We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 115
  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg View Post
    Don't worry, the author is a philiosoper who holds the same views as Tolkien (Catholic, monarchistic, Traditionalist, antiprogressive, antimodernist, European style conservative) Please note that all of those views are in the philisopical sense. Here is the book description "While nothing can equal or replace the adventure in reading Tolkien’s masterwork, The Lord of the Rings, Peter Kreeft says that the journey into its underlying philosophy can be another exhilarating adventure. Thus, Kreeft takes the reader on a voyage of discovery into the philosophical bones of Middle earth. He organizes the philosophical themes in The Lord of the Rings into 50 categories, accompanied by over 1,000 references to the text of Lord. Since many of the great questions of philosophy are included in the 50-theme outline, this book can also be read as an engaging introduction to philosophy. For each of the philiosphical topics in The Lord of the Rings, Kreeft presents four tools by which they can be understood: an explanation of a key question; a key quotation showing Tolkien's answer; quotes from other writings of Tolkien that clarify the theme; and quotes from his close friend C.S. Lewis, which state the same philosophical points directly. " Don't worry, he's not someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. I do in fact read the Letters, I am going to pick up On Fairy Stories next time I pop to someplace that has it. I read some of HOME but reading An unexpected Party Twenty times with only slight variations wore on my perservearance. If it gets more interesting after the History of the Lord of the Rings, I would happily try again. However, HOME is the work in progress, so if it contradicts something in LotR, the Sil, or the Letters, I will listen to the Completed version, not HOME
    Sounds interesting - might have to keep an eye open for that one on the book store shelf. With the HOME series you can pick and choose what parts interest you. Sometimes I think the books containing the early versions of LOTR should have been it's own series since it was superseded by a published work. What's interesting about the last books of the series (post LOTR) is that Tolkien really starts getting into ideas instead of basic historical tales.
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS]"You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81


    [/FONT]

  2. #52
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by tuor66 View Post
    Sounds interesting - might have to keep an eye open for that one on the book store shelf. With the HOME series you can pick and choose what parts interest you. Sometimes I think the books containing the early versions of LOTR should have been it's own series since it was superseded by a published work. What's interesting about the last books of the series (post LOTR) is that Tolkien really starts getting into ideas instead of basic historical tales.
    Thanks for the advice, I think you should try the Philosophy of Tolkien too.

    Also I created a thread on a new class, hopefully based off of Finrod Fegulund and no more lorebreaking than the other classes(minus RK). I was intriguged by Rad's metion of a class based off of verbal imagry would be really cool. Would you see if I was sucessful. The thread is here http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...91#post6628791
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg View Post
    Thanks for the advice, I think you should try the Philosophy of Tolkien too.

    Also I created a thread on a new class, hopefully based off of Finrod Fegulund and no more lorebreaking than the other classes(minus RK). I was intriguged by Rad's metion of a class based off of verbal imagry would be really cool. Would you see if I was sucessful. The thread is here http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...91#post6628791
    Yes, Yes I second your motion calling for a new magic using class inspired by Radhruin, I cant think of a better epitaph for him.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000001019a8/01007/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    "Of course I am the only elf in the village"

  4. #54
    Sorry about my earlier hostility. I have a bit of issue with purists who seem to be close-minded, and I took it out on people who are generally reasonable.

    I would like to more or less expand on what I meant, with a hopefully less hostile tone of voice.

    Is the Runekeeper lore friendly? Definitively no. The Lore Master is not lore friendly, either, though at least it is based off of things that are actually in the lore.

    The people who argue that Runekeeper is lore friendly are basically either trying to find justification for their class, or reacting to people who know more about Tolkien than they do. This has included me in the past.

    However.

    I would invite some of the people here to actually give the Runekeeper a chance, rather than dismissing it. Let go of the lore for a mere moment.

    Because, in my opinion, the way it is implemented was done very well. To call it a simple "battlemage" is, in my opinion, oversimplifying it to the point of gutting what beauty it has.

    Runekeepers are as much scholars as Lore-Masters are. They do not wield the magic themselves. I will forever remember that quest where you go to Weathertop in the midst of a storm, to simply see the effects of the runes drawing lightning to them. It's not lore friendly. Not by any stretch.

    But for what it is, it is beautiful, and I still love it. And for that, I can forgive the lore transgression.

