[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.36655846 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

Hi /tg/, /tv/ here.

Can humans do magic in Middle Earth?

How did Tolkien magic even work?

And why didn't Gandalf use more?

Why didn't Sauron do more than just make the weather dark and stormy?

What does the ring even do?

And how did that Gondor king with the broken sword even beat him if he's such a powerful wizard?

Sauron seemed like a big guy.

>> No.36655875


It's the song of the creation.

Because plot.

He needed the magic to do evil things inside his borders.

All kinds of stuff.

He didn't, that's just what Isildur claimed to had happened.

If I take off that ring, will you die?

>> No.36656294

It would be extremely painful.

>> No.36656365

>All kinds of stuff.


>> No.36656404

it can made frodos imvisidal

>> No.36656473


One intepration is that it enhances the natural inherit abilities of one's race.

Hobbits, wanting be left alone, disappear from the sight. Humans get more ambitious, charismatic and otherwise stronger. Magical beings like elves and Maiar would become more magic. Sauron, wearing the ring is Sauron+

>> No.36656511

You don't know how terrifying that sounds.

>> No.36656536


What about the lesser rings from that poem? Do they do anything special or are they just The One Ring Light?

>> No.36656648

You're a big sorcerer

>> No.36656865

We know Sauron could

>Control the weather
>Manipulate shadows enough to cover an entire region of the world in darkness
>Create and control phantoms
>Create illusions
>Summon evil creatures to himself
>Twist landscapes to become evil with his very presence such as in Mirkwood and Mordor

The most horrific area of Angband was where Sauron's magic got caught up in the magic of Melian, become a twisted area of fuckery even the orcs avoided. Beren didn't wanna speak of the evil he saw there. And this was coming from a guy who spilled the beans about every other part of Angband.

>> No.36656890


For you

>> No.36656910

The humans rings extended their lifespans and enhances their charisma and magical powers while slowly turning them into Ring Wraiths.

The Dwarven rings just made the Dwarves greedier and they resisted the other effects.

The Elven rings allowed them to maintain their magic in their territories despite magic fading elsewhere.

>> No.36656942

IIRC, the dwarves rings made them rich. Caused mines to have more gold, mithril, ect.

>> No.36656951

After Sauron was defeated, the world went into totally peace mode?

No more evil? No more wars?

>> No.36656970

afaik melkor creates evil, and he's still out there.

the great general of evil was gone though; the orcs without someone to band them up go back to infighting, the deliberate corruption of land will die out with sauron, and his great fortresses and such will fall to ruin.

effectively kind of. he was the last "evil organizer" there are other great sources of evil like shelob, the orc chieftains, balrogs etc, but they don't "organize" much. they are just big, nasty and hate anything that isn't themselves.

>> No.36656977


Gondor went on righteous crusade to reclaim lost clay and stomped those melanin rich peoples back to submission.

>> No.36656993

And he fried Gil-Galad's skull with his bare hands.

>> No.36657172

I fucking wish. Tolkien said there'd be no more evil maiar, dwarves, orcs, elves, etc. of note like Sauron. But there'd be human dark lords in the future. He also said people eventually got bored with peace.

The men of the west enjoyed a long and prosperous age of peace and reconciliation with the Haradrim and Easterlings after the cleanup war.
The Rohirrim even considered Harad a brave and worthy opponent.

There's still an assload of dragons (though not of Smaugs or Glaurungs stature) in the north, Minas Morgul was evil as fuck for a long time until late in the lifetime of Faramir.

And human sorcerers exist.

Aragorns son had a prosperous reign, but after that people of course found a way to be assholes again during SOMEBODY'S reign

>> No.36657188

But surely Isuldur could turn invisible too? The mention way too many times how the ring slipped from his fingers and the orcs caught him with his pants down.

>> No.36657209

And there's unbodied elves lurking the shadows.

>> No.36658741

>Can humans do magic in Middle Earth?

Sometimes but it's not the norm. There are some like Aragorn who seem to have a "healing touch" but this could really just be a combination of therapeutics and pharmacy (kingsfoil). There are some vague mentions of more explicit human magic, such as the Nazgul. After receiving the nine they became "sorcerers and kings of men." This isn't really ever explained ever, but it falls under the category of "bad magic."

>How did Tolkien magic even work?
Magic is innate in one. It's not to be come by lore or practice. Tolkien's quite explicit about this. Roughly there are two forms Tolkien admits to using "Magia" and "Goetia" Wiki it if you aren't sure what that means. It's worth noting that both kinds are used by both sides, so Magia isn't inherently bad.

Magic also rarely useful in combat. Though great fighting prowess might be considered semi-magical in itself for some characters. And it can be aided by magical weapons.

>And why didn't Gandalf use more?
Gandalf is an Istar, a Maia (minor angel/spirit) sent by the Valar (major angels/spirits) to aid in the fight against Sauron. However his charge was to essentially "help the peoples of middle earth help themselves" and was forbidden to challenge Sauron openly. However nothing stopped Gandalf from using the full extent of his strength when his own life was in danger, i.e. the holding spell he casts on the door to delay the balrog, or the multi-day dual he and the balrog have. Gandalf was some what limited by his incarnate form as he was subject to the weariness and hurts his body sustained, and could die.

>Why didn't Sauron do more than just make the weather dark and stormy?
What do you mean, like send an army? Are you asking why he didn't take the field? He didn't need to and it's not his style. Even during the Last Alliance Sauron didn't take the field until several years of being besieged.

>> No.36658791


>What does the ring even do?

It enhances Sauron's power while he wears it and allows him to dominate the wills of other wearing the rings of power. As a side effect it turns mortals invisible apparently.

The Ring does not however "amplify the traits of the wearer." That bit of misinformation loves to pop up in these discussions.

>And how did that Gondor king with the broken sword even beat him if he's such a powerful wizard?
The Gondor King didn't beat him. The armies of the free people were utterly without hope to win by war. It was two hobbits that defeated Sauron.

Sauron certainly has powers of sorcery, but their not the sort to blast soldiers in a battle. It's more like crafting a Ring of domination sort.

>Sauron seemed like a big guy.
He is a big guy. Like Gandalf Sauron is also a Maia incarnate in a physical body. Though Sauron is an Evil Maia in rebellion against the Valar.

>> No.36658888


And that interpretation is wrong. Sorry. Ring lust affects everyone more or less the same way to various degrees and both Men and Hobbits turn invisible when wearing the ring. There are no instances of an Elf wearing the Ring but it would like turn them invisible as well, there's no reason it wouldn't.

In addition the Ring increases your ability to intimidate and dominate (its intended purpose). See Sam storming an entire fucking tower of orcs.

>> No.36658897


>The most horrific area of Angband was where Sauron's magic got caught up in the magic of Melian, become a twisted area of fuckery even the orcs avoided. Beren didn't wanna speak of the evil he saw there. And this was coming from a guy who spilled the beans about every other part of Angband.

Not really Sauron or Melian's doing. That was all Ungoliant work my friend.

>> No.36658959

If I take off the ring, would you die?

>> No.36658967


>> No.36658974

>Tolkien's quite explicit about this. Roughly there are two forms Tolkien admits to using "Magia" and "Goetia" Wiki it if you aren't sure what that means.

Magia derives from worship, goetia from compulsion, there is mention of the Black Numenoreans practising goetia, and a suggestion that Pallando and Alatar may have founded orders of mortal sorcerers in the east, so some magic at least is teachable.

>> No.36658988

>The Gondor King didn't beat him. The armies of the free people were utterly without hope to win by war. It was two hobbits that defeated Sauron.

He's talking about Isildur, Aragorn wasn't even king until after the war.

>> No.36659004

How did Beruthiel control her cats?

Why can the Beornings shapeshift?

How can the men of Dale speak to birds?

What about the magic daggers the men of Arthedain made to specifically hurt the Witch King?

>> No.36659017

>the Ring increases your ability to intimidate and dominate (its intended purpose)

Not so much its purpose as its nature, Sauron is defined by his need to dominate just as Morgoth was by his need to destroy. Even the invisibility is a mirror of Sauron's duplicitous nature, it has no "magic" beyond being the receptacle of Sauron's native power.

>> No.36659024


Humans? Sure, what do you think Gandalf is?

>> No.36659031

>Sauron, wearing the ring is Sauron+
It's really more that Sauron NOT wearing the ring is Sauron-, which was in his mind a worthwhile tradeoff for the dominion it allowed over the other rings of power.

>> No.36659038

>Why can the Beornings shapeshift?
Inherited ability from some distant ancestor. Idk if Tolkien ever went into it in any depth,
>How can the men of Dale speak to birds?
Not the men of Dale, Bard as the rightful King of Dale has this power.
>What about the magic daggers the men of Arthedain made to specifically hurt the Witch King?
Numenorean blades, made by the Dunedain of the Northern Realms during their long war with the Witchking in Angmar. A trick they learned from the elves, most likely.

>> No.36659045



>> No.36659061


First, they founded "magic cults" in some drafts, no mention of sorcerers or whether their followers could perform magic.

second, I'm a just post the quote, it's a concept too nebulos for the words tolkien used.

>I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and others show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult; and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely about motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a pseudo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is a latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia. Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy'. Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life'.

>> No.36659069

That's not true, he poured a lot of his power into the ring which is why he's lessened without it, and it's possible for some to tap into that power. Mostly people who are already magically powerful could do it like Gandalf or Galadriel, but there's hints that even Aragorn wearing the ring would've been a potential threat to Sauron, or at least SAURON thought so.

>> No.36659080


I'm familiar with the quote. The Mouth of Sauron was a human sorceror, and when the Council first started investigating the Neromancer of Dol Guldor, they believed him to be a human sorceror until they discovered he was Sauron in drag.

>> No.36659091

>Can humans do magic in Middle Earth?
Yes, there are mentions of sorcerers and there's also the ring wraiths which are vaguely magical.
>How did Tolkien magic even work?
Nothing like the magic you're used to from modern media. Tolkien magic was basically influence. Powerful magical beings could influence their surroundings, make them more like their nature, bend them to their will. There weren't so many fireballs flying around.
>And why didn't Gandalf use more?
Because that's not what he was sent on middle-earth to do.
>Why didn't Sauron do more than just make the weather dark and stormy?
He did do more. The very fact that he was constantly able to gather all sorts of evil to do his bidding in no time is proof of his powers.
>What does the ring even do?
Enhances your powers.
>And how did that Gondor king with the broken sword even beat him if he's such a powerful wizard?
He didn't, he was slain by a multitude of mighty heroes and isildur basically just called dibs on the ring.
>Sauron seemed like a big guy.
shut up

>> No.36659097


Well sure, but it wasn't just "power", it was "essence of Sauron". You couldn't use it for good, as the wise well realised, only to do Sauron-y things like dominate and obfuscate.


>> No.36659105

It only seems like the elves and maybe dwarves h
ad any magic in the movie

>> No.36659107


>Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' – with destructive and evil effects — because 'magicians', who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for magia – quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work – is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological one: the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.

>Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but is in an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such. Aragorn's 'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes. But it is (in theory) reported by hobbits who have very little notions of philosophy and science; while [Aragorn] is not a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien.

