|
Post by thegreyelf on May 18, 2009 12:56:25 GMT -6
I'm modifying my OD&D PDFs to re-insert the references to Hobbits, Ents, Balrogs, Nazgul, etc...but can't remember off the top of my head what changed into what (save Hobbits and Ents, which I have covered).
Can someone refresh my memory on Balrogs, Nazgul, and any other monster changes?
I know Balrogs were called Balor in Eldritch Wizardry, but what about in Monsters & Treasure?
What did Nazgul become? It wasn't Wraiths, I know that. Was it Spectres?
|
|
|
Post by coffee on May 18, 2009 13:00:30 GMT -6
I know Balrogs were called Balor in Eldritch Wizardry, but what about in Monsters & Treasure? Balrogs were just plain left out. Where they were, you'll find a Tom Wham cartoon. (Except in a couple of random tables, where just the name appears.)
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 18, 2009 13:07:49 GMT -6
With some work, I can fix that . What about Nazgul? What did they become?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 18, 2009 14:01:52 GMT -6
I don't think that Nazgul "became"anything. As far as I can recall there were pictures of Nazgul in the rulebook but never actual stats. I believe that Chainmail suggests that Nazgul are a lot like the Spectre, but that's just from memory.
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on May 18, 2009 18:50:15 GMT -6
There's a reference in the spectre monster description that Nazgul should be considered as spectres rather than wraiths (as they were in Chainmail), but no monster actually called Nazgul.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 18, 2009 20:51:06 GMT -6
Nice to know that my memory isn't totally gone. :-)
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 19, 2009 6:02:06 GMT -6
I forgot to check last night, so good to catch this here this morning.
So...all that's missing from M&T is the Balrog, and changing Treant back to Ent, then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2009 6:06:37 GMT -6
And Halfing back to Hobbit.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 19, 2009 6:25:56 GMT -6
Halflings aren't in Monsters & Treasure, surprisingly. Covered that in Men & Magic, tho.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2009 6:46:08 GMT -6
Ah, yes. Right you are!
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 19, 2009 7:22:50 GMT -6
There are changes to the texts of other monsters as well. Eyeball your PDFs, and when you notice a font change, you know that you are looking at a change from the early printings. One I can remember off the top of my head is orcs. I think giant eagles were also changed.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 343
|
Post by jacar on May 19, 2009 14:00:17 GMT -6
Balrog rough equivalent is a type VI(?) demon. That seems to be an AD&D construct but at least you have an idea.
Spectre (maybe) or Wraith (my choice) for Nazgul.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 20, 2009 6:05:35 GMT -6
Type VI demons first appeared in Eldritch Wizardry, with one specific demon being named Balor. Later on in AD&D (2nd ed, iirc) it became the name of the Baatezu species.
And yeah, Nazgul in Chainmail are called Wraiths, but in OD&D they are reclassified as Spectres.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 20, 2009 8:18:55 GMT -6
Nazgul in Chainmail are called Wraiths, but in OD&D they are reclassified as Spectres. I suppose that part of the confusion comes from the fact that JRRT called the Nazgul the "ring wraiths" and this probably led folks to connect Nazgul = wraiths. That plus the fact that I don't think the word Spectre is ever mentioned in Chainmail tends to make folks think of Wraiths for Nazgul. As you said, Jason, they were reclassified in Monsters & Treasure as Spectres and I would play them as such.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on May 20, 2009 9:10:53 GMT -6
Silly Tolkien. He was clearly confused.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 20, 2009 9:17:45 GMT -6
Certainly he had a problem with Trolls. Now we have to differenciate between "True" Trolls and "Tolkien" Trolls. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on May 20, 2009 9:18:30 GMT -6
Tolkien Trolls = D&D Ogres.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 20, 2009 9:59:11 GMT -6
That's right, and dammit, I forgot to make that correction in my PDFs.
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 343
|
Post by jacar on May 20, 2009 11:32:18 GMT -6
Don't forget the Goblins. OD&D Goblins are Tolkien Orcs...or Tolkien Goblins. Try to figure that one out. OD&D Orcs are basically Uruk-Hai.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 20, 2009 12:34:06 GMT -6
Well, that is never explicit in the rulebooks. Indeed, in Chainmail Orcs are in fact Tolkien Orcs (even divided into Orcs of Mordor, Isengarders, and Orcs of the White Hand) and goblins are folk tale goblins.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on May 20, 2009 18:05:18 GMT -6
Indeed, in Chainmail Orcs are in fact Tolkien Orcs (even divided into Orcs of Mordor, Isengarders, and Orcs of the White Hand) Those ARE the different types of URUKS of The Lord of the Rings. There were the “Black Uruks of Mordor” and the “Fighting Uruk-hai of Isengard” (of course the White Hand is the same thing as Isengard). The small orcs of the Misty Mountains are the ones referred to as “Goblins” in The Hobbit. (Referred to as “Snaga,” slave, by the Uruks in The Lord of the Rings.)
|
|
jacar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 343
|
Post by jacar on May 20, 2009 18:32:30 GMT -6
Indeed they are!
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 21, 2009 5:46:13 GMT -6
Yes, but we're talking about changes made post-Tolkien-lawsuit. Chainmail and OD&D never referred to goblins as being the orcs of Lord of the Rings.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on May 21, 2009 6:09:37 GMT -6
Ah, yes. Back to the original topic. Rocs were another one. "The Eagles of Tolkien."
|
|
|
Post by snorri on May 21, 2009 6:11:27 GMT -6
It does, actually, stating somewhere that orcs are big goblins. In fact, kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, and even gnolls, are members of the goblin familiy - as far as I can understand - and all of them are being members of the giant family.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 21, 2009 7:10:57 GMT -6
Yes, but we're talking about changes made post-Tolkien-lawsuit. Chainmail and OD&D never referred to goblins as being the orcs of Lord of the Rings. I always thought of the.. * Misty Mountain orcs as being OD&D Goblins. * Moria orcs as being OD&D Orcs. * Isengard Uruk-hai as being OD&D Hobgoblins.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 21, 2009 7:19:29 GMT -6
It does, actually, stating somewhere that orcs are big goblins. In fact, kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, and even gnolls, are members of the goblin familiy - as far as I can understand - and all of them are being members of the giant family. Yes, but the books never referenced Tolkien on this, and that wasn't changed after the lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on May 21, 2009 7:20:23 GMT -6
Ah, yes. Back to the original topic. Rocs were another one. "The Eagles of Tolkien." Right, right. In 6th print this was changed to a reference regarding the Rocs of mythology feeding on elephants.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on May 21, 2009 8:07:01 GMT -6
The earlier prints had both references. A normal Roc is a Tolkien Eagle. To portray the mythological Roc that feeds on Elephants you would need to beef it up. I don't have it in front of me but I'm sure it's more or less the same language in all versions.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on May 21, 2009 8:14:07 GMT -6
I always thought of the.. * Misty Mountain orcs as being OD&D Goblins. * Moria orcs as being OD&D Orcs. * Isengard Uruk-hai as being OD&D Hobgoblins. Moria IS in the Misty Mountains. (Did you mean Mordor?) My take on it is that Goblins & Hobgoblins are Misty Mountains Goblins, with Hobgoblins being great Goblins like Bolg. Given the tendency of the race to decay/diminish, even in the First Age, some Goblins were given a genetic boost by interbreeding with Boldogs, or Maiar in Orc-shape. Hobgoblins are their modern descendants. Orcs (Tolkien’s Uruks) appeared in the Third Age and were Goblins given a genetic boost by interbreeding experiments with Men. Both Sauron and Saruman conducted such experiments, Saruman’s products tending to be more heavily Mannish (Half-Orcs).
|
|