|
Post by Falconer on Aug 26, 2013 7:00:58 GMT -6
I’ve been checking it out. I really want to like it, it just seems to be missing too much stuff for me to be able to do with it what I want. I want more “stuff” — spells, magic items, monsters. I need playable wizards and rangers. I don’t usually object when a game company focuses on modules and regional sourcebooks instead of rulebooks, but in this case the core books are just too bare bones — I could do way more with OD&D. And the modules, frankly, are terrible. You can find some excellent fan made supplements in the offical TOR forum that address most of your needs. forums.cubicle7.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9and forums.cubicle7.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=62As far as playable wizards are concerned I find the lack of support in this matter is actually a good thing! I mean Wizards were unique individuals and populating Middle Earth with PC Wizards would create the same problems all previous Tolkien rpgs had (MERP, LoTR etc) "fluff-wise". But that's just my opinion Hey, Legopaldi! Thanks for your thoughts. Well, my opinion is different, and unfortunately, TOR does not provide enough of a toolbox to accommodate my approach. All the major parties in Tolkien had a wizard. Thorin & Co., the Company of the Ring, Beren & Lúthien (Lúthien). I guess I consider Tolkien role-playing an exercise in “what would Tolkien do.” That is, my goal is to model the literature, rather than playing minor roles within the already-established world. Put another way – Gandalf functioned as a “PC,” but neither Beorn nor Bard did. So why can I play a Beorning or a Barding, but not a Gandalfing? I’m sure it’s already a tired debate, for those who have been plugged into the TOR scene. As I said, the point is not to be proven right or wrong in the debate, but that a published RPG ought to be enough of a toolbox to support different approaches.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 26, 2013 7:26:56 GMT -6
So why can I play a Beorning or a Barding, but not a Gandalfing? Beeeeeecause there is no such thing? Basically, you're saying, "I wanna be a wizard!" But in Middle-earth wizardry is unique to an individual. And The One Ring does handle this, with Virtues. There is no spell list, because that's not how magic works in Middle-earth. There are spells, but these are words, commands, or incantations you use to channel your will, and they are not formulaic. When Gandalf says he used to know scores of spells of men and elves and orcs for opening things, he doesn't mean scores of different Knock spells; he means scores of passwords programmed into doors and things. The One Ring doesn't have playable wizards because it doesn't fit the source material to do so. As we all know, Gandalf was not just a wizard, he was a powerful spirit incarnated to help succor the peoples of Middle-earth against Sauron, as were the other Istari. The area the game focuses on, Wilderland of the Third Age, does not have any powerful Noldor who could subcreate powerfully enough to have their art called wizardry. What you want is a game inspired by Middle-earth, not an actual game of Middle-earth.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 26, 2013 7:50:07 GMT -6
Let me put it this way: I would like to allow a Maia PC.
If Tolkien did it, so can I … or else it doesn’t feel like Tolkien. Tolkien didn’t write solely about unremarkable characters.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 26, 2013 11:21:01 GMT -6
Let me put it this way: I would like to allow a Maia PC. If Tolkien did it, so can I … or else it doesn’t feel like Tolkien. Tolkien didn’t write solely about unremarkable characters. Tolkien didn't write or play role-playing games, either, so I disregard this appeal. Some games are designed for godlike adventurers; The One Ring is not one of these. This is not a fault with the game; it is a mismatch for your preferences. There's no point in going to an ice cream store and demanding an apple pie.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 26, 2013 11:39:21 GMT -6
What do you mean, godlike? I assumed everyone agrees Gandalf neither possessed nor displayed godlike powers. He is consistently portrayed as lesser in stature and lore than Elrond and others of the Wise.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 26, 2013 14:00:26 GMT -6
You're clearly not very familiar with Tolkien's legendarium. Gandalf and other four Wizards are angelic spirits incarnated as men and sent to Middle-earth by the Valar, the godlike spirits who shaped The world, to aid the Free Peoples against Sauron. Their power comes from their nature, not from a study of magic. They are immortal, though their bodies can be destroyed, and Gandalf was resurrected after his death by the balrog. Furthermore, Gandalf wields one of the three elvish Rings of Power.