It's worth noting that Tolkiens notions with human's and magic are fairly hazy. Here he says they can't do magic period. But we have many examples of the Nazgul at least doing magic, and their men. It's probably safe to say that whatever the case learned/innate, is probably only achievable through evil means.

>> No.36659112


Then it's an even dumber question than before.

>> No.36659114

>>What does the ring even do?
>Enhances your powers.

No, it grants you Sauron-ness. By all accounts it has the same effects on everyone who wears it.

>> No.36659123

Tolkien himself noticed the contradiction. In the margin he realized he'd already mentioned humans casting spells on weapons/buildings.

>> No.36659124


Isildur and Gil Galad fought Sauron to a standstill during the Last Alliance, read a book numbnuts.

>> No.36659128


Sauron was not "lessened" without the Ring. He remained at his native strength as long as it was in existence. This is why is so imperative that the Ring be destroyed rather than just cast into the ocean or something.

>> No.36659131

>It's probably safe to say that whatever the case learned/innate, is probably only achievable through evil means.
Gandalf mentions that he knows all the spells of men, so I doubt it's ONLY achievable through evil means.

>> No.36659133

In the letters Tolkien said Aragorn couldn't have beaten him with the ring.

>> No.36659138

Magic in the Tolkienverse follows a very animistic principle, actually:

Magic is just the miraculous overload of regular things. Shapeshifting is "just" dressing up differently, songs that inspire you suddenly make you superawesomefeelgood and shiny objects have their subtle glow amplified to a floodlight.

It's all more or less supercharging something that, in a way, could happen anyway.

But to be able to cast it, you have to be of a sort-of-miraculous origin, yourself, or you need to be given magic by another miraculous being.

So instructed humans such as the Witch-King and the Mouth of Sauron can cast magic, Númenoreans can cast magic, but the wide populace can't cast magic by themselves.

Gandalf probably didn't use more because he was a.) on an undercover mission and b.) it is supposed to be extremely exhausting to cast magic in a world that technically isn't all that magical.

The simple reason Sauron could "make weather dark and stormy" basically shows you how fuggen stronk Sauron actually is because his magic can change the state of Middle Earth while Gandalf and other sorcerous beings "only" affect their general surrounding for less than a day. For other things to happen, Sauron would've needed to change position which is kind of difficult if he's supposed to be formless and anchored in Barad-Dûr.

The ring is filled with angelic essence, if you will. To Sauron, it make him complete and allows him to connect with the other rings of power to bind their respective keepers to his will.
To everyone else, they just get sort-of-ported into the spirit realm, making them invisible to the eye but not to other senses.
Sauron has a physical shape. Physical shapes can be harmed. That's the whole deal in the Tolkienverse. Everything else was a lucky hit.

>> No.36659146

But Gandalf is no man.

There's mention of human sorcerers in Tolkien sure but we never really see any human sorcery other than the Nazgul, thus it's hard to judge it's nature. We certainly don't hear of any good human sorcerers though.

>> No.36659147


Well Tolkien knew what "magic" means, or rather, he knew what the term meant in an historical and literative sense. Modern people see "magic" and think of WoW or fireball D&D wizards, Tolkien meant the ancient and traditional practise of influence and petition of the unseen side of reality. In the modern sense, humans in Tolkien's world can't do magic, but then neither can virtually anyone else. But in the traditional sense of the word, magical practises were probably widespread, not only stuff like healing herbs and horse whispering but the darker death worship and necromancy (in the classical sense) of the Black Numenoreans.

It's really more a case of "does human magic WORK in Tolkien's setting?", to which the answer seems to be "not very often, and when it does, its typically just Sauron fucking with your head to get you to worship him".

>> No.36659155


I know? Hence why I referred to it as a dumb question since it had a fairly obvious answer.

>> No.36659162


Maybe Galadriel could, certainly Gandalf could, probably no-one else in Middle Earth would stand a chance.

Well, /maybe/ Elrond.

>> No.36659185

Yeah I'm aware, but the fact that Sauron felt threatened at all means it's almost certainly possible for SOME manner of man to use it, even if that wouldn't make them powerful enough to beat Sauron. I can definitely see how Sauron would overreact to someone who couldn't actually beat him, because he was scared of nothing more than needing to serve again and someone who COULD "dominate" the ring (in the sense of it not making them subservient to Sauron, they'd still be driven to abuse power) could absolutely force him into servitude once more.

>> No.36659197

>certainly Gandalf could
Gandalf was probably more like a 50/50 chance. It'd be bad either way of course.

>> No.36659201


It follows a very traditional and historic principle. Medival grimoires and the lives of the great magi all speak about magic being a granted ability, usually from demons or even satan himself, but an essentially "unlearned" ability (tho ofc medieval magi were often at the forefront of scientific understanding, often using said technological expertise as "proof" of their magical powers).

But yeah, we moderns have been ruined by D&D and fantasy movies, we have an incredibly distorted idea of what "magic" meant to Tolkien.

>> No.36659217


Hmm, I suspect Gandalf would win since he has the backing of Eru. Tho if he "fell" and claimed the ring for himself then he'd presumably lose that backing, so IDK. At the very least, he would have an advantage over Sauron from the Ring of Fire.

>> No.36659352

Gandalf acknowledges that there's enough magic rings in the world that a simple ring of invisibility isn't a huge deal until he does more research.

When Frodo uses the ring at the prancing pony, the other patrons don't freak out because they've seen crazier stuff happen before.

Bilbo wasn't the 1st person Gandalf took on a crazy adventure.

>> No.36659377


Magic items exist, tho they're usually made by elves or dwarfs or ancient numenoreans, the techniques for making more are mostly lost and certainly mere 3rd era men don't produce such things.

The patrons DO freak out at the ring trick, suspecting black magic of some kind. They at least know such magic exists I guess, which >implies its common enough to be known about.

>> No.36659386

Eh that's a somewhat unfair generalization filtered through a medieval christian viewpoint, lots of peoples have spoken of magic that's all about knowing the right secrets.

>> No.36659394

To be fair, Sauron-ness is a power boost for anyone but the Valar.

I've read that the invisibility was a side effect of partially being in the spirit world, and I think it was said in the book that if you wore the One Ring too long, you'd disappear completly.

>> No.36659436


Tolkien was cathoic and an arent student of pagan mythology, his understanding of magic was very much the traitional european one. I'm sure mystics elsewhere had different ideas, but they're unlikely to have inluenced Tolkien much.


Absolutely, Sauron-ness is a very real source of power, its just the idea that the ring enhances the wearer that is mistaken. The ring allows the wearer to partake of Sauron's nature.

The spirit thing, maybe tho an invisible spirit world is implied to exist its not a common motif in the literature, its spirits and gods are mostly embodied. It makes some sense I guess.

>> No.36659453


Its is a spirit world or more of a different perspective? (Seeing fëar instead of höar.) Kind of a tomato - tomato situation I guess.

>> No.36659464

Plenty of EUROPEANS had that idea of magic. I don't at all dispute where TOLKIEN was probably going with magic (although if he had written in "all in the right secrets!" magic in as part of Illuvitar's plan it also would not remotely surprise me.) I mean even for the Norse half the gods' powers weren't anything intrinsic to them but rather secrets odin had discovered.

>> No.36659488


Exactly, its not the celtic Otherworld, more of a spiritual reflection of the physical, the extent to which it is metaphorical or purely metaphysical is certainly debatable.


Odin was a god. The same rules do not apply to mortal magic users. Among the norse, the most common types of magic were runes (a gift from Odin) or witchcraft (taught by Freya), mortal wizards did not invent their own magic techniques like the gods did.

Also a secret that grants power that can only be learned from a god is the same thing as a power imbued by a god. Neither is something a human can achieve by himself, for that kind of idea of magic you would need to look at the taoists and other eastern traditions.

>> No.36659495

Many grimoires teach you how to bend demons to your will using the Power of God, as well.

I think than one of the major weak points of Tolkien's writing is the vagueness on how things work. He maybe felt that things stopped being interesting when explained, but I disagree. Take Sauron, for example: I don't think the "undefined looming evil" gimmick is really threatening. Had Tolkien included more scenes of Sauron being seen using his power, or even just a scene with him, I would probably have thought "holy shit this guy means business."

>> No.36659512

Man, reading about the Inn Keeper hearing the Hobbits and Gandalf tell their story is jarring.
This simple man just sits and listens about demigods, and armies, and epic auests, fighting trees, and how one of his former customers turned out to be the rightful king of his town and the entire region of Eriador. He nods wide eyed and occasionally says "you don't say?".

>> No.36659536

>Many grimoires teach you how to bend demons to your will using the Power of God, as well.

Yes, and in the pre-christian traditions it was typically a gift from a daimone or a god, Apollo was particularly known for giving the gift of prophecy, for example. The names don't matter so much, the essential core is that magic is a gift from the gods, be it one you obtain thru piety or one you obtain thru unnatural goetia.

I agree about the narratives, tho I love Tolkien I do not rate him as an author. He has terrible pacing and a tendancy to have characters spout exposition at the drop of a hat. Ironically, taken as books, I'd say "the Hobbit" is his only "good" novel. It's the only one where he lets his imagination go, instead of being constrained by the vast legendarium he's trying to present.

>> No.36659581


What about Sauron: Extreme Edition?

>> No.36659601


>human magic

What about the Black Numenoreans and Mouth of Sauron.

>> No.36659609


Sauron 2: Electric Buggaloo

>> No.36659642

King Excellent

I also think "the Hobbit" is better as a novel than the rest of Tolkien's work. Though you used "Ironically" wrong, unless you meant to say that "the Hobbit" isn't a "good" novel

>> No.36659645


>Sauron: The Enemy of an Age Edition
>now with exciting DLC such as Sharky, Shagrat and Shiny Shirts!
>Mouth of Sauron sold separately

>> No.36659646


Not seeing a problem with them form my end.

>> No.36659663

>Fellowship of the Ring was more than teen years ago.

Man, I feel old.

About magic, back before LotR became mainstream, the Iron Crown Ent. books said the main reason magic wasn't used like in a D&D setting was because it could end in corruption.
The more you manipulate the laws of physics and the like, the more chances you would end like Morgoth and Sauron in the case of Maias or become the new Bitch King in the case of men.

>> No.36659670

>Can humans do magic in Middle Earth?

>How did Tolkien magic even work?
It's not magic, it's divine influence.

>And why didn't Gandalf use more?
He was an angelic being.

>Why didn't Sauron do more than just make the weather dark and stormy?
He did a lot of other things.

>What does the ring even do?
It stengthens Sauron and gives him control over the bearers of all the other rings as well as being a servant to his will even when someone else wears it.

>And how did that Gondor king with the broken sword even beat him if he's such a powerful wizard?
He's not. He's an angelic being who at the time - and still at the time of LotR - was forced to take a mortal body to influence the world. Having put all of his might into the ring meant that while he wore it his power grew immensly but as soon as it was cut off from his body he also lost his mortal body and was forced to reform slowly over centuries.

>> No.36659680


I have to tick the box AND fill the captcha every single fucking post. It's really quit irritating.

>> No.36659683

>I agree about the narratives, tho I love Tolkien I do not rate him as an author. He has terrible pacing and a tendancy to have characters spout exposition at the drop of a hat.
While Tolkein does a lot of things "wrong" I honestly think it all works and if he had done things the "right" way The Lord of the Rings would lack much of its value.

>> No.36659684

>It's not magic, it's divine influence.

that IS magic, at least as Tolkien understood the term.

>> No.36659692


It's a poor book but a fantastic resource. I'm not knocking it, he did a terrific job on his legendarium and the story is servicable enough.

>> No.36659701

All of those things Sauron could do without the Ring.

>> No.36659706

I meant literary value.

>> No.36659711

>About magic, back before LotR became mainstream, the Iron Crown Ent. books said the main reason magic wasn't used like in a D&D setting was because it could end in corruption.

Yeah but they ALSO had multiple magic using classes freely chooseable, many with outlandishly D&D style spells up to including fireballs. MERP is a very mixed bag, some awesome material and alot of dumb shit.

>> No.36659717

>The Dwarven rings just made the Dwarves greedier
Is this even confirmed anywhere? I only remember the dwarven kings being able to harness their rings to increase their treasure hordes but not that the rings themselves made them want to.

>> No.36659732


Then I disagree. Its best approached as Tolkien himself suggests we approach it,not as a novel but as an archelogical artifact, the Red Book translated from the original Westron into english, presented "as-is".

The narrative and literary elements are by far the weakest part, the achievement is in the presentation of a perfectly realised fantasy world steeped in its own deep lore.

>> No.36659740

Oh yes, I still remember having arguments with my old gaming pals about who was the most powerful psyker, Charles Xavier or Galadriel according to the ICE game.
No, seriously, the mentalist spell list had some shit which could make a vampire from oWoD with high levels of Dom discipline look like an asshole trying to control a rioting mass with a megaphone.

>> No.36659754

>In the Silmarillion, it is indicated that the Seven Rings of the Dwarves were not fundamentally different from the Nine that were given to Men, for originally Sauron had intended the Seven and the Nine to reside in Elven hands so that he might control them. It is implied in that work that Sauron simply gave Men nine of sixteen lesser Rings because they were more easily controlled. However, the Nine and the Seven are referred to in other works as each being its own distinctive set. If they were different in their effects on their wielders or in the powers they conferred, it is not stated. It is also mentioned in Unfinished Tales that the Seven were created before the Nine. Sauron helped to create the Seven and the Nine, so it is likely that their powers and effects on their wielders were similar, even if each set was distinct. It is important to note that the fact that the Seven did not subdue the Dwarves is related to the resilient nature of the Dwarves themselves, not the Rings. It is likely that the effects of one of the Nine on a Dwarf would be the same as those of one of the Seven, and were a Man to wield one of the Seven, he would likely still become a wraith.

>> No.36659771


Oh yeah, they had stats for the Nazgul, including (presumably fanfic?) background stories and shit. Only Angmar was above level 20, they were a bunch of pansies.

OTOH, their stuff on Mordor and the East was top notch, real hit and miss setting.

>> No.36659829

I think that's an unfair view of Tolkein's intent, he was absolutely trying to write a "Great British Novel." Despite not being Technically well written it certainly speaks of a lot of things and has meaningful themes, which is way more important for literary value than how well it matches up to a standardized novel.

>> No.36659845

Yeah, those backgrounds were mainly pulled out of some Tolkien junkie's anus as he never fleshed the nine kings, except giving one a name, Khamûl the Easterling.
The books dealing with the lands allied with Mordor, mainly the East and Haradrim were juicy as fuck for having original campaigns.

>> No.36659862

So no?

>> No.36659875


I'm not saying its without literary merit, its not by any means good literature but neither is HP Lovecraft, and I love his work too.


Correct. Not enough evidence to distinguish the two.

>> No.36659876

tolkien does explain necromancy

>The fëa is single, and in the last impregnable. It cannot be brought to Mandos. It is summoned; and the summons proceeds from just authority, and is imperative; yet it may be refused. Among those who refused the summons (or rather invitation) of the Valar to Aman in the first years of the Elves, refusal of the summons to Mandos and the Halls of Waiting is, the Eldar say, frequent. It was less frequent, however, in ancient days, while Morgoth was in Arda, or his servant Sauron after him; for then the fëa unbodied would flee in terror of the Shadow to any refuge - unless it were already committed to the Darkness and passed then into its dominion. In like manner even of the Eldar some who had become corrupted refused the summons, and then had little power to resist the counter-summons of Morgoth.

>It is therefore a foolish and perilous things, besides being a wrong deed forbidden justly by the appointed Rulers of Arda, if the Living seek to commune with the Unbodied, though the houseless may desire it, especially the most unworthy among them. For the Unbodied, wandering in the world, are those who at the least have refused the door of life and remain in regret and pity. Some are filled with bitterness, grievance, and envy. Some were enslaved by the Dark Lord and do his work still, though he himself is gone. They will not speak truth or wisdom. To call on them is folly. To attempt to master them and to make them servants of one own's will is wickedness. Such practices are of Morgoth; and the necromancers are of the host of Sauron his servant.


>> No.36659887

>Some say that the Houseless desire bodies, though they are not willing to seek them lawfully by submission to the judgement of Mandos. The wicked among them will take bodies, if they can, unlawfully. The peril of communing with them is, therefore, not only the peril of being deluded by fantasies and lies: there is peril also of destruction. For one of the hungry Houseless, if it is admitted to the friendship of the Living, may seek to eject the fëa from its body; and in the contest for mastery the body may be gravely injured, even if it be not wrested from its rightful inhabitant. Or the Houseless may plead for shelter, and if it is admitted, then it will seek to enslave its host and use both his will and his body for its own purposes. It is said that Sauron did these things, and taught his followers how to achieve them.'

>> No.36659889


There's so much great stuff and the system itself is top notch, it really deserves a new edition. Too bag ICE is ded.

>> No.36659902


Again confirming just how rare a true spirit is in the writing, the usual state is for spirits to reside in bodies, and for the two to be in some way one.

>> No.36659909

>It is said that Sauron did these things, and taught his followers how to achieve them.

So Black Numenorean necromancers can survive death and take over new bodies? Awesome, where do I sign up?

>> No.36659986

>How did Beruthiel control her cats?
Feanor made kitty litter. Nothing can beat Feanor kitty litter for quality.

Of course, this did lead to a series of kinslayings among the cats over the kitty litter, but that's par for the course with Feanor made products.
Buy Feanor products today and get rid of all those pesky relatives you've always disliked.

>> No.36660080

i'm pretty sure it means sauron taught his followers how to call on and master the unbodied. if you want to escape death as a man, you have to break a really big oath or find a great ring.

pic somewhat related, nobody knows what the barrow-wights were but the witch-king can command them.

>> No.36660095

Why did Gandalf travel all the way to Minas Tirith from the Shire to study ancient texts describing what the Ring looked like, when he could've just gone to Rivendell and asked Elrond?

>> No.36660147

I don't know, why did you post some faggot /a/ pic and not think for yourself?

>> No.36660157

Elrond didn't see anything distinguishing about it outside it being a ring

>> No.36660281

>There are some vague mentions of more explicit human magic, such as the Nazgul. After receiving the nine they became "sorcerers and kings of men." This isn't really ever explained ever, but it falls under the category of "bad magic."

it's explained that the rings "enhanced the natural powers of a possessor—thus approaching ‘magic’, a motive easily corrupted into evil, a lust for domination." tolkien also says the witch-king is directly lent power by sauron.

even frodo can pull off a little "magic" with the one ring (at least to the extent of controlling gollum).

there were also a host of lesser rings, and lesser spirits, so this may explain some other human sorcerers. others, like bard and beorn, seem to have powers from a special bloodline.

>> No.36660339

>Can humans do magic in Middle Earth?
>How did Tolkien magic even work?
Magic was basically influencing the world thru song, at it's core. You were either born with the ability to use magic, like elves, stronger orcs and Numenoreans, or learn spells, ie witchcraft.
>And why didn't Gandalf use more?
He was ordered to teach humans to solve problems, not solve problems FOR them. That, and every time higher beings cut loose with magic, shit is exploded catastrophically.
>Why didn't Sauron do more than just make the weather dark and stormy?
Lack of the one ring, and that was to facilitate his army.
>What does the ring even do?
By and large, enhance the natural aspects, powers and inclinations of who wears it.
>And how did that Gondor king with the broken sword even beat him if he's such a powerful wizard?
He didn't. Aragorn presented himself to Sauron thru the palantir and BARELY survived the occasion with his mind intact.

>> No.36660365

Because no one save Sauron and Isildur knew what the ring's distinguishing marks were.
It was a plain band of gold with writing that showed up only with excessive heat. Elrond never saw the writing, nor held it.

>> No.36660421

OP I'm talking about the guy at the very beginning of the first movie.

Aragorn never fought Sauron.

>> No.36660435

in the books sauron is killed fighting two great warriors, both of which die in the process

>> No.36660606

Here's your problem.

>> No.36660688


The guy at the beginning is Isildur, a full-blooded Numenorean god-man. He and the ElfKing Gil-Galad plus another Numenorean teamed up on Sauron, and all but Isildur were killed.

>> No.36660762

I had a good chuckle

>> No.36660981

Going by my admittedly limited familiarity with the sorts of northern European mythology that inspired the LotR, I'd say that you would probably acquire more powers over the ring with the right inclination and effort of some nebulously mythic and armwavy way; the same ill-defined way that the ring bolstered Sauron himself. For instance, it would probably make a sorcerer of you as the nine rings did; hence Galadriel's implications that the ring would increase her power. Invisibility, phenomenal longevity and endurance and the creeping corruption appear to be the passive effects of wearing the ring without actually attempting to use it.

>> No.36661169

In principle it could be used for good, as what matters is the intentions and applications; the problem is that as a divided part of Sauron's own power with a sort of animal intelligence of its own, it would ultimately corrupt and overpower you and turn you to evil.

Sauron himself was somewhat weakened as part of his power was in the ring and inaccessible to him; however as long as it existed it could be reunited with him, especially given its semi-intelligent nature. Destroying the ring is necessary to permanently break his power. The fireworks when it got incinerated demonstrates how much of Sauron was tied up with the ring, it's not like he just lost a fingertip.

>> No.36661336

>you would probably acquire more powers over the ring with the right inclination
Why? What exactly do you base this assumption on?

>it would probably make a sorcerer of you as the nine rings did
That was more Sauron's doing than the rings.

>Galadriel's implications that the ring would increase her power
Tolkien stated that Galadriel didn't really believe it. No one, except maybe Gandalf, could have taken the ring as their own and make a slave of it rather than the other way around, and if he had he would have become much more terrible than Sauron ever was - ordering the world according to what's good and right until even goodness itself seemed perverted and evil.

>> No.36661848

Magic is a whole bunch of things. It includes both black magic sorcery, the powers manifested by the Wise (e.g. telepathy and divination), and the powers of the Ainur. Gandalf's magic is somewhat limited by divine fiat, but also he's forbidden from countering Sauron's force with force of his own.
Sauron did a lot more than just make the weather bad. His will basically empowers the orcs and trolls, and directs the Nazgûl. But he can't just make the earth swallow up Minas Tirith, for example - that's simply not within his power.
The One Ring is basically a power amplifier for Sauron, but also contains most of his power, which is unavailable to him so long as it's not in his possession. It also shifts the wearer into the world of the Unseen, making him invisible - presumably that doesn't happen with Sauron himself because as a Maia he is in both worlds at once.
What actually happened was that Ereinion Gil-Galad and Elendil fought Sauron and killed his physical body but also were killed by him. Isildur cut the ring from Sauron's 'corpse'.
The movies lie and are shit.

>> No.36661931

The elven rings also gave some degree of power over their respective elements. Narya (Círdan, then Gandald) over fire, Nenya (Galadriel) over water, Vilya (Gil-Galad then Elrond) over air. But those are also metaphorical - Narya's fire is both flame and the fire of hope and faith, Nenya's water is preservation and protection, and Vilya's air is healing and restoration. Basically the Three are for making the world better, whereas the other rings are meant solely to empower their wielders (and turn them to Sauron's will).

>> No.36662240

Yeah, I honestly don't see the point of using MERP, at that point you might as well use BECMI or something. I haven't had a chance to actually sit down and play it yet, but I've been skimming through the One Ring and it looks way better.

>> No.36662331


>Sauron himself was somewhat weakened as part of his power was in the ring and inaccessible to him


Frome Letter 131:

>While he [Sauron] wore it, his power on earth was actually enhanced. But even if he did not wear it, that power existed and was in 'rapport' with himself: he was not 'diminished'. Unless some other seized it and became possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could (if sufficiently strong and heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become master of all that he had learned or done since the making of the One Ring, and so overthrow him and usurp his place.

>> No.36662761

What was the true extent of Ungoliant?

>> No.36662770

Of her power*

>> No.36662814

People overstate her powerlevel.

She manhandled a very weakened Morgoth. And on top of that she was juiced up on tree light.

Peak Melkor > Roided Ungoliant

>> No.36662856

What was she? Like was she a Valar or Maiar or some unrelated thing?

>> No.36662968

>a very weakened Morgoth
According to what?

It's never really specified. Might be something else from the void which wasn't created by Eru, but given Tolkien's Catholic beliefs that doesn't seem too likely. Maybe an Ainur which Melkor corrupted to his service very early (before the world started or something), or one which became corrupted without Melkor being involved.

>> No.36662978

By the age of the trees Melkor had already greatly diminished himself by corrupting the world.

Ungoliant wasn't such hot shit.

>> No.36663016

Regardless, Spiders are badass, and we need more of them.

>> No.36663201

>This simple man just sits and listens about demigods, and armies, and epic auests, fighting trees, and how one of his former customers turned out to be the rightful king of his town and the entire region of Eriador. He nods wide eyed and occasionally says "you don't say?".

He runs a fucking bar, you think some drunk retard hasn't told him shit like that before?

>> No.36663334

Now I have this image of the barkeep going "oh Eru, it's Gandalf again, always with his wild crazy stories. Hey Gandalf! How've you been, rode any eagles lately?" *rolls eyes*

>> No.36664026

Ok, first of, toss Jackson for a bit. The movies are an adaptation, and not a very good one. They grab the spirit but still manage to castrate it.

Yes, Aragorn DID fight Sauron, just not physically. Using the Palantir, Aragorn used the power of his sword and his own mind to force Sauron to look straight at him in order to keep Frodo and Sam safe. While we never "see" what happened to Aragorn during that fight, it's implied it almost killed him.
"I have looked into the Stone of Orthanc, my friends."
Aragorn: "It was a bitter struggle, and the weariness is slow to pass. I spoke no word to him, and in the end I wrenched the Stone to my will. That alone he will find hard to endure. And he beheld me. Yes, Master Gimli, he saw me, but in other guise than you see me here. If that will aid him, then I have done ill. But I do not think so. To know that I lived and walked the earth was a blow to his heart, I deem; for he knew it not until now. [Saruman] did not see through the armour of Theoden; but Sauron has not forgotten Isildur and the sword of Elendil. Now in the very hour of his great designs the heir of Isildur and the Sword are revealed; for I showed the blade re-forged to him. He is not so mighty yet that he is above fear; nay, doubt ever gnaws him."

>> No.36664046

>Yes, Aragorn DID fight Sauron, just not physically. Using the Palantir,
Hey buddy, say what you want about Hackson, but that scene was in the LOTR extended edition movies.

>> No.36664166

>Hey Gandalf! How've you been, rode any eagles lately?" *rolls eyes*

>> No.36664177

I dunno, still took an army of balrogs to take her down. She's probably at the level of the least of the Valar at that point, at least.

Of course, it still didn't get Oromë-Sempai to notice her.

>> No.36664194

Aragorn is such a fucking badass

>> No.36664331


As far as I know, Smaug was the last "true dragon" and Durin's bane was the last Balrog. The dragons in the north were long-worms, basically big-ass lizards. One of the themes of Lord of the Rings is that it's essentially the last hurrah for all the big powers, the elves and wizards leave for the west, the orcs and wargs are hunted to extinction, abd the dwarves, ents, long-worms and oliphaunts go extinct, leaving no one left but the men, hobbits (who go into hiding), ghost elves, and whatever the hell Bombadil and his realm is.

>> No.36664371

Middle-Earth is the "lost" prehistory of our world, so nope.

>> No.36664374

Why can't I hold all this Sauron

>> No.36664391

>Not the men of Dale, Bard as the rightful King of Dale has this power.


>> No.36664392

Actually I think it is mentioned somewhere, maybe the RotK appendices. Basically, Aulë made the Dwarves resilient to evil, so rather than controlling them and turning them into wraiths, the seven simply amplified dwarves' natural negative traits - greed and covetousness.

>> No.36664552

>and whatever the hell Bombadil and his realm is.

Plot cancer, is the phrase you're looking for.

>> No.36664585

The mental contest with Sauron was definitely very draining, but I didn't see any implication that it almost killed or broke Aragorn.
What is the origin of this joke?

>> No.36664629

Also, not an army of Balrogs. Just the Balrogs, who, according to Tolkien's latest notes, numbered no more than seven.

>> No.36664875


>> No.36664890


>> No.36665002

Spider detected.

>> No.36665045

What if I think Spiders are some of the worst nightmare beasts to crawl from satan's arsecrack, and that's why I want more of them?

>> No.36665104

Typical Al-taqiya, hiding your true goal by trying to fit in. Muslim spiders are the worst.

>> No.36665124

I seem to recall Tolkien or his son saying that the idea of Middle-Earth being prehistoric Earth was scrapped some time later; instead being a story from another time and place entirely.

>> No.36665141

Kingly blood is divine in Tolkien's world.

>> No.36665147

Is that because you're a robot? Are you sure?

>> No.36665152

typical brit

>> No.36665190

Nothing can happen in Arda that isn't turned to Eru's will. I agree with this anon: Gandalf would win.

>> No.36665221

I think it was our Earth, but in the past and also from an alternate timeline. I don't know why you'd even bother insisting that it's Earth at that point, but there you go. I guess that way you don't have to worry about the planet having longer days, or different moon cycles, or higher gravity or whatever.

>> No.36665236

It's worth noting that it's only rightful kings who show these abilties. Denethor, for example, does not have them and would not have gained them just from calling himself king and having the people accept him as it.

Eru doesn't meddle in the mortal world and it's not like he decides things on the spot either. Everything is predestined through his music, and the races of Men and Dwarves weren't even part of the themes played then and are as such not bound by them.

Things happen all the time even though Eru doesn't necessarily want them to, but they can never destroy his ultimate plan.

>> No.36665237

If I recall correctly Gandalf carried one of the Three Rings and it's power was that it could instil bravery and strength simply by being present. This is why, during the Siege of Minas Tirith, Gandalf basically just rode around all day, and the Ring would negate the terror being spread by the Nazgul. As a general rule though the magic in Tolkein's works was very vague and mostly implied. It's like reading about miracles; there usually isn't any system or methodology, they just happen when needed and seem to fit the situation at hand.

>> No.36665293

Saudi Industrial Development Fund?

>> No.36665382


>not by any means good literature

if you use Dickens as an example for good literature I'm going to burn down your house

>> No.36665432

It was written by a British man. That is freaking out.

>> No.36665454

>not good literature
Stop calling it a legendarium, get off wiki and try not being an asshole.

>> No.36665489


Eru "meddle's" all the time, depending on how you define "meddle."

>Eru resurrected Gandalf
>Eru caused Frodo to accept the Ring at Rivendell
>Eru pushed Gollum in Orodruin
>Eru *probably* prevented the Dead Men of Dunharrow from leaving the circles of Ea upon death. But this is unconfirmed as far as I know.

>> No.36665517

>Eru resurrected Gandalf
Because Gandalf was morally pure, unlike all the other Istari who had failed in their mission. Still this is not direct meddling.

>Eru caused Frodo to accept the Ring at Rivendell
>Eru pushed Gollum in Orodruin
>Eru *probably* prevented the Dead Men of Dunharrow from leaving the circles of Ea upon death. But this is unconfirmed as far as I know.
All fanfiction.

>> No.36665526

I thought Gollum fell into the lava because of the oath he sword on the ring?

>> No.36665565


>> No.36665569

>Can humans do magic in Middle Earth?
Tolkien's magic isn't something that's "done," it's something that "is." It's a trait, not a skill. It cannot be learned or created, only shifted around from those who possessed it innately from the beginning of time. A human could have some extraordinary abilities if some entity decided to empower them, but they can't develop any on their own.

>How did Tolkien magic even work?
As the story demands. Magic in Tolkien's works is vague by design; the best way I can think of to describe it is as Power. The more Powerful the being, the more magical things they can do. They tend to each have their own themes and areas of expertise, as well; for example, Melkor was more Powerful than Tukas in the abstract sense, but since Tukas' title was basically "God of Fisticuffs" he could beat Melkor in a fight with little problem.

>And why didn't Gandalf use more?
One, because the Age of the Valar was over. Gandalf was there in an advisory role, not as a warrior or general. The Valar had decided that it was time to leave Middle Earth to the humans, and part of that process is allowing them to clean up their own house, though with a helping hand where it's needed.
Two, because the physical form a Maiar takes affects what they can do with their strength. Try and jam too much power through what is, physically, an old man, and things are going to break.

>Why didn't Sauron do more than just make the weather dark and stormy?
He did; he was continually suppressing various other magical entities, maintaining a rather unruly army, maintaining control over the wraiths, Saruman, and Theoden; directing a war, personally keeping an eye out for the Ring, and, as you mentioned, keeping it cloudy, almost certainly while keeping a portion of strength in reserve in case it's needed. Multitasking takes it out of you.
Plus, the clouds were originally in Morgoth's playbook, to protect his army from the sun and prevent scrying by the Valar.

>> No.36665680

something like that.

frodo says

>You will never get it back. But the desire of it may betray you to a bitter end. You will never get it back. In the last need, Smeagol, I should put on the Precious; and the Precious mastered you long ago. If I, wearing it, were to command you, you would obey, even if it were to leap from a precipice or to cast yourself into the fire. And such would be my command. So have a care Smeagol.

and then later, just before the ring is destroyed

>Then suddenly, as before under the eaves of the Emyn Muil, Sam saw these two rivals with other vision. A crouching shape, scarcely more than the shadow of a living thing, a creature now wholly ruined and defeated, yet filled with a hideous lust and rage; and before it stood stern, untouchable now by pity, a figure robed in white, but at its breast it held a wheel of fire. Out of the fire there spoke a commanding voice.

>‘Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.’

>The crouching shape backed away, terror in its blinking eyes, and yet at the same time insatiable desire.

>Then the vision passed and Sam saw Frodo standing, hand on breast, his breath coming in great gasps, and Gollum at his feet, resting on his knees with his wide-splayed hands upon the ground.

and then finally

>Frodo gave a cry, and there he was, fallen upon his knees at the chasm's edge. But Gollum, dancing like a mad thing, held aloft the ring, a finger still thrust within its circle. It shone now as if verily it was wrought of living fire. 'Precious, precious, precious!' Gollum cried. 'My Precious! O my Precious!' And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, and he was gone.

>> No.36665761

Just like the marring of Arda? Nah, there is absolutely nothing that is not turned back into Iluvatar's will and design. Even when Melkor attempted to sing off key, for at least one precedence.

>> No.36665794


Gandalf was "pulled out of thought and time" (read the cirlces of Eä) and then "enhanced" that's pretty direct.

>At last with an effort he spoke, and wondered to hear his own words, as if some other will was using his small voice.
'I will take the Ring,' he said, 'though I do not know the way.'

Another one I forgot about, Eru caused Bilbo to find the Ring

>"There was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ringmaker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker."


The Gollum one is stated quite explicitly in Letters (192 to be exact)

>Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that
was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others
of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by
which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'*
(as one critic has said).

Regarding the Dead Men of Dunharrow, Eru is the only logical explanation. Unless by some contrivance one was to argue Isildur had the power to detain the fëar of Men.

These are all interventions, but you could simply call it Eru's plan. Evil is always punished and Good always triumphs in the long run. The peoples of Middle Earth have the free will to do as they please but they can't escape judgement.

>> No.36665801

Sauron didn't control Saruman or Theoden. He corrupted Saruman, but didn't control him. Saruman was controlling Theoden via Gríma.

>> No.36665820

Also, snow and frost.

>> No.36665842

>but since Tukas' title was basically "God of Fisticuffs" he could beat Melkor in a fight with little problem.
With the help of the other Valar, sure.

>maintaining control over the wraiths, Saruman, and Theoden
Saruman and Theoden were hardly under Sauron's control. If Theoden was under anyone's control (rather than just affected by sketchy drugs and bad advice) it would be Saruman's, but even that's left ambiguous. If Saruman were under Sauron's control he would probably not have betrayed Sauron for his own purposes.

>> No.36665844

>humans magic
Yes, there are several human sorcerers mentioned in the Legendarium.

>Tolkien magic
Basically miracles. Since Tolkien was ripping off other source material where the wizard-like figures are either gods or demigods, his wizards were basically demigods themselves.

But for sorcerers, they apparently ripped magic from the stuff of life like elves do. So...yeah.

>Gandalf worst wizard
I think this is a philosophical thing and depends on what you mean by "use magic." Gandalf clearly has a different perspective on what does and doesn't constitute magic if you listen to what he says throughout his appearances in the books. You could make an argument that he basically made the Fellowship get born, Gimli and Legolas excluded (who were essentially affirmative action picks and probably replaceable).

>Sauron weather control
Do you know how expensive that is to do? Fucking not cheap, man.

>what does ring do
Allows the wearer to exist in two planes at the same time, or switch planes, depending. Also exerts control over the wearers of all of the other rings. In theory.

>broken sword
The objects themselves gather power as their legends intensify in Tolkien, and I am so fucking pissed this is not how magic items work in D&D it is difficult to elucidate further.

>> No.36665927

It wasn't, both editions of LotR published before JRRT's death mentioned the book is translation of a copy of the Red Book of Westmarch that has survived until our times. He had no problem rewriting books, the first and second editions of the Hobbit are quite different in how they handle the Ring.

>> No.36665946

>The Gollum one is stated quite explicitly in Letters (192 to be exact)

Well, shit. That's incredibly disappointing. I always thought that was a really cool scene, Frodo digging deep and in total desperation actually calling on a bit of the Ring's power over Gollum. Turns out nope, just Eru.

>> No.36665990

Sorry, I didn't mean "control" in the sense of mind-control; I should have called it influence. That investment was less of power and more of attention.

>Saruman was controlling Theoden via Gríma
Exactly, and as a result Sauron had to play a game of Telephone every time he wanted a suggestion to end up in Theoden's head, which would certainly complicate the process. He has to issue his orders such that Saruman interprets them in such a way that he then phrases his command to Grima in such a way that Grima uses the right words with Theoden to achieve the desired result. On it's own, certainly nothing Sauron would have any trouble handling, but it's one more thing in the pile, and even a demigod can only do so much at one time.

>> No.36666050


Your version would be even more depressing to me. Frodo failed in the end but at least he didn't murder anyone out of Ring lust.

>> No.36666107

>And how did that Gondor king with the broken sword even beat him if he's such a powerful wizard?
Because oddly enough wizards don't specialize in swordfighting. Just because an entity is very powerful doesn't necessarily mean that they'll beat everybody at everything. Sauron's great skills were crafting, persuasion, and administration. He was not a fighter; his combat ability was the result of simply being a Maiar, and was only particularly impressive compared to humans. Maiar, as a group, are outright better in a fight than humans as a group, but that doesn't mean there isn't a bit of overlap. A very skilled human can still beat a particularly wimpy Maiar in a fight.

>> No.36666140

>The Gollum one is stated quite explicitly in Letters

that's not explicit. explicit would be "eru pushed gollum into mount doom".

>> No.36666165

Except Sauron wasn't ordering Saruman around, maybe not ever and definitely not by the time of the novels.

>> No.36666225


>> No.36666256


>The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself),

There is literally no other way to interpret this correctly as anything other than Eru intervening.

>> No.36666354


It's not that I find it depressing, just not as interesting to me personally as a story element, even if we accept that Gollum breaking his oath to Frodo is equivalent to Frodo murdering him. Eru stepping in at the last second to use his literally Infinite Power to prod a little imp off the side of a cliff almost seems silly.

>> No.36666368

Or bilbo or Frodo. Seeing as they wrote the book in the legendarium and all.

>> No.36666436

In-universe, they didn't write a story, they wrote a history.

>> No.36666469


For what it's worth Eru probably intervened partly because of the oath. (The precedent for this being the Dead Men of Dunharrow)

I can't for example imagine Eru just wasting someone because it would be convenient.

>> No.36666471

Yeah it pretty inarguable means God intervened, but it just says "The Other Power then took over," not "Eru literally shoved Gollum over like a playground bully." It could mean anything, like that Eru stepped in to give them the strength to carry on or something like that.

>> No.36666475

>almost seems silly.
It is silly, and it also diminishes all the things accomplished by the characters in their struggle against evil.

>> No.36666570

If Eru is anything like the Christian god, then he is certainly a play ground bully.
Remember poor old Job, being fucked over because Satan bet god Job would lose faith?

>> No.36666576

What is stated is that Eru intervienes after Frodo claims the Ring as his own. Eru could just have made sure that Gollum was there when his presence was needed.

>> No.36666585

>'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'*

Yeah sure.


There was nothing Frodo or Sam could do once Gollum had reclaimed the Ring. They had done all they could possibly do, which was more than anyone else could have achieved.

Therefor when Gollum was dancing it must have been Eru who caused him to fall. Whatever the mechanic, the moment when it occurred is obvious.

>> No.36666616

He could mean in essence the flow of the story. I once read an author who said that a story hits a certain point and then it writes itself as the characters and events can happen in no other way once they're established (kind of like how Ned Stark wasn't meant to die originally but when Martin got there he couldn't think of any other outcome that made sense). Frodo couldn't do it because it was established that the Ring was wearing him down too much, Sam couldn't push him in out of loyalty, or take it away as Frodo would probably attack him, etc etc. Really there is only a couple of ways that the plot could go at that point unless he wants to change major themes and arcs of the entire work, or insert a total deus ex machina.

Your interpretation may be (probably is) correct but I don't think is the only possible way to interpret it.

>> No.36666647

You haven't read your own quote. Tolkien doesn't say that Eru stepped in after Gollum took the Ring, he stepped in after Frodo claimed it. There's a very clear difference.

>> No.36666669

I don't like it either but let's not turn this into r/atheism.
Probably my least favorite parts of the story are where a powerful being comes apparently (to the reader) out of nowhere to save the day, like when Tom Bombadil showed up to save the Hobbits in the Old Forest.

>> No.36666753

>citing bible stories
You need to tune down your paranoia, heretic.

>> No.36666775

Why do all of Aulë's Maiar turn out to be such assholes?

>> No.36666789

Or when Tom Bombadil shows up to save the Hobbits from the barrow-wights.

>> No.36666834

Actually on second thought maybe I just don't like Tom Bombadil.

>> No.36666844

>Frodo digging deep and in total desperation actually calling on a bit of the Ring's power over Gollum.

this is so strongly implied by the published material, and the other not at all implied, that I can't really take what's in the letter seriously (if that's what tolkien meant). otherwise we would have to assume that the whole sequence where frodo calls upon the power of the ring to condemn gollum to the fires of mount doom was totally random and pointless and nothing was actually happening aside from frodo shouting at gollum (despite the heavy mystical overtones in the scene and the whole thing being foreshadowed).

in other words, I would treat it like any other contradiction in the legendarium, and tend to favour what is in LotR and was published during tolkien's lifetime.

>> No.36666933

It's not only supported by the published material, but the letter is so vague in its own meaning (and the anon who posted not only made some wild assumptions based on it but also completely misinterpreted some key aspects of it) that it doesn't really contradict it either.

>> No.36667002

Because crafting and industry are EEEVIL, obviously.

>> No.36667049

>And how did that Gondor king with the broken sword even beat him if he's such a powerful wizard?

because that's not what happened so fuck off

>> No.36667066

Pride and greed (especially for power) are really common themes in Tolkien's work and I guess those are natural vices for Maiar associated with craftsmanship to fall victim to.

>> No.36667094

Tolkien didn't think so though. Saruman and Sauron where evil because they wanted to force change upon the world and order it according to their wills. The Elves and Men of Gondor were also wrong in their want to keep the world from changing.

>> No.36667175

So it's not just shitty parenting?

Boy, I sure am relieved to hear that.

>> No.36667183

Aule was a massive sperg and spent all his time working in the forge instead of handling his followers.

Aule a shit.

>> No.36667202

Because Aule's theme of craft and Melkor's theme of domination overlap in the sense that both involve exerting your will on something in order to reshape and direct it to your will. As a result, they tended to think along similar lines to Melkor himself, which made it easy for him to persuade them.

>> No.36667288


>> No.36667372

Son, what ARE you wearing? And for Eru's sake, grow a beard already.

Love you still

>> No.36667589

>Created a race of squat bearded people who live underground

Clearly the god of basement-dwellers.

>> No.36667699


Ugh, I already told you, this isn't a phase THIS IS WHO I AM NOW. The eye shadow and dark clothes represents my DARK AND TORTURED SOUL.

>> No.36667743


...No, he used it quite correctly. You're thinking of sarcasm. Irony is that the expected answer (That the incredibly famous culture-defining magnum opus is the authors best work) is not what is found (that is, the anon thinks Hobbit is better)

Don't need no neo-grammar-nazis on this board.

>> No.36667755

He also has a really hot waifu so really he's living the neckbeard dream.

>> No.36667906


Hey look buddy I'd appreciate it if you didn't bother my apprentice anymore. Not everyone want to be slaves to the Valar for all eternity

>> No.36667927

Mairon, use your in door voice and listen to your father. He even said he loves youeven though I had to force him to.

>> No.36668120

Melkor Lampbuster! You lazy fucking drifter!

How dare you try to trick my son away from the forge to play in some stupif Block Metal band or whatever it is you're doing over there in Angband?

He has lamps to build, for Eru's sake!

>> No.36668222

Sorry mom. Also, I decided my name's not Mairon anymore, I want you all to to call me "King Excellent."


>> No.36668368

So "Excellent" isn't good enough for you, has to be "King Excellent"? I bet Dad's real sorry he though you, you insufferable little faggot.

>> No.36668513


You needn't concern yourself with what I do on my own private property. And tell those damn Noldor you taught to get off my lawn while you're at it.

>> No.36668572

>insufferable little faggot
Ok first off, I don't know what you've heard but my relationship with Melkor is purely professional.
Secondly, that's "KING insufferable little faggot" to you, buddy.

>> No.36668582

See, this is why I stay in the ocean, to get away from all you losers.

>> No.36668638

Oh boy I can tell I'm gonna have to clean this mess up sooner or later.

>> No.36668748

You stop taking all the glory, you goddamn egotist.

>> No.36668863

Don't make me beat your little sissy ass like I beat Melkor's, child.

>> No.36669101

He claims to be the hot shot, but it's all thanks to the ring he get from Cirdan.
While we are on the mission from Eru.

>> No.36669147

Whatever, try anything on me and Lord Melkor'll kick your teeth in. He told me all about how you just caught him off guard last time.

>> No.36669174

We're on a mission from Eru.

>> No.36669202

Mordor Nazis... I HATE Mordor Nazis.

>> No.36669203

muh nigga

>> No.36669234


Yeah okay, and have you accomplished anything else recently? Nothing really?

Well then I guess you'll just have to live out the rest of your days recalling the one time you 13 other people ganged up on a guy. Real big achievement.

God you're even more useless than Nienna. Seriously, fuck you Tulkas.

>> No.36669273

Grupfenfuhrer! Write down that Maiar's numberplate.

>> No.36669303

I openly admit that most fanfiction is absolute shit but I would so totally read a Blues Brothers spinoff featuring the Blue Wizards in Harad.

>> No.36669319


>> No.36669359

look it was unnecessary of anon to post the image but dont bitch about it being /a/ it does not fucking matter if its /a/ bitch about it being unnecessary

although that one does kind of fit the post but still

>> No.36669380

there is a fucking wikipedia for these anwsers...go learn how to use it and stop making pointless threads.

>> No.36669398


Lets bounce on these posers. When we get back to Thangorodrim I've got to show you the latest dragon I bred. It's gonna be a big one I can tell, I think I'll name him Ancalgon.

>> No.36669401

Late to the game much?
There's an /a/ invasion. All who do not stand with us are secessionist traitors and should be shot. What have YOU to say, tripfag?

>> No.36669490


You walked into the wrong thread buddy. Ain't no tripfags steppin on my turf. Wizardry is me Aiwendil and a Curumo gig so step off.

>> No.36669505

oi dere, you big and only vala that know fear.
>not implying you are a coward
Maybe Ancalagon instead Ancalgon.
And no need to thank me

>> No.36669511

We all know /tg/ just uses these shitty borderline troll threads as an excuse to talk Tolkien anyway

>> No.36669522

You sound mad, girly-man. I'm training every day, and guess what? One of us has a hot Valië wife! And it's not you! Go sulk about being a backstabbing, father-hating, elf-lusting shit. I'll be here in Valinor, wrestling the shit out of motherfuckers. You know where to find me, but good luck getting there without your feet.

>> No.36669573

well shit.

>> No.36669620

Melkor Illuvatation! what did you do to this poor elf?

>> No.36669653

Good idea, sounds like it's time for Glaurung's diaper to be changed anyway.

>> No.36669662


>> No.36669765


Oi maggot, you git yer filthy snaga 'ide back in line!


>> No.36669769

>Everything is predestined through his music
Hold it!
Tolkien was a Catholic, as stated before in this thread, and his world followed, in broad strokes, Catholic theology. There are letters that he wrote that verify this, in which he even claimed that Eru Ilúvatar may have simply been another name for the Abrahamic God.

Anyways, in Catholic Theology, "predestination" is something of a heresy. Calvinists believe it, but Catholics have always believed in some kind of free will for people. Ultimately, people "choose" whether they go to Heaven or Hell (by following God or not, respectively). The reason that Hell is so awful isn't that it's some kind of burning pit of fire, it's because it's a realm of utter separation from God. Essentially, God decides that if somebody really wanted nothing more out of life than separation from Him, then He will give it to them. Which sucks for them, obviously, because God is also the source of all things that are good, which means that the absence of Him, by default, sucks.

(Interestingly, one can see this Catholic concept of evil as being an absence of that which is good or natural several times in Tolkien. Sauron's own standard, the lidless eye, is empty and gazing. The helm of the Witch-King contains nothing but blackness. Any real power that the darkness wields is inevitably nothing but a perversion of that which is good (the One Ring came after the other Rings, for example.) Just another thing that's pretty interesting!)

Just saying, Tolkien almost certainly did not believe in predestination either for a number of reasons, and it was almost certainly not a part of his setting.

>> No.36669791

shut it you pussy teleri, you're among your betters at the moment

>> No.36669813

>The objects themselves gather power as their legends intensify in Tolkien
Where do you get this idea?

>> No.36669841 [DELETED] 


Methamphetamines probably.

>> No.36669844

ART, you weepy fuck! ART!

>> No.36669931

you. go punt that snaga>>36669505 into a lava pit. he knows what he did

>> No.36669991


The fact that an omnipotent being knows you're going to turn left, doesn't mean you didn't have the choice to turn right.

Seriously, even bronze age jews wandering around in the desert eating space rice understood this, why is it even a question?

>> No.36670020

You there, move aside! Men come before Orcs!

Not disagreeing with you, but whether or not Catholics believe in predestination they certainly believe in an omnipotent, omniscient deity, with all the problems w/r/t free will and theodicy that it implies.

>> No.36670031

>eating space rice
Mana was mushrooms of some sort.
It helps to explain the whole "3 trips up a mountain and a golden calf" bit of the Moses story.

>> No.36670056

>Very weakened Morgoth

I'm sure Melkor at his full power would've been able to easily tussle with Ungoliant.
Afterall Melkor was basically the most powerful of the most powerful originally. He was said to be able to stand in the sea and still stand higher than any mountain, Something about being on fire and freezing at the same time. Basically the highest expression of power possible.

By the time hes fighting Ungoliant hes lost a good chunk of his power, granted hes still far beyond any mortal and granted Ungoliant would probably be able to devour Smaug without any trouble

>> No.36670080

You, uh, summed it all up right a lot better than I did. Thanks.
That picture is cool, but is it accurate? I don't remember the guy being mounted when the fight started, but now I'm wondering why he wasn't.
What the guy above you said might help. You are right though, it is pretty hard to understand, if it's even possible.

>> No.36670155



>> No.36670180

Maybe he would. But thing is he got scared; Kinda hard to fight when yer pissing your chain mail
Welp off to the lava pit wiff me.

>> No.36670228

>The fact that an omnipotent being knows you're going to turn left, doesn't mean you didn't have the choice to turn right.

First off, *omniscient.

>Seriously, even bronze age jews wandering around in the desert eating space rice understood this, why is it even a question?

Because no one has ever been able to explain to satisfaction how it is possible that free will exists if every single choice we make is already known by any being. This especially isn't helped by saying that everything is part of God's Plan.

Many would argue that unless there is no way to predict with certainty what happens, then there isn't choice, only cause and effect.

Also you're running into the problem that quite a few branches of Christianity - Calvinism, for example - do indeed believe that every one of our choices are predetermined.

>> No.36670242

Yesss bossss
Crack that whip
Give the past a slip
Step on a crack
Break your momma's back

When a problem comes along
You must whip it
Before the cream sets out too long
You must whip it
When something's goin' wrong
You must whip it

>> No.36670254


I understand where you're coming from, and obviously no reasonable Christian Catholic or not is going to believe in predestination because that would imply that the people who wind up in Hell were just doomed all along. Having said that, an omnipotent deity not only knew I was going to turn left all along, he set in motion the chain of events that led to me deciding to turn left in the first place.

>> No.36670264



>> No.36670321

And you can come back from the lava pit once you've thought about what you've done. Don't be expecting any supper tonight either, mister.

>> No.36670335

Goddamnit, now I'm listening to it.


>> No.36670468

Where the hell did the orcs find that funky electric guitar? Is that what Sauron's been working on all this time?

>> No.36670486

>Also you're running into the problem that quite a few branches of Christianity - Calvinism, for example - do indeed believe that every one of our choices are predetermined.
>a filthy Lutheran
gud 1 m8
But to be serious, the nature of "free will" has always been a little confused. The idea of fate as being not of something supernatural, but as something determined by one's character or upbringing is as ancient as the Greeks: Oedpus Rex asks the same question, supposedly. I think it was called anankè or something: fate by way of one's character or disposition.
It's a really big question. I'm honestly not sure what the Church says on this, except that God does not explicitly say, "right on, you're going to Hell, you're not," and that somehow everybody has a chance to pick one or the other. Obviously, it's a pretty hairy subject, but what's really important here I think is that Tolkien in all likelihood did not believe in predestination.

>> No.36670502

>confusing calvinism with lutheranism
Someone's drunk.

>> No.36670639

>sola scriptora
>sola fide
>something else? idk
Sounds pretty Lutheran to me, bud. Don't you have a congregation to be talking to about Jesus riding dinosaurs or something?
I was jokingly conflating all kinds of Protestants under "Lutheranism"

>> No.36670702

5 points of Luthers divinitatia:
1. Sola fide
2. Sola scriptum
3. Solo Christus
4. Sola gratia
5. Soli Deo gloria

Do you even religion mate?

>> No.36670742

what did you think I was playing when I corrupted the universe, smooth jazz? just to be clear, it was pure, unadulterated rock.

>> No.36670777

I One Holy Catholic Apostolic religion, bro, but thanks for asking
Not really. I just know a lot about it. Catholic elementary and high school. Tolkien makes me think about it a lot, though.

>> No.36670798

Hell yeah.

>> No.36670963

Sort of, but they'll never be all that good at it.

It was the literal song of creation, and you had to be able to change it through harmony and melody with your soul voice. Angelic beings like Gandalf were always doing it because that's why they exist. Mortals were very bad at it.

Because he was told by God, the creator, that he was not to fuck with the song. So he did as little as he needed to in order to progress the song and sing properly. There is little room for showboating or improvisation when you're singing a universe into being. And this was a song that had already been sung. Temporally, beings like Gandalf are just listening to what's been recorded.

Because magical power is waning. He did a whole lot more than that, anyway.

The ring increases natural power, which is related to supernatural and subuniversal forces. It also bound up the wearer's will with Sauron's, and increased longevity, and cloaked them in Sauron's essence. This hid them from the natural world (the invisibility) because Sauron is a servant of the Antagonist, and they are against Creation and how reality was formed. But the invisibility also revealed the wearer to Sauron and Sauron's most powerful servants, because you're not going to miss some kid running up under your skirt and pressing itself against your legs, nameen? It also did some other bullshit that was hugely metaphorical. Tolkein's stuff is laden with symbol and abstractness. Some (like me) would call such heavy-handedness incompetence.

Because shit happens, dawg. And mortal shells are pretty big limitations for beings that exist beyond reality as we understand it. It's like trying to win a potato sack race when you're Usain Bolt, but you're also underwater and someone just beaned you with a hammer and also you're not Mr. Bolt you're suddenly a fat office worker that can't even remember the last time he was athletic.

For you.

>> No.36670966

>Because no one has ever been able to explain to satisfaction how it is possible that free will exists if every single choice we make is already known by any being
Knowing isn't doing. There's a difference between knowing the answers to a test because you've peeked at the answer sheet and knowing them because you WROTE the answer sheet. Free will can exist with an omnipotent God given that he simply doesn't act contrary to the idea of free will. Choosing not to exercise an option does not remove your capability to do so. He doesn't suddenly lose omnipotence if he decides not to act. I find this entire line of questioning to be extremely confusing, since the answer is so blindingly obvious to anyone who spends so much as one minute thinking about it.

>> No.36671071

>It's like trying to win a potato sack race when you're Usain Bolt, but you're also underwater and someone just beaned you with a hammer and also you're not Mr. Bolt you're suddenly a fat office worker that can't even remember the last time he was athletic.
Saving that analogy

>> No.36671076

Rankin-Bass FUCK YEAH!

>> No.36671175

Right. There's a difference between watching a man doing something and making him do it.

There's also a difference between knowing a friend so well that when you go to an ice cream store you know for a fact that he's gonna get pistachio, and making it so that he can't get anything except pistachio.

It's not all that complicated.

Also, the fuck is with the captcha? It changed and now it's a lot harder.

>> No.36671400

See all these analogies always break down because it's not really anything like knowing your friend's favorite ice cream. It's like knowing your friend will like pistachio before he's even born, being responsible for all the circumstances surrounding his upbringing so that he will be led to liking pistachio, being so immeasurably powerful you could make him not like pistachio with a single thought, then when he goes into the store to get his ice cream screaming "HOW DARE YOU HEATHEN BUTTERSCOTCH IS THE ONE TRUE FLAVOR" and punishing him so that he will live forever in the afterlife, forever unable to enjoy butterscotch.
Actually I think I need to go get some ice cream now.

>> No.36671411

If there is only one way the future is written, it doesn't matter whether god was the author or not. It implies it's a static, immutable thing, contrary to the whole concept of choice. It puts into question whether the other options truly were possible, and not just illusions born of our limited perceptions.

>> No.36671467

I think your metaphor breaks down a bit, too.

Also the answer to whether we do or don't have free will is probably "both."

Why can't we inevitably make our own choices?

>> No.36671522

Hey faggot, I don't remember giving you permission to speak.

Get the fuck back in the hall, you don't get to reincarnate until I fucking say so.

>> No.36671605

>being responsible for all the circumstances surrounding his upbringing so that he will be led to liking pistachio
And that's where YOUR analogy breaks down, because you're operating under the assumption that ONLY your one hypothetical subject has free will, and God is the only other actor in the scenario. You have failed to consider the third option, in which the circumstances leading up to his liking pistachio were the result of free-willed beings other than God, whose upbringings were the result of the actions of still more free-willed beings, and so on until the chain is so long that although in theory it must have started off with a certain scenario, in practice that original stimulus is so far removed from the present state of the system that it is no longer relevant.

>If there is only one way the future is written
Who the hell said that? Extrapolation does not fix the future in place, no matter how accurate. If I'm friends with a writer, and as a result of our conversations on other topics I guess that his next book is going to be a romance novel, and he does, that doesn't mean I've decided the future. In the same vein, just because God can extrapolate to the end of time does not mean he personally decided on the outcome of each and every event in that period.

>It implies it's a static, immutable thing, contrary to the whole concept of choice
No, it implies that there's only one universe. If God does indeed have a plan, there's undoubtedly wiggle room. Whether Joe Smoe has pistachio or butterscotch icecream tonight doesn't affect the grand scheme of things, so there would be no divine bias towards one result or the other.

Not to mention the root of the whole argument; God (I'm fairly certain) created the universe for companionship and entertainment. If everything were, in fact, perfectly and completely predestined, then the universe would be boring as fuck to watch.

>> No.36671734

plantir, asshole. I can rabble-rouse across the universe, from the comfort of your amenities.

>> No.36671757

Yeah, I admit I probably shouldn't have stuck with the ice cream thing, to my detriment.

Yes, other free-willed beings could have influenced his liking pistachio, who were in turn influenced by other free-willed beings, but follow this chain back far enough and we're right back where we started from: God.

>until the chain is so long that although in theory it must have started off with a certain scenario, in practice that original stimulus is so far removed from the present state of the system that it is no longer relevant.

I disagree. Maybe for a human, who couldn't possibly understand how the scenario he was setting up would unfold, but God knew even before he created Adam and Eve exactly, down to the most minute detail, how these events would unfold. He knew Eve would taste of the forbidden pistachio, and pass that on to other free-willed beings, and he knew even before those beings were born that they in turn would decide they like pistachio too, and so on, all the way down to our friend in the original analogy. And he left a bowl of pistachios in the Garden anyway.

>> No.36671775

thingol isn't here to discipline you, kinslayer, so I'll have to do it myself

>> No.36671798

Go home Feanor, you're drunk.

>> No.36671821

This is nit-picking, but there's a very very real chance that God has no fixed place in our temporal world besides Jesus or the ways he chooses to manifest himself. The Bible does repeatedly state that "He was, and is, and is to come" and that the battle is already won, etc. He is beyond time. Outside of it. He created it. It's like a clockmaker being part of the clock he made, and being bound to the way that it ticks and tocks. That would be a fascinating short story idea, though. I'll try to work that one out.

>> No.36671841 [DELETED] 

in that case, get the fuck off my throne finarfin, you'll get it dirty with your cummy vanyar fag ass

>> No.36671861

Again, it doesn't matter if god was the decider. If he can know with 100% certainty of what choices you will make before there are made, this implies those choices, whether written by god, fate, or whatever else, are set in stone and unchanging. God is not extrapolating, assuming, or any of that. God KNOWS. This does not mesh with the idea of free will. Men can only do as their fate dictates, or else it cannot be known with certainty what lives men will lead, making god not omniscient and the whole thing just falls apart.

Let's use your own example of the writer friend. Whatever you and your writer friend decide, the characters in the story have no choice. Their lives are created and dictated by the pages written. It doesn't matter who decided that for them, only that they did not decide it for themselves. Choice does not exist for them, and similarly for us. To us, it feels as if our actions, decisions and lives are real and of our own creation, but this is just a limitation of our perceptions. We are characters in a story that exists on a level we are woefully under-equipped to comprehend.

Of course this all assumes time is linear. Everything's thrown out the window if time is really recursive or multi-faceted or some shit

>> No.36671866

in that case, get of my throne finarfin, you'll get it dirty with your cummy vanyar fag ass

>> No.36671895


Hey, why so grouchy there friend? Tell you what, ask really nicely and maybe Lord Melkor will let you polish his Silmarils.

>> No.36671919

4 u

>> No.36671931

>First off, *omniscient.

First off, eat me. Don't correct people over split hairs when you're wrong. Omnipotence implies inherent omniscience, but omniscience does not imply inherent omnipotence.

>Because no one has ever been able to explain to satisfaction how it is possible that free will exists if every single choice we make is already known by any being.

Yes it has. many many times in many many languages. I did it just now, but you weren't paying attention. People like you are just still looking for excuses to be shitty people, RE, 'It's not my fault I started WWII, Nostradamus foresaw it'. Look at it like this: I know you're going to react to this post like a giant faggot, but that doesn't mean I took away your choice not to.

>> No.36671934

Well, now we're moving slightly away from whether omniscience precludes free will and instead into how God was a bit of a prick for making Eden a setup, which is a different conversation. Frankly, I tend to ignore Genesis in conversations like this because it's so clearly fully of allegory and figurative language compounded by oral history's game of Telephone followed by multiple translations. I get the distinct feeling that the purpose of the book was not, in fact, to be a relevant part of a religious method, but to find some way to stick in an origin story for the sake of presentation. An omniscient deity would surely realize that including an explanation for how the world came to be would speed a burgeoning religion's adoption by various groups.
Although admittedly, this sort of cynical, "God put that bit in there to help out evangelists, not because it has any particular meaning itself" explanation is not exactly popular with Christians at large. Actually I'm pretty sure it counts as heresy of some description.

>> No.36671944

But what if he knows your will? This doesn't make it unreal. Since when does free will have to make no sense or be unpredictable or even unknowable? Why does "free" have to be completely unconnected to anything else?

If God does not change, then does God not have a free will? If he knows everything that he will do, then does he not make choices? This is ridiculous, of course he does. He has, is, and is going to make his will be done. He already has, and yet he's doing so right now. It's already been done and yet it is currently unfolding before us. He's beyond time.

He's more independent of everything than we are, for crying out loud. He has more "free" to his will than anything, and yet he is perfect. He doesn't NEED to change. There is simply his will and it is free and it is already done.

You know?

>> No.36671960

speaking of fags, hows your jail crow boyfriend been? feels really great to be on the same level as ungoliant to merit the 'rog squad, and better than alule's finest cumdump at smithing for him to still be butthurt about it

>> No.36671964

>God (I'm fairly certain) created the universe for companionship and entertainment
God is a perfect being and does not require such things. He created the universe because he did. It is part of his function. It's like asking why the sun burns, why rain falls, why the fundamental forces of the universe operate as they do. God's motivations are far beyond anything understandable by humans, and supposedly by living mortal lives then returning to the wholeness of god we will come to understand them.

At least that's how I was taught

>> No.36671987

>That picture is cool, but is it accurate? I don't remember the guy being mounted when the fight started, but now I'm wondering why he wasn't.

I BELIEVE it is, I remember the Witch King riding into the battle of Pelennor Fields mounted on a Fell Beast, but I could be remembering things wrong.

I do know that many paintings depict him mounted, even before the movies.

>> No.36672031

yeah, he's mounted on a fell beast. eowyn chops its head off.

>> No.36672050

Our will exists only in the present. It is not will if it is perceivable in the future. What doesn't exist cannot be known. If god knows our "will" in the future, it's not will, it's preordained fate.

>Why does "free" have to be completely unconnected to anything else?
because that's what free means. It's kinda hard to be completely free isn't it? Now you're getting the paradox inherent in the concept

>> No.36672098

dad, every time you do this you just add time to our sentence. this isn't helping at all

>> No.36672107

Glad to hear getting gangbanged by Gothmog and his boys left such an impression on you. We'll have to set you lovebirds up for a second date when the End Times roll around.

>better than aule's finest
Yeah you wish. At least I'm smart enough to lock up my precious jewels.

>> No.36672108

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to assume that your concerns are correct and free will is actually an illusion, I ask you this: does it change anything? A comprehensive enough illusion is as good as the real thing, in almost all cases. I believe myself to be an independent agent and I believe that my reasoning for which is sound; if I was destined to hold that belief is irrelevant. I have more reasons than destiny behind my actions, and those are enough, even if they are merely extensions of fate.
If anything, your reasoning seems to support the thought that my actions shape destiny as much it does the opposite. After all, your idea of destiny seems to state that I'm fated to do whatever I happen to be inclined to do anyway.

>God's motivations are far beyond anything understandable by humans, and supposedly by living mortal lives then returning to the wholeness of god we will come to understand them.
I find that a bit odd, since Biblical morals are themselves quite understandable in a mortal context, so I'm not sure how you can understand the incomprehensible by comprehending something that is already understandable. The idea of God as a force, rather than an entity with agency, is a valid line of reasoning, though not one I personally subscribe to, since if he is indeed simply moving through his functionality simply for the sake of doing so, well, it seems like it would fall back on the "He just did" explanation a bit too frequently for me to subscribe to it as a belief system.

>> No.36672152


>> No.36672177


>> No.36672287

>Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to assume that your concerns are correct and free will is actually an illusion, I ask you this: does it change anything?
No. But this is a philosophical argument concerned with what is, not with what seems. We believe ourselves free-willed because we are not privy to the mechanisms that control us. The most commonly used analogy is that we're puppets that can't see the strings. We have no way of seeing the strings so it's pointless to worry about where they lead us. I'm merely trying point out the paradox of free will co-existing with a omniscient diety

>> No.36672305

I like how there are two conversations running at once in this thread: one discussing whether or not it's possible for humans to have free will in a universe governed by an omnipotent intelligence, and the other roleplaying as a bunch of elves calling each other faggots.

>> No.36672306

"I have fought a giant being of fire."
"Must be thirsty work. Hey, if you can afford a nice robe like that, you gonna pay your tab any time soon?"

>> No.36672333

Then free will, by your definition, very clearly has no business existing, and the idea that it ought to is ridiculous. We're biological beings and function as biological machines. It's a very complicated but very real kind of cause and effect input-output system.

Not even fedora-tier right now. The idea of free will, in any capacity, is purely supernatural.

>> No.36672379

YES. Free will isn't real, never was real, and can't even exist in the reality we know.

>> No.36672435

I can live with that. A good and sovereign God isn't so bad, but I still believe that we do have a will. It might not be "free" but I do believe that it exists.

>> No.36672457

Threads like these are what makes 4chan great, IMO

>> No.36672474

Some do not subscribe to the idea of us being flesh robots and assign a supernatural abilities to the soul, one of them being free will.
Many of these people also believe in an omnipotent god, which hilariously goes and renders the soul's capacity for free will moot

>> No.36672508

>'m merely trying point out the paradox of free will co-existing with a omniscient deity
There is no paradox. You're confusing the issue and concluding that because omniscience counteracts aspects of free will, then therefore free will does not exist at all. Just because the journey is known ahead of time does not change the fact that you walked each step yourself, experienced it, and reacted to each event by your own will. The fact that you chose that road is not negated by some omniscient entity having charted your path as you approached the crossroads. God's omniscience is outside our system; it does not factor into the human decision-making process nor affect the outcome of our actions, even if one believes in predestination, since regardless of that belief you are still not privy to the actual knowledge which would make that belief relevant; you are acting not in accordance with predestination itself, but on your choice to believe in the idea of predestination, based on mortal ideas and conjecture on the subject and without direct knowledge of what may or may not be destined to happen. The so-called paradox stems from confusing your own understanding of the idea of predestination, as a human being inside of this universe, with the idea itself in the abstract, as a metaphysical concept outside this universe.

>> No.36672512

Free Will exists so long as you believe it does. as soon as you believe that you are not in control of your fate you lose any that you had in the first place.

>> No.36672560

merry or pippin may eventually tell him that gandalf left for the undying lands with the elves.
>thus begins the greatest adventure of our age, as tom the bar keeper embarks on an epic quest to stowaway on one of cirdan's ships to settle Olorin's truly astronomical bar tab.

>> No.36672636

That's beautiful, anon.

An omnipotent being doesn't necessarily exert his power upon everything. If he has all power to change, then he has all power to leave things untouched, right?

>> No.36672668

wait, then how did ungoilant reproduce?
also, feanor, glad to hear your kids sacked menegoroth, I always hated that place

>> No.36672694

>That's beautiful, anon.
Man, standards for beauty must have slipped pretty far if my first-draft internet ramblings qualify.
I almost forgot what feeling flattered was like. Shit. Now I feel like drinking.

>> No.36672730

i don't think that's really a problem from the religious perspective, because when these beliefs are based on revelation or faith or whatever then it's not necessary to fill in the dots and explain how it all works. any seeming incompatibility can be chalked up to limited human understanding.

if you take the concept of omnipotence to its extreme, illogical conclusion, then an omnipotent, omniscient god can create humans with true free will in the same way it can make square circles and 1+1=3. if we assume that omnipotence really is the ability to do absolutely anything, even the apparently impossible, then the apparent impossibility of reconciling free will with omniscience is only apparently impossible at our end.

those are unsatisfying answers, but they are probably more satisfying to a lot of people than the idea that none of us have any real freedom at all.

>> No.36672733

That sounds like a campaign after the barkeeper hires your level 1 party to collect the tab.

Tom - level 2 bar keeper
Elise - level 1 bar maid
Dorn - level 2 bouncer

>> No.36672764

>tom: this man owes me, and my long dead father, bless his heart, over 10'000 shillings!
>neinna: what are shillings?
>olorin: oh, tom. I guess you believe me now. go ask the noldor, they'll make you something nice. >run along lad, I've got a backlog of orcs to de-traumatize

>> No.36672800

>>36672730, >>36672694, >>36672636, >>36672512, >>36672474

You guys can be the level 1 tax accountant in this game >>36672733.

>> No.36672822

how many ages before the vallar start letting the british visit valinor (as in fairy stories, hg-brazil and what not) to break up the monotony?

>> No.36672850

>run along lad, I've got a backlog of orcs to de-traumatize

I hope this is really what happens to orcs when they die.

>*sniff* And then... even though I s-said I was s-sorry... Sauron still yelled at me and made me clean the d-dungpits... *sniff sniff*

>> No.36672874 [SPOILER] 

Do we have a choice in being an accountant, or is it pre-determined for us?

>> No.36672904

its what /tg/ assumes would happen. because melkor could only warp their bodies and minds orcs still have elvish fea, and thus would still go to mandos. neinna puts her compassion to use on them

>> No.36672943

You can choose to play, but if you play then you have to be an accountant.

>> No.36673028

so, our party consists of a barkeeper, a barmaid, and a pair of bickering gondorian scribes (commissioned to help by an un-suspecting Aragorn) on a quest to the west to extract gandalf's literally age old tab from the coffers of valinor. lets assume they take a bard along too.

>> No.36673064

Why does this seem like a completely normal game?

>> No.36673066

truly the soul of traditional gaming

>> No.36673100

maybe tom bombadil gives them something to get them aboard the boat?

>> No.36673111

not the class bard, just a dude who plays the lute well and knows a couple songs.

>> No.36673127

>where's the which king?
>from now on I'M the top

>> No.36673149

well yeah. either way, valinor sees an unexplained spike in its half-elf population

>> No.36673182

True, taking a bard along with the goal of meeting someone so close to the song of creation sounds like the creation of a BBEG.

>> No.36673205

>DM: You enter the foyer of Gandalf's home, an mostly empty 10x10 room. You can either check the area for traps or continue through.

>Barkeep: Why would Gandalf have... oh whatever, I'll choose to uh, check for traps? I guess?

>Scribe 1: Yeah, but did you really CHOOSE to check for traps? Obviously you THINK you decided to, but really this was a decision you were predestined to make because of your upbringing and the events surrounding-

>Scribe 2: No no, he is a free actor. The presence of an omniscient deity, even if we assume out of hand that such a deity exists, does not necessarily preclude the idea that-

>Barkeep: God fucking damnit you guys.

>> No.36673232

And you will know his evil deeds by the census data.

Gondorian scribes? Get on to this. We need to know just how evil this fucker is.

>> No.36673235

I guess the scribes are mainly there to get manwe to settle their debate

>> No.36673272

he just uses song illusions to disguise them as clueless avari

>> No.36673687

they might be the disembodied elf spirits that have been mentioned

>> No.36673729

Actually ancient Jews decided that there was free choice, but God just knew what you'd choose. To quote Rabbi Akiva (I think), "Hakol tsafui vehareshut netuna" - "all is expected, and/but permission is given". One interpretation of this is that the use of the verb "expected" implies God's knowledge is of the current action - God sees everything that can ever be, all the possibilities, and also knows what you're doing now, and how that changes the futures ahead of you. Basically, God is on the spic Melange.

>> No.36673821

>listening to jewish apostates
How about I put you all in ghettos until I figure out your theological position instead?

>> No.36673825

>spic Melange.
Why did I just imagine a sassy latino shai-hulud

>> No.36674039

>We believe ourselves free-willed because we are not privy to the mechanisms that control us.

Now THAT is a good debate. But if freewill is a thing, as Abrahemic tradition states, then the entire 'god knows what I'm going to do, therefore I don't have to feel guilty about being a dink' field of philosophy is moot.

Free will coexisting with an omniscient deity isn't a paradox. Not even remotely. It doesn't matter which way you slice it, someone knowing what you're going to do simply does not preclude doing the thing to be your own choice, in a paradigm which assumes free will.

Now, if we ant to go the other way, and assume that free will is an illusion, as the Hindus do, then that's a completely different conversation. But LOTR works on Jesus rules, so that conversation has no place here. Especially that in the Silmarillion, Iluvitar specifically points out that he knows all, but the choice still rests in the hands of every being to do what they are going to do.

>> No.36674081

Valinor? Never. Tol Eressëa? Probably two or three.

>> No.36674121

>Listening to Christian apostates
How about you go about worshipping your torture implements and leave us the fuck alone, you heretics?

>> No.36674145

Damnit, I saw that typo literally as I posted. It was too late.

>> No.36674177

what traps would gandalf set in valinor, and for whom?

>> No.36674360

its some form of cannon
>Ælfwine son of Éadwine, son of Óswine was born around 869 AD. An Anglo-Saxon, living in Britain during the 10th century. When Ælfwine was nine years old, his father sