:

objects: added rConf: Amulet of magi (suggesting rBlind instead), PDSM.
ego: added rConf: Serenity
artifact: added rConf: Mediator, Soulkeeper, Thengel, Holhenneth,
Gondor, Dal-i-thalion, Durin.

From those artifacts only Thengel and Holhenneth don't have rChaos.

objects: changes in rChaos: none
ego: changes in rChaos: none
artifact: added rChaos: Palantir, Mediator, Himring, Gondor, Erebor.

All of added rChaos items are also completely new items in item list,
and from those only Gondor and Erebor are useful or common enough that
people actually would use them. Himring is used rarely because usually
you have something better. OTOH this change would increase Himrings
value quite a bit (it becomes mini-Caspanion with two useful high
element resists instead of junk that cannot compete with any Elvenkind
with rPoison or rConf).

Palantir is used to illuminate dungeon, but because it weights a lot and
aggravates it isn't very useful item. IMO Palantir is something that
detects all, not illuminates anything. I don't like it at all, I would
either remove it completely and give clairvoyance back to Arkenstone, or
make it artifact rod so that it can be used from inventory instead of
equipment (and I would add Arkenstones detection activation magic
mapping too, all others artifact lightsources are used to detect dungeon
structure, only Arkenstone doesn't)

There aren't any items that have lost rConf or rChaos in current version.

Not sure what to do with Mediator. It also has both rConf and rChaos,
but it is also very very rare and it is dragon armor, so maybe it should
keep both. It doesn't exist at all in original item list (like Gondor
and Serenity).

IMO Serenity could be removed completely if this change is made. Sources
of confusion effect immunities would become common enough that Serenity
would probably turn out to be junk item after this change, OTOH it would
only be one item, so not much harm if it stays in either.

Timo Pietilä

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Feb 7, 2009, 2:09:11 PM2/7/09
to
Timo Pietilä wrote:
> Timo Pietilä wrote:
>> Timo Pietilä wrote:
>>> Andi Sidwell wrote:
>>>> On 2008-06-10 16:15, Timo Pietilä wrote:
>>>
>>>>> For Chaos giving/not giving resistance to confusion it went like
>>>>> this if
>>>>> I recall correctly:
>>>
>>>> If you or anyone else were interested in creating a patch (or
>>>> providing a list of things that would have to be changed) that would
>>>> implement the original behaviour again along with reverting the
>>>> relevant changes to items that have occured along the way, I would
>>>> be happy to incorporate it, since the original behaviour makes the
>>>> most sense to me.
>>>
>>> I would be interested, but I probably don't have time. My work is
>>> consuming pretty much all my time now.
>>
>> I might have time this weekend for this.

>> So no more weekend work. I at least try to make some list about what

>> items should/could be changed and suggestion how.
>
> Surprisingly few items:

Any comments?

Timo Pietilä

Eddie Grove

unread,
Feb 7, 2009, 5:14:33 PM2/7/09
to

Basically, making rChaos grant rConf means that Thorin is even more
powerful and obvious than it is now. I don't have a problem with
that, but I have read multiple people say that they don't want all
endgame chars to look the same.

I would hate to see serenity removed until I had played multiple games
where I knew it was junk, and that would have to wait until after the
current rebalancing efforts go through a few more iterations.


Eddie

Wally the Grey

unread,
Feb 7, 2009, 11:05:50 PM2/7/09
to
Eddie Grove wrote:
> I would hate to see serenity removed until I had played multiple games
> where I knew it was junk, and that would have to wait until after the
> current rebalancing efforts go through a few more iterations.

Consider also ironman_no_artifacts.

I wouldn't want to see an item removed because it was "useless" in a
normal game, when it is useful with one of the ironman_foo options on.

pete m

unread,
Feb 8, 2009, 1:35:29 AM2/8/09
to

I never thought Serenity was junk. I tend to keep one just in case,
since there's not a bad chance I'll want to wear an Elven Ring (ESP)
and Celeborn (no RConf).

Timo Pietilä

unread,
Feb 8, 2009, 5:44:39 AM2/8/09