Gandalf, after his Christ-like resurrection, is the second most powerful being in Middle-earth, after Sauron. Not exactly suitable as a player-character.
|
|
|
Post by legopaidi on Aug 27, 2013 1:18:35 GMT -6
I think everyone is entitled to their opinion or better say, preference, when it comes to their gaming table. I totally understand Falconer even though I wouldn't run a Middle Earth game like his (any more / for the time being). For sure, if I wanted to allow PCs with great magical ability I too wouldn't choose TOR. Or maybe I would read those fan made supplements called "Magic in Middle Earth" and "Dwimmer Road lite" (which I still haven't) and try using them.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 28, 2013 21:56:53 GMT -6
You're clearly not very familiar with Tolkien's legendarium. Come on, bro. I’m not really interested in continuing this discussion if we can’t maintain a tone of camaraderie and collaboration. Let’s focus on our common ground. [Maiar] are immortal, though their bodies can be destroyed, and Gandalf was resurrected after his death by the balrog. Yes, but this is all true of Elves also. Their power comes from their nature, not from a study of magic. Again I agree, which is why I think of Wizard as a race (culture in TOR), not a class (calling in TOR). Really, I think of Wizard a a literary archetype, and I think Tolkien did, too, and was only secondarily interested in classification. But, I digress. Yes, power and lore are two different things, and while we don’t much see anyone much increasing their power (except by beholding the Two Trees, being Resurrected, or Sauron via the Rings), we do see the pursuit of lore as a very real and valuable thing. Saruman makes a special study of ring-lore. We don’t know if Radagast studied skin-changing lore from the Beornings, or whether that’s a power he already had (and/or whether he taught it to the Beornings). I think our disagreement boils down to two things: 1) Whether the number of Wizards is limited to the Five Istari that Tolkien mentioned, or whether there is some flexibility there. I suspect I have an easier time than you with being flexible here, since my reading of the legendarium is skewed towards the early writings (i.e., the first 9 books of HOME and The Hobbit), in which Tolkien allows any number of Wizards. 2) The variety of power of the Ainur. Actually, you may not disagree with this; it’s kind of obvious, because Tolkien often talks about who has more power than whom. What we may not agree on is what the lower limit may be. That was the point I was trying to address when I brought up Gandalf — of course Gandalf the White isn’t a very good example. Most of the named Maiar are rather godlike — Arien and Fionwë; even Melian effectively counters Morgoth. But supposedly there is a vast, uncounted host of Maiar, described in the early writings as fays, sprites, leprauns, foam-spirits, etc., not to mention the weird miscellany of unclassified monsters who may very well all be Maiar, and, needless to say, many of whom may definitely be slain by Elves and Men. Remember, kids…
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 29, 2013 8:32:00 GMT -6
I swear by the Light of the Two Trees, this discussion is going to plunge me into another Tolkien jag... (there are worse things...)
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 29, 2013 9:48:52 GMT -6
I think our disagreement boils down to two things: 1) Whether the number of Wizards is limited to the Five Istari that Tolkien mentioned, or whether there is some flexibility there. I suspect I have an easier time than you with being flexible here, since my reading of the legendarium is skewed towards the early writings (i.e., the first 9 books of HOME and The Hobbit), in which Tolkien allows any number of Wizards. Capitalization is important. There are five Wizards, but not necessarily only five wizards. The Istari did not arrive and become a new thing called a W izard; they arrived and conformed to the idea of a wizard. They were just (apparently) old men to whom the name Wizard was applied. Virtually no one in the Third Age would know who the Istari were, where they came from, or why they had come. They wouldn't even know there were five of them, that they were associated in any way, or even that they were called Istari by (some) elves. We get an age-long overview of their history, but most men would know nothing about them except that this old man would come by once in a while who could perform wizardry, like making magic studs or predatory smoke-rings. So there would be plenty of stories about (lowercase) wizards, some of which would be true of the Istari, some of which would be true of others who used wizardry, and some of which were not true at all. There really were only five Istari, and the Istari are called (capital) Wizards, but anyone else who uses wizardry could be called a wizard without being one of the Istari. In any case, it is clear that (losercase) wizards are extremely rare, and most stories about them are just legends. There probably weren't any non-Istari wizards of Men left in Middle-earth—certainly some who knew some of the craft of wizardry, but none who fit the legends of a wizard. You needed greatness and power to use wizardry like that, and most of that greatness and power left Middle-earth with the Noldor and the Dunedain. Thus, a non-Istari wizard-character has no place in a game set in the late Third Age. Not because there were only five, but because they had all left. No one great enough to match the stories of wizards was left in Middle-earth, except a few reclusive elves, and servants of the Enemy practicing sorcery. It's entirely a matter of definition. If every spirit in Middle-earth that is not one of the Children of Iluvatar or a perversion by Morgoth is called an Ainu, then they range from the smallest creek-spirit all the way to Melkor at the Beginning of Time. The question is the nature of the Istari. They are different than most Maiar, in that they are incarnated into bodies to live in Middle-earth; they do not simply wear bodies as most Maiar do. Except in cases where a Vala or Maia gets stuck in a single form (Morgoth, Sauron), these spirits can wear or remove their forms as we do clothing. The spirits of the Istari were locked into their bodies as one of the Children of Iluvatar are.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 29, 2013 11:36:18 GMT -6
I used to be fascinated with the study of Tolkien's sub-creation. Now, however, my interest is basically limited to The Hobbit. In that context, there is nothing to prevent one from considering Gandalf as one of many D&D-style magic-users.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Aug 29, 2013 12:03:21 GMT -6
If we are to intentionally jettison all of Tolkien outside of The Hobbit, then yes, you can add regular D&D magic-users. You can also add clerics, assassins, druids, paladins, Vulcans, Klingons, Jedi, and Care Bears, because they might exist just off the map.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 29, 2013 12:49:25 GMT -6
If we are to intentionally jettison all of Tolkien outside of The Hobbit, then yes, you can add regular D&D magic-users. You can also add clerics, assassins, druids, paladins, Vulcans, Klingons, Jedi, and Care Bears, because they might exist just off the map. I think thematic appropriateness would lead most to exclude those last four. But 1d4 Godzillas is a real possibility!
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Aug 29, 2013 13:56:56 GMT -6
I think if you consider Gandalf as a Jedi rather than a magic-user it's a more comfortable fit. Loner bad-ass with a magic sword, mind powers and a quasi-mystical pedigree... it just makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 31, 2013 9:23:29 GMT -6
I used to be fascinated with the study of Tolkien's sub-creation. Now, however, my interest is basically limited to The Hobbit. In that context, there is nothing to prevent one from considering Gandalf as one of many D&D-style magic-users. I think you raise a valid point. In my mind there are "two" Middle-earths: (1) The M-e of the Hobbit. (2) The M-e of the Tolkienverse. When the Hobbit was written, I'm not entirely certain that Tolkien envisioned the scope of the entire Middle-earth that he was to later create. If he did, some of the choices he made in writing the Hobbit are puzzling. When reading the Hobbit, I get the distinct feel that Gandalf is a quirky old wizard and maybe nothing more. Later re-imagining of the whole thing led Tolkien to the point where he determined that Gandalf was essentially an angel watching over the world and not simply the wizard he appeared to be. However, I have no problem with adopting the main world and beings of Lord of the Rings while still maintaining the image of "Gandalf the wizard" instead of "Gandalf the Maiar." Especially from a game campaign standpoint. I don't see that ignoring the angelic element in any way diminishes the wonderfulness that is Middle-earth, and making Gandalf a simple wizard certainly makes game-sense in that other characters can then follow his path. If my players wanted to be angels they would play In Nomine. Anyway, some great discusssion here!
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 31, 2013 14:23:51 GMT -6
The question is, "Are there men who did and can use magic?" The answer is clearly yes. The trick is not letting the stories of Jack Vance's muddy the magic of tolkien's milieu. The genius of Vance is his quasi-Greek scientist take on wizardry, this clearly doesn't work for Tolkien. The problem for tolkienists is that ME was meant to revive English Mythology. Tolkien looked at everything through the prism of Beowulf and beowulf doesn't give us much in terms how magic works (outside of magic weapons, armor, and potions). The earliest magician in English Mythology might just be Merlin unless someone knows of another? Removing the "spells per day" from the d&d druid might get us close. What one will want to do is stay away from Greek mythology as tolkien purposefully eschewed it from his setting. An Arnesonian approach (which does follow a certain shakespearian and English mythology) is to use reagents and to posit that spells are things concocted or crafted--which has precedents in Tolkien with item creation and the things like the creation of types of orcs. It is Gygax's interpretation of Vance that has a wizard capable of "memorizing" a single lightning bolt per day, but it is Arneson's interpretation of English Mythology that requires a bit of fleece and an iron rod as the material components--thought this is not something Gandalf required, but Gandalf perhaps shouldn't be the model. The stories of necromancers and men who dabble in magic is probably a better, though less detailed source. There would be no word for "wizard" or "necromancer" or "sorcerer" (re: black Numinoreans) in the vocabulary of the peoples of middle earth if such types did not exist. The question is how to implement them. Vancian magic is probably an ill fit, but it certainly can fit with the right shoe-horn. Better would be to only use the item and potion creation rules from d&d which are well detailed, but require lots of gold. Psionics is ill fitting because of it's Lovecraftian baggage in the introduction to the original rules and their Freudian psudo-science bent in 2nd edition. One could say that because there is no wizard in Beowulf, there can be no wizards in ME and this person would have a point. The stories of the brothers grimm would be another good source of germanic magic, though most of these ending being tolkiens dwarves, but gnomish illusionists would be acceptable as well for a very 5th century german (saxon) mythology which tolkien would approve of. A simple approach is to simply give specific powers drawn from the text exactly as is and their limitation could be similar to that of what psionics posits, which is repeated use will draw the attention of the the Dark Lord and so risk extra wandering monster checks or something. Worth reading is Tolkien's letters on the subject. tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letter_155Complicating things further will be the need to distinguish between the English ideas of magic in a pagan sense, a christian sense, and then a satanic sense. This is all laid out in Tolkien's lectures on Beowulf which is a must read for anyone attempting to build in his world. D&D borrowed heavily from this philosophy which is why we have such things as Law/Neutral/Chaos Clerics, Druids, and Magic-Users. (clerics = christian, druids = pagan, magic-users =.....JACK VANCE!) Woops! The quick answer is to remove the daily spells from all 3 groups which is the vancian influence, but keep the basic structure. The joke that, "Gandalf was a 5th level cleric" is funny but also, in a sense, true. What then replaces the vancian limitation on magic used? Vancian is a useful system because it puts the limitation on spells used on a "per adventure" basis. This is not a limitation for Tolkien, rather things like: 1) potential for corruption 2) notice by the enemy 3) time to craft an object 4) reagents 5) are more aligned with the source material. Potential for corruption and notice by the enemy: This could be some sort of roll each time a magic item or spell is used. When you read the original write up in elderitch wizardry of psionics, especially for the cleric and the fighting-man you see stat-loss as the primary penalty. For each power attained, a loss of STR and the ability to keep a henchman for example could be used. time and reagents. This is easy, because it comes straight out of Tolkien, Beowulf, and Arneson. A wizard is basically an alchemist or a crafter. Elvish crafting (boots of elfin kind, potions of sweet water, ropes of entanglement et al). Necromancers would craft things like orcs, speak with dead, dagger of venom, nine-lives stealers, draw evil things to them like a delay version of summon monster spells. The hardest part really is trying to forget Vance, because vance is so easy and "gamist" it's difficult to do.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 31, 2013 15:20:19 GMT -6
In my mind there are "two" Middle-earths: (1) The M-e of the Hobbit. (2) The M-e of the Tolkienverse. When the Hobbit was written, I'm not entirely certain that Tolkien envisioned the scope of the entire Middle-earth that he was to later create. If he did, some of the choices he made in writing the Hobbit are puzzling. When reading the Hobbit, I get the distinct feel that Gandalf is a quirky old wizard and maybe nothing more. Later re-imagining of the whole thing led Tolkien to the point where he determined that Gandalf was essentially an angel watching over the world and not simply the wizard he appeared to be. Fun fact: The phrase "Middle-earth" is not found in The Hobbit (nor is the phrase "The Shire", for that matter). When I think of the world of The Hobbit (considered as a stand-alone work), I think of it as "Wilderland". When I think of Tolkien's vast sub-creation, I think of it as "Middle-earth". Tolkien started his sub-creation during World War I. About 15 years later he wrote a childrens' tale (later published as The Hobbit), NOT part of his sub-creation. That said, he freely and casually plundered his sub-creation for convenient names and characters to use in his childrens' tale. For example, he took the name "Fingolfin" from his sub-creation and put it in his childrens' story. While Fingolfin was a high and noble Elf lord in Tolkien's legendarium, in the childrens' tale he was a goblin who invented the game of golf (FinGOLFin). Later drafts changed this name to Golfimbul. After The Hobbit's publication in 1937, his publisher asked Tolkien for a sequel. He showed them his legendarium, and the publisher was non-plussed, basically saying, "What the hell is this? Where are the Hobbits?" Therefore Tolkien started writing LotR, and the whole thing (including The Hobbit) got dragged into his sub-creation, necessitating considerable revisions to his legendarium. Short version: Tolkien's sub-creation was a giant sucking sound that vacuumed The Hobbit into itself.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Aug 31, 2013 17:19:57 GMT -6
The more I think on this subject I feel the proper focus on magic in LoTR should be on magic items. Incidentally this properly lines up with Beowulf. If individuals have lots of magic power inherently, then the necessity and power of a thing like, The One Ring lose their importance; After all, if Galandriel has access to lots of magic, what does she need her Ring of Power for?
Irrespective of Gandalf's origin, or race, Perhaps it's Gandalf's ring and staff alone that allow for all of the outward manifestations of magic. This would certainly make the One Ring tempting no? The only means of increasing his power would be to take it from Frodo...
So, Gandalf owns a ring of fire, a staff of striking, and a Sword+3 who's special purpose is killing goblinkind. Perhaps you cannot manifest more powers in an item than you have levels. Frodo = level 1 can only turn invisible. Gandalf the Grey being Level 5, could use 5 powers in his ring:
1) light 2) raise charisma to 18 on command 3) pyrotechnics 4) hold portal 5) Lightning bolt
Creation of lesser magic items, like boots and cloaks of elvish kind, weapons et al, could just be a matter of gold, ingredients and time as laid out in d&d (lore vs. guldor). Tolkien certainly spent a lot of time talking about magic items and not so much spells that were 'cast'. What a great way to introduce artifacts and relics from d&d into use in a game with this list of powers and drawbacks very nicely lining up with Tolkien.
In this way a wizards power really is in his staff. If your staff of the magi is broken, you really are bereft of power. It explains the necessity of the palantir or gandalf's reliance on sages and libraries, because wizards don't have spells of divination on their own.
*Incendentally, Galandriel had the ring of water which would make the river rising up to defeat the Nazgul at the Fjord make sense of her power? I would give most of the fire abilities to gandalf's staff and perhaps his mind control and helpful morale type spells to the ring of power.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 31, 2013 19:03:32 GMT -6
@coop: Yes. To your entire post. Brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 31, 2013 21:33:50 GMT -6
Yeah, it cannot be coincidence that A) Gandalf's spells typically dealt with fire, and B) he wore the Elven Ring of Fire. Without it, he was probably more a source of lore and of counsel than of spells.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Sept 1, 2013 11:37:37 GMT -6
Saruman the White: Saruman: "Skilled Man" Having grown jealous of Gandalf acquisition of the ring of fire he sets about making his own magic items and acquiring the ring of power.
Class: Sage (see DMG pg. 31-32) Race: Istari HP: 8HD STR: 9 Dex: 11 Con: 8 Int: 18 Wis: 18 Cha: 7 (18 with ring)
Major Fields: (Saruman is considered the most learned and skilled Istari Sage, or "Wizard". Supernatural & Unusual: Dwoemercraeft, Divination, Cryptography, Metaphysics Physical Universe: Meteorology & Climatology, Physics, Chemistry, Architecture & Engineering
MInor Fields: Humanoid & Giantkind (biology +5%)
Spells derived from study of lore in related fields (known enchantments are 4 spells of each level up to 6th. prepared: Detect Magic, Forget, Tongues, Charm Monster, Weather Summoning, Enchant an item.
Originally coming to ME with Black Hair and White Robes, not having one of the rings of power did cause him to age (albiet slowly). By the time of the LotR Sauruman had white hair with only bits of black around the temples and mouth.
1 Robe of Scintillating Colors (as Saruman of Many Colors)
2 Staff of Beguiling (identical to a rod of beguiling)
Saruman--using his incredible level of lore, makes for himself a magical ring (a skill thought lost with the ancient elves). 3 Ring of Human influence
4 Palantir aretefact (identical to a crystal ball in addition to powers below) I: Comprehend Languages I: Hypnotic Pattern I: Know alignment II: Suggestion 2x day II: True Seeing 1x day II: X-ray vision 2x day III: blindness for 1-4 rounds when first used III: Yearning for item IV: Item is living, sentient beings have 1% cumulative chance to be controlled by true owner. V: Cacodemon (ring wraith) V: Monster Summoning VIII
Gandalf the Grey Class: Sage Race: Istari HP: 8HD
STR: 10 Dex: 12 Con: 10 (18 with ring) Int: 15 Wis: 13 Cha: 17
Major Fields: Humankind: Psychology, History, Law & Customs, Politics & Geneology, Sociology Demi-Humankind: Psychology, Philosophy & Ethics, Art & Music, History
Minor Fields: Supernatural & Unusual (cryptography +5%) Humanoid & Giant Kin. Physical Universe
Known Spells derived from Lore: 2 spell of each level up to 4th. prepared: Dancing Lights, audible glamour, Knock, Hold Portal
1 Ring of Power: Narya (artefact) When wearing the ring, the user ages 1 day for each year that passes. Morale of those within 100' of wearer is increased by +2 and cannot be scried upon with magic, all traveling with the owner have a permanet pass without trace on their movements as well. user's constitution is raised to 18. I: mind blank I: Sanctuary 1x day I: Remove fear by touch I: Bless by touch II: Dispel illusion on command II: +2 to armor class III: Yearning for item forces possessor to never be away from it for more than 1 day if at all possible (every ring of power has this weakness) IV: user is subject to mental control by wielder of the one ring. IV: User dies after invocation of major powers (can be resurrected) Major Powers: V: Total fire/heat resistance for all creatures within 20' V: Total immunity from all forms of mental and psionic attack V: magic resistance 75% V: all ability scores raised to 18.
2 Staff of Power (broken in a retributive strike after invocation of the ring Narya's major powers in the battle with the Balrog)
3 Orcrist: Vorpal Sword +3 vs. Goblinoids Ego: 9 Detect Goblinoid 100' Special purpose: kill Goblinoids: fear 1-4 rounds on hit.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Sept 1, 2013 20:44:20 GMT -6
Again, awesome. This is, I think, the best port I've seen of ME into DND. And, it shows how Wizard without an artifact is indeed vulnerable, and why Gandalf knew he was doomed even if he slew the Balrog... Absolutely Teutonic.
|
|
|
Post by legopaidi on Sept 9, 2013 13:00:38 GMT -6
Wow cooper! this is amazing!!!! I'm on the verge of dissing TOR (at least for a little bit) just to try out your suggestions! Thanks!!!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 10, 2013 4:48:12 GMT -6
STR: 9 Dex: 11 Con: 8 Int: 18 Wis: 18 Cha: 7 Sorry, Cooper, but this is all wrong. On an OD&D board the correct stat order is Str, Int, Wis, Con, Dex, Cha. The rest of your post is awesome, however!
|
|
|
Post by stevemitchell on Sept 10, 2013 10:04:29 GMT -6
"When I think of the world of The Hobbit (considered as a stand-alone work), I think of it as "Wilderland"."
I like to use the term "The Wide World", which is what the Hobbits called it.
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Sept 10, 2013 13:14:20 GMT -6
I am not a Tolkien scholar, just a fan who finds it is a joy to read this thread.
There were spells presented though not quite as vulgar (may I take WW Mage terms?) as what is expected in D&D.
-Gandalf used a shutting spell on the door to keep the orc from pursuing the fellowship. -The balrog perceived the spell and Gandalf, and attempted to wrest control. -Gandalf spoke a word of command to maintain his control. -The counterspell prooved to great a strain and the door burst into pieces with such force that Gandalf was thrown backward and down the stairs. -After further pursuit Gandalf reaches the fellowship at the bridge where he is weary but it is fading (temporary weakening from working magic or maybe simply from running for his life). -Legolas sucessfully identifies the balrog, and now Gandalf understands the events from the above room and why the orc spoke of fire. -Gandalf then attempts to exert control over the balrog, and also the orc. When he first states "you cannot pass", the orc fall silent (it makes sense with the lowest HD being affected first ;p ). He then goes to establish his authority over the balrog by declaring his station. I like how he keeps his name to himself, he establishes authority through his role to God (for lack of a better term), i.e. servant of the secret fire and wielder of the flame of arnor. He does not know the name of the balrog, only that it is a spirit like him, but still attempts to give it an identity in order to be able to gain command of it i.e. Flame of Udun (my interpretation, not canon). Tolkien only knows how Gandalf defeated the balrog, but the idea of breaking the staff of power is fun.
An identity seems important in ME. Magic items have an identity and are named. Later we see the necromancer command Grond. He speaks one, two, three times to grant the great ram the needed power to break the gates of Gondor (which might have been named as well. I am likely straying). Items are important for magic, but I don't think all spells have to be a magic item per se. Again, referencing how Gandalf and the balrog commanded the door; the Dunedain could command the healing power of kingsfoil. There is more of a divine right, where people of a higher nobility (seemingly based on their race/birth) have a command over lesser entities. Perhaps the staffs of the Wizards were symbols of their authority, or maybe they are the source of their power like a Harry Potter wand.
I recall Gandalf speaking of using fire magic, but he also mentioned not being able to make flames out of nothing. A fuel or source was necessary. It might be debatable if the ring of fire allowed his fire magic, or if it complimented his personality, skills, and task on ME.
It is interesting that Gandalf was not a "know-it-all", though this is not to say he was undeducated. He spent a lot of time in research and study to learn about the ring and its history. Empathy and compassion were definatly some of his strengths, and I believe that is what he learned from the female deity with which he dwelt before coming to the realm of men.
Thank you for the links to the essays. I am looking forward to reading them. I really enjoy reading about ME.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Sept 10, 2013 14:11:35 GMT -6
There were spells presented though not quite as vulgar (may I take WW Mage terms?) as what is expected in D&D. See also this post I just made detailing some of the non-flashy magic that Gandalf uses, which most people don't pick up on. I don't know how Mage defines vulgar, but the word is appropriate for the magic of D&D compared to the magic of Middle-earth. D&D is pulp swords-and-sorcery; The Lord of the Rings is epic high-fantasy. Apples and oranges.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Sept 13, 2013 18:11:08 GMT -6
Radagast the Brown Considered a fool by Saruman...Radagast had a strong affinity for – and relationship with – wild animals, and it seemed his greatest concern was with the kelvar and olvar (flora and fauna) of Middle-earth. He was wiser than any Man in all things concerning herbs and beasts. It is said he spoke the many tongues of birds, and was a "master of shapes and changes of hue". Radagast is also described by Gandalf as "never a traveller, unless driven by great need", "a worthy Wizard", and "honest".
Class: Sage Race: Istari Str: 15 Int: 17 Wis:10 Con: 16 Dex: 15 Cha: 11
Major Fields Flora: Fungi, Herbs, Weeds, Trees, Bushes & Shrubs, Grasses & Grains, Mosses & Ferns. Fauna: Avians, Mammals, Arachnids, Amphibians, Insects, Reptiles, Marsupials, Icthyoids, Crustaceans & mollusks, cephalopods & enchinoderms.
Minor Fields none
Spells derived from knolwedge of lore and fields of study Animal Friendship, Speak with Animals, speak with plants, commune with nature, chariot of sustarre (pulled by giant rabbits)
Magic items Keoghtom's ointment, staff of the serpent (python).
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 14, 2013 5:23:28 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 27, 2013 22:57:53 GMT -6
Capitalization is important. There are five Wizards, but not necessarily only five wizards. The Istari did not arrive and become a new thing called a Wizard; they arrived and conformed to the idea of a wizard. They were just (apparently) old men to whom the name Wizard was applied. Virtually no one in the Third Age would know who the Istari were, where they came from, or why they had come. They wouldn't even know there were five of them, that they were associated in any way, or even that they were called Istari by (some) elves. We get an age-long overview of their history, but most men would know nothing about them except that this old man would come by once in a while who could perform wizardry, like making magic studs or predatory smoke-rings. So there would be plenty of stories about (lowercase) wizards, some of which would be true of the Istari, some of which would be true of others who used wizardry, and some of which were not true at all. There really were only five Istari, and the Istari are called (capital) Wizards, but anyone else who uses wizardry could be called a wizard without being one of the Istari. In any case, it is clear that (losercase) wizards are extremely rare, and most stories about them are just legends. There probably weren't any non-Istari wizards of Men left in Middle-earth—certainly some who knew some of the craft of wizardry, but none who fit the legends of a wizard. You needed greatness and power to use wizardry like that, and most of that greatness and power left Middle-earth with the Noldor and the Dunedain. Thus, a non-Istari wizard-character has no place in a game set in the late Third Age. Not because there were only five, but because they had all left. No one great enough to match the stories of wizards was left in Middle-earth, except a few reclusive elves, and servants of the Enemy practicing sorcery. I meant to reply to this way back when, but just haven’t gotten around to it. I really like your formulation of “wizards” and “Wizards.” Where we diverge is that my belief is that the prototypical “wizards” well-known in legend were ALSO Maiar (or “fays”), clothing themselves in bodies like incarnates. The reason I believe that is because we have several examples of that in Tolkien — Melian, Sauron, and Tû come to mind, and the last two are actually referred to as wizards (cf. Wizard’s Isle). Like many elements in The Hobbit, Tolkien was recycling a type that already existed in his mythology. So Gandalf as portrayed in The Hobbit is himself a “wizard”. What Tolkien surely had in mind at that time was Gandalf as a fay (lesser spirit, or one of the Vanimor) — not much different from a “Wizard,” to be sure, merely lacking the official Valinorean mission, if you will. And, of course, the concept of the Order of the Istari was yet to emerge. Conversely, Tolkien gives us no examples of men or elves who are referred to wizards (or Wizards). Except for one late note where he mused, “Was in fact Glorfindel one of them?” But he immediately concludes against it, writing: “We must assume that they were all Maiar.” Them/they being the Five Wizards. Nevertheless, he does at one point refer to the Five “the chiefs” of their order — allowing the possibility for other emissaries. Taking Gygax’s admonition in OD&D that a Balrog or Gold Dragon could be played if it were “a young one,” I see no reason to not allow a lesser fay (again, such as Tû or Radagast are described — or even Gandalf at his weakest in The Hobbit, relying on ventriloquism and setting pinecones on fire).
|
|