    While I would like a more lore friendly mage class (though in my opinion, Lore Master does a beautiful job of being just that) the fact of the matter is, as long as Christopher Tolkien clings to the licensing for the Silmarillion and other related tales, there is no possibility for a completely lore friendly set of movies or games. It is for this reason that I can forgive outright making stuff up.

    While I love Tolkien's work, and I appreciate the work that Christopher did in publishing the work that Tolkien could not, I do not agree with his stance on this matter and I feel that he is harming Middle Earth far more than anyone else.

    Except maybe the makers of The Third Age. Yikes. How'd that ever pass legal?

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Zachski View Post
    I would invite some of the people here to actually give the Runekeeper a chance, rather than dismissing it.
    Let go of the lore for a mere moment.
    It never had a chance to really fit in with the whole 'LOTR' thing because Turbine never gave it one.

    Because, in my opinion, the way it is implemented was done very well. To call it a simple "battlemage" is, in my opinion, oversimplifying it to the point of gutting what beauty it has.
    Sorry, but it is what it is. Turbine made it that way on purpose, giving it that profoundly uncreative 'elemental' theme rather than taking a chance on anything Tolkienesque. End of. Missed opportunity. Whatever qualities you feel it has, it could have been a great deal more so if Turbine's management hadn't been so hell-bent on providing something as hackneyed and misplaced as elemental pew-pew-pew. Having it as a class that needs no weapon other than magic means it doesn't even look right for Middle-earth. And that 'pet rock', what the hell's with that? Again, just so not right for Middle-earth, there's no subtlety to that at all, let alone any 'beauty': it's a shameless rip-off of the Shaman's totems in WoW. You're cherry-picking what you like about it and asking us to ignore all the ugliness.

  6. #56
    Or perhaps you're cherry picking what YOU want to see out of it and asking me to ignore the beauty of it.

    See, that logic goes both ways. I do not believe I am being unreasonable about this, and it frustrates me to see that I am essentially treated as "lesser" because I like something in spite of its flaws.

    It actually is a pretty creative class, lore-wise. Gameplay-wise, not so creative, but then none of the classes are creative because they all fit into easily discerinable MMO roles. Healers, Tanks, Melee DPS, Archers.

    If you reduce Runekeeper to elemental "pew pew pew", then you have lost the forest for the trees.

    EDIT: Okay, I see what you said now.

    When I said "give it a chance", I did not say "try to fit it into the lore." I thought my repeated statements about how it definitively doesn't fit into the lore would have established this, but it appears you have chosen to assume what I am saying rather than read what I am saying.

    To make the implicit explicit, what I intended was "Give the class a chance based on its own merits, not how it does or doesn't fit into Tolkien's lore"

    That's all. I don't think this an unreasonable request, nor do I expect you to fall in love with the class. All I'm asking, All I'm saying is to give it a chance. If you don't like it still, fair enough, but please, at least give it a fair chance.
    Last edited by Zachski; Jan 25 2013 at 08:34 PM.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Zachski View Post
    Or perhaps you're cherry picking what YOU want to see out of it and asking me to ignore the beauty of it.
    No, I'm saying the whole idea is unoriginal (you're giving them credit for nothing more than running with some generic fantasy) and misplaced. I'm also saying that whatever qualities you imagine for it would have been enhanced if they'd been more creative.

    See, that logic goes both ways. I do not believe I am being unreasonable about this, and it frustrates me to see that I am essentially treated as "lesser" because I like something in spite of its flaws.

    It actually is a pretty creative class, lore-wise. Gameplay-wise, not so creative, but then none of the classes are creative because they all fit into easily discerinable MMO roles. Healers, Tanks, Melee DPS, Archers.
    Logic is actually on my side because that sort of magic doesn't even appear in Tolkien's work. Nobody flings lightning about like that, ever. Every other class is derived from something from the books, however tenuous, but not the RK. Having a class with no 'real' lore to it at all inevitably makes it stand out.

    If you reduce Runekeeper to elemental "pew pew pew", then you have lost the forest for the trees.
    It's a simple matter of observation. That's what Turbine's management primarily wanted from the class, that's what it does. If you try to pretend otherwise you're only kidding yourself.

    EDIT: Okay, I see what you said now.

    When I said "give it a chance", I did not say "try to fit it into the lore." I thought my repeated statements about how it definitively doesn't fit into the lore would have established this, but it appears you have chosen to assume what I am saying rather than read what I am saying.

    To make the implicit explicit, what I intended was "Give the class a chance based on its own merits, not how it does or doesn't fit into Tolkien's lore"
    You mean if I look at it devoid of all context then it'll look better? Of course, but that's being unreasonable because it does exist within a given context, not in isolation.

    That's all. I don't think this an unreasonable request, nor do I expect you to fall in love with the class. All I'm asking, All I'm saying is to give it a chance. If you don't like it still, fair enough, but please, at least give it a fair chance.
    As I said: if Turbine had done it in a way that gave it a chance, then I would have given it that chance just like all the other classes. But they didn't, they went too far, sticking a specifically elemental mage into this game. That styling's all wrong, it's not Tolkienesque in the least. With different imagery (and giving them a rune-staff rather than that silly rock), it could have been. That would have been a real compromise people could have got behind (in much the same way the LM is a compromise) but no, so the RK is uncompromisingly out of place. And if Turbine weren't interested in compromise of any sort, why should I have to be the one to compromise on my view of the class?

  8. #58
    I'm starting to think I see what the problem is.

    Have you played the Runekeeper at all? Experienced a single one of its class quests?

    If not, then please do. You'll see I'm not making up a darn thing.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Zachski View Post
    it frustrates me to see that I am essentially treated as "lesser" because I like something in spite of its flaws.

    If you are being treated as a "lesser" based upon some self-declared lore-guardians view-points, then the issue is less with them and more the company you keep and/or want acceptance/validation.

    Seriously, who gives an expletive what any self-declared lore-guardian says about the Rune-keeper?

    It exists in this Turbine interpretation of Middle Earth.

    As far as Turbine is concerned it fits its derivative lore interpretation.

    Enjoy it, or not, and keep company with like-minded.

    Your time, money and enjoyment must meet only one criteria of success, yours.

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by hallasan View Post
    If you are being treated as a "lesser" based upon some self-declared lore-guardians view-points, then the issue is less with them and more the company you keep and/or want acceptance/validation.

    Seriously, who gives an expletive what any self-declared lore-guardian says about the Rune-keeper?

    It exists in this Turbine interpretation of Middle Earth.

    As far as Turbine is concerned it fits its derivative lore interpretation.

    Enjoy it, or not, and keep company with like-minded.

    Your time, money and enjoyment must meet only one criteria of success, yours.
    Of course you don't have to care what anyone else thinks. And if you don't then why be upset about it at all? Why post in a thread trying to defend a class that many consider to be breaking the lore if you don't care what a "self-declared lore-guardian" thinks? The truth of the matter, if RK just doesn't fit in with the rest of the classes. Even in a Middle-Earth where magic is more common and minstrels sing songs of power, it stands out. It shoots lightning and fire from stones (regardless of what the flavor text may say) and seems to many to have been made only to appease those who wanted pure magic classes. No one can stop you from playing it, but no one who thinks it breaks lore is going to be convinced that it doesn't by you telling them so.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Zachski View Post
    I'm starting to think I see what the problem is.

    Have you played the Runekeeper at all? Experienced a single one of its class quests?

    If not, then please do. You'll see I'm not making up a darn thing.
    Umm... so not the point. This is the 'Tolkien' bit of the forum, if you look. The subject of the thread is "the validity of the existance of the Runekeeper in regards to the lore" as the OP put it. Not why you think the RK is beautiful because you're entranced with it, none of which makes it a better fit to Middle-earth as a setting. It's just some absolutely generic fantasy Turbine shoved into the game to make more money, and you rhapsodizing about it won't make it any less out of place.

  12. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Trobon View Post
    Of course you don't have to care what anyone else thinks. And if you don't then why be upset about it at all? Why post in a thread trying to defend a class that many consider to be breaking the lore if you don't care what a "self-declared lore-guardian" thinks? The truth of the matter, if RK just doesn't fit in with the rest of the classes. Even in a Middle-Earth where magic is more common and minstrels sing songs of power, it stands out. It shoots lightning and fire from stones (regardless of what the flavor text may say) and seems to many to have been made only to appease those who wanted pure magic classes. No one can stop you from playing it, but no one who thinks it breaks lore is going to be convinced that it doesn't by you telling them so.

    Additional truths of the matter are:

    1) a person should not allow themselves to feel "lesser" based upon declarations of self-described lore guardians. The commentator was attempting to plead a futile case based upon a false presumption.

    2) the rune-keeper conforms to Turbine's derivative narrative of the legendarium. Turbine, by licensing the rights, has discretion in context to the medium. Similar to the movie, products and other adaptations.

    3) the rune-keeper does not fit into the official "canon".

    4) Turbine cannot change "canon". The existence of the rune-keeper has no impact.

    5) conflating #2 and #3 confuses the issue and misses the point of #2.

    6) if the issue is game-mechanics, then the rune-keeper forum has a wealth of discussion on how to improve the class.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by hallasan View Post
    Additional truths of the matter are:
    Err no, mate. Those are not all truths, I can plainly see mere opinion in there too.

    1) a person should not allow themselves to feel "lesser" based upon declarations of self-described lore guardians. The commentator was attempting to plead a futile case based upon a false presumption.
    Opinion.

    2) the rune-keeper conforms to Turbine's derivative narrative of the legendarium. Turbine, by licensing the rights, has discretion in context to the medium. Similar to the movie, products and other adaptations.
    In point of fact, they did not originally have sufficient discretion to just add the RK as a class. Jeff Steefel said that they had to ask, that they had to make a specific case for it. Besides which, the RK didn't fit their original interpretation at all (they'd originally said that the LM, in its original less flashy form, was all the magician we would be getting because it was Middle-earth we were dealing with. Then all of a sudden their interpretation changes on no more solid ground than that a game like this apparently 'has' to have a full-on mage class. So in other words, their interpretation can pull a volte face purely on marketing grounds, which shows what that sudden re-interpretation is actually worth in artistic terms.

    Besides which, there's always head-shaking whenever any interpretation of Tolkien's work ends up including battle-magic. It's not as if the RK is being singled out, it's just being seen as what it is: more of the same sort of junk fantasy that games-makers in particular will insist on saddling their versions of Middle-earth with. Crowd-pleasing, but trashy.

    3) the rune-keeper does not fit into the official "canon".
    True as far as I'm concerned, although strictly speaking it's only well-founded opinion.

    4) Turbine cannot change "canon". The existence of the rune-keeper has no impact.
    True but immaterial; it's no justification for anything. If they added a dragon that was purple with bright diagonal yellow stripes and had big googly eyes on stalks then that wouldn't change canon either but that wouldn't make it a good idea. The simple issue is this: canon has given some people a certain impression, one that does not include anything even remotely like the RK. For some, therefore, the RK clashes savagely with this mental image, and it's therefore unpopular with them. Very simple, very straightforward: it reduces their enjoyment of the game to have it feature that sort of junk. Waffling on about 'canon' as here or 'interpretation' will do absolutely nothing to assuage them.

    5) conflating #2 and #3 confuses the issue and misses the point of #2.
    Opinion, again, and I think you're trying to misrepresent the debate to your own advantage.

    6) if the issue is game-mechanics, then the rune-keeper forum has a wealth of discussion on how to improve the class.
    It's not the game mechanics, it's the styling of the class. Why would we be discussing game mechanics in a lore thread?
    Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Jan 27 2013 at 12:59 PM.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    Said Commentator here.
    At first I had a sufficient knowledge of the lore but didn't know about the RK as it is in game, and it looked more like it fit.
    I now still have knowledge of the lore, but know about the RK as it is in game, and it does not fit but very easily could with something as simple as re writing some of the skills(to make it metaphorical and not as elemental) and removing the visuals(so it doesn't look like the "Sith keeper"). Turbine wouldn't need to change any effects, just some images and text.
    So yes I was "Pleading a futile case(for the RK) based upon a false presupposition", but that is no reason to feel "lesser"
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

  15. #65
    It is possible to appreciate Tolkien for what he did, and still keep an open mind about things. Nitpicking over whether the RK is valid or not when he was (particularly for a fantasy writer), when there's rather glaring errors in the works like deciding to cross the mountains in winter (see Donner Party) or the idea that a hobbit could make it all the way to Mordor and throw a ring in a volcano. Does it not seem odd to anybody to make huge allowances for some things, and yet (I will avoid the term lore nazis) some are so particularly on other issues.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdBreakfast View Post
    It is possible to appreciate Tolkien for what he did, and still keep an open mind about things. Nitpicking over whether the RK is valid or not when he was (particularly for a fantasy writer), when there's rather glaring errors in the works like deciding to cross the mountains in winter (see Donner Party) or the idea that a hobbit could make it all the way to Mordor and throw a ring in a volcano. Does it not seem odd to anybody to make huge allowances for some things, and yet (I will avoid the term lore nazis) some are so particularly on other issues.
    That's just an extended version of the usual "it's fantasy" excuse. Nobody's merely nitpicking: Turbine were completely brazen about it, it's not subtle in the least. And whatever your view of LOTR's plot, we're not talking about plot holes here. You're not comparing like with like. You're also inventing difficulties: their attempt to cross the mountains was stopped by an unnatural storm that came out of nowhere. It wouldn't ordinarily have been a foolhardy thing to attempt.

    This talk of keeping an open mind is bizarre given that Jeff Steefel actually said himself that the RK had nothing to do with lore. He said it was one of those things a game simply had to have. So no, mages and battle-magic have no real validity, that stuff is purely there because it's crowd-pleasing. It's simply the case that some people can't seem to imagine fantasy without it, so of course games almost always end up getting lumbered with it whether or not it makes any sense at all.

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    That's just an extended version of the usual "it's fantasy" excuse. Nobody's merely nitpicking: Turbine were completely brazen about it, it's not subtle in the least. And whatever your view of LOTR's plot, we're not talking about plot holes here. You're not comparing like with like. You're also inventing difficulties: their attempt to cross the mountains was stopped by an unnatural storm that came out of nowhere. It wouldn't ordinarily have been a foolhardy thing to attempt.

    This talk of keeping an open mind is bizarre given that Jeff Steefel actually said himself that the RK had nothing to do with lore. He said it was one of those things a game simply had to have. So no, mages and battle-magic have no real validity, that stuff is purely there because it's crowd-pleasing. It's simply the case that some people can't seem to imagine fantasy without it, so of course games almost always end up getting lumbered with it whether or not it makes any sense at all.
    Crossing the mountains in winter is not something you do on foot. It simply isn't. Not unless you're something like Special Forces. Again, see the Donner Party for what can happen. But that's not the point.

    You just seem to have something personal against the RK. But it just goes back to what I said about magic being vague in Tolkien's universe. I understood this conversation to be mostly theory rather than just what one of the devs said, otherwise there'd be no room for debate. Tolkien makes no attempt to define it, and yet the elves know a certain type of magic, and so do the dwarves. They both made magical objects, some of them do cast spells through songs, etc. How did they do that? Who taught them? Somebody did, and therefore there are procedures to it. So why would these procedures not be available to player characters? Just because nobody in the books ever summoned up a HoT rune stone, doesn't mean it wasn't possible. Obviously the man wrote voluminous volumes and didn't have to time to cover everything.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    I'm just going to say it for Radhurin.
    They have inherent magic, but that magic is not through the use of lighting, frost, or flame. Tolkien didn't go into specifics, but from what he did go into, no elemental battle magic.
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdBreakfast View Post
    Crossing the mountains in winter is not something you do on foot. It simply isn't. Not unless you're something like Special Forces. Again, see the Donner Party for what can happen. But that's not the point.
    As a Ranger, Aragorn was what you might call 'Special Forces' and they were, in fact, hopeful of being able to get across that pass at that time of year. We're not talking about the Sierra Nevada, here.

    You just seem to have something personal against the RK. But it just goes back to what I said about magic being vague in Tolkien's universe.
    Not that bloody vague. There's a huge gulf between the kind of magic there is in the books and people using elemental battle-magic like the RK does. It's completely out of context.

  20. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    As a Ranger, Aragorn was what you might call 'Special Forces' and they were, in fact, hopeful of being able to get across that pass at that time of year. We're not talking about the Sierra Nevada, here.
    I live near the Sierra Nevadas. Not seeing a lot of difference between them and the Mistys. The snow piles up to ten feet or more in winter. Temperatures sub-freezing at night. This without any modern technology, appropriate cold weather sleeping bags, heating consists of a fire if you can make one. It doesn't take Saruman to create a blizzard in winter. This part of the book was simply Tolkien not being realistic.



    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Not that bloody vague. There's a huge gulf between the kind of magic there is in the books and people using elemental battle-magic like the RK does. It's completely out of context.
    Ah, elemental magic. Such as:
    http://www.henneth-annun.net/resourc...w.cfm?evid=190

    As always, vague, but it exists.

  21. #71
    As always, I am amazed with the kind of thinking which not only suggests that the generic fantasy elements initially derived from Tolkien are superior to them, but also insists that Tolkien content be viewed as to conform to it's derivation. Madness.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdBreakfast View Post
    I live near the Sierra Nevadas. Not seeing a lot of difference between them and the Mistys. The snow piles up to ten feet or more in winter. Temperatures sub-freezing at night. This without any modern technology, appropriate cold weather sleeping bags, heating consists of a fire if you can make one. It doesn't take Saruman to create a blizzard in winter. This part of the book was simply Tolkien not being realistic.
    Yes, I know the winter weather in the Sierra Nevada is infamous for dropping feet of snow in no time flat but not all mountains are the same. The Misty Mountains are more like the Alps (which Tolkien had visited).

    Ah, elemental magic. Such as:
    http://www.henneth-annun.net/resourc...w.cfm?evid=190

    As always, vague, but it exists.
    Did you bump your head and forget who and what Gandalf was? Neither Dwarves nor Elves were capable of anything of that sort. Not to mention that there's zero mention of anyone, Maiar included, flinging lightning around Sith-style. Read the account of any battle you like, there's no mention of that sort of battle-magic at all and nobody, but nobody relies upon magic alone - not even Morgoth. Saying "it exists" is bogus when it's not even done in the same style and it was only Maiar, 'angelic' beings of immense power, who could do anything even close.

  23. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Yes, I know the winter weather in the Sierra Nevada is infamous for dropping feet of snow in no time flat but not all mountains are the same. The Misty Mountains are more like the Alps (which Tolkien had visited).


    Did you bump your head and forget who and what Gandalf was? Neither Dwarves nor Elves were capable of anything of that sort. Not to mention that there's zero mention of anyone, Maiar included, flinging lightning around Sith-style. Read the account of any battle you like, there's no mention of that sort of battle-magic at all and nobody, but nobody relies upon magic alone - not even Morgoth. Saying "it exists" is bogus when it's not even done in the same style and it was only Maiar, 'angelic' beings of immense power, who could do anything even close.
    Yeah, nothing like the Sierras. Keep trying:
    http://projectsource.wikispaces.com/...+Range-Climate

    Now you said "Not that bloody vague. There's a huge gulf between the kind of magic there is in the books and people using elemental battle-magic like the RK does. It's completely out of context."

    I just showed you an example of elemental magic, furthermore nowhere does it say only Gandalf could do it. Just because it isn't mentioned elsewhere, doesn't mean it couldn't happen or that nobody else could do it. Tolkien obviously didn't have the time or the inclination to cover everything in minute detail. Furthermore if it was his insistence that magic be subtle at all times, the above mentioned passage wouldn't be in the book. Instead, Gandalf would have used stealth or something suitably subtle and slipped away rather than engaging in what must have been a classic style wizard battle with the Nazgul. You say there's no room for extrapolation. I say there's plenty.

    There's also inconsistencies. Tolkien tells us this:
    "It is not unlikely that the (goblins) invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them."

    So people are incapable of doing elemental magic, but a species like the goblins can invent weapons such as the above in a fantasy series? Look at the big picture already, and probably just be glad they didn't put tanks in the game.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Did you bump your head and forget who and what Gandalf was? Neither Dwarves nor Elves were capable of anything of that sort. Not to mention that there's zero mention of anyone, Maiar included, flinging lightning around Sith-style. Read the account of any battle you like, there's no mention of that sort of battle-magic at all and nobody, but nobody relies upon magic alone - not even Morgoth. Saying "it exists" is bogus when it's not even done in the same style and it was only Maiar, 'angelic' beings of immense power, who could do anything even close.
    Well the elves did craft the rings of power, some of which seem to convey the power of invisability, (dont wish to debate whether its true invisability or entering the shadow world), in the hobbit such rings are desicribed as being common at one time, this would seem to qualify as flashy elemental magic. The magical nature of the rings while undefined seems to have been important enough to fight the war between Sauron and the elves, The war of the last alliance and The war of the ring, if the rings have no "flashy elemental magical quality" which must have been imparted in their crafting with "flashy elemental magic" then there seems to have been considerable wasted energy in trying to get peoples hands on them. The palantir also would seem to require some flashy elemental magic to craft, so would glowing swords, (Eol made a "sentient" sword), even whipping up the phial of Galadrial, a light source with no batteries in under a week would seem to be flashy magic to me.

    So the question is can a crafter imbue a "flashy magical item" like Narya, which seems to aid Gandalf in his pyrotechniques eg flaming pine comes, lightning bolts in goblin town, blinding light at the rescue of Faramir at Pelenor whithout being able to perform the same abilities himself. Could Feanor "see" like a palantir, before building one, can a crafter who can greate a glowing sword whos power fills goblins with toal dread six millenia after its crafting have no flashy elemental power at his disposal?.
    Last edited by Morthaur; Feb 03 2013 at 07:13 PM.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000001019a8/01007/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    "Of course I am the only elf in the village"

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,175
    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdBreakfast View Post
    Yeah, nothing like the Sierras. Keep trying:
    http://projectsource.wikispaces.com/...+Range-Climate
    What is that supposed to show?

    Now you said "Not that bloody vague. There's a huge gulf between the kind of magic there is in the books and people using elemental battle-magic like the RK does. It's completely out of context."
    And as I pointed out, nobody sprays lightning around like that, nor makes casual use of it all the time, nor relies on it as their only means of offense. Nor is Gandalf 'people' (as in 'Free Peoples'), he's a Maia.

    I just showed you an example of elemental magic, furthermore nowhere does it say only Gandalf could do it.
    You took it out of context, ignoring who it was. And of course you would do that, because there are no examples of the sort of thing you mean. It's simply not that sort of tale. End of.

    Just because it isn't mentioned elsewhere, doesn't mean it couldn't happen or that nobody else could do it. Tolkien obviously didn't have the time or the inclination to cover everything in minute detail. Furthermore if it was his insistence that magic be subtle at all times, the above mentioned passage wouldn't be in the book. Instead, Gandalf would have used stealth or something suitably subtle and slipped away rather than engaging in what must have been a classic style wizard battle with the Nazgul. You say there's no room for extrapolation. I say there's plenty.
    Gandalf's power, like Sauron's, was of a different order because he's a Maia, a higher order of being, more powerful than any Elf and so he could do things that no Elf could do. And if Gandalf could have slipped away from the Nazgul at Weathertop he would have done, but they'd cornered him and left him no option but to fight. There's no real scope for extrapolation from that to other, lesser beings doing that because it's quite evident that other, lesser beings don't. If this was that sort of sword-and-sorcery then magic would be used in battle routinely, which it most definitely is not. It is not a given for people to have destructive magic at their command, just because it's fantasy. All you're doing is what JGP mentioned above, thinking in terms of generic fantasy and ignoring the differences between that and Tolkien's work.

    There's also inconsistencies. Tolkien tells us this:
    "It is not unlikely that the (goblins) invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them."

    So people are incapable of doing elemental magic, but a species like the goblins can invent weapons such as the above in a fantasy series? Look at the big picture already, and probably just be glad they didn't put tanks in the game.
    There's use of explosives in war as well as some destructive machinery to be found in LOTR, but there the source for them is the cruel inventiveness of fallen Maiar (i.e. Saruman and Sauron) rather than anybody else. The Hobbit was originally written as a stand-alone fairy-story, putting it in a different context where imagining wicked goblins inventing nasty devices fits right in, but that's entirely absent from Tolkien's more serious work. And regardless of that, it has no bearing whatsoever to do with the use of elemental magic. You're not seeing anything clearly, you're seeing everything reflected and distorted in the funhouse mirror that's over-commercialised generic fantasy, so let's have a little less talk from you about the 'big picture' here. Tolkien was aiming for something in the style of myth and legend, within which only seriously supernatural individuals are capable of any really powerful magic and things like calling down lightning are entirely reasonably limited to beings of near-godlike power. If you can't see the difference between that and the sort of setting where mere mages can hurl lightning around, you simply haven't been paying attention.
    Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Feb 03 2013 at 07:31 PM.

 

 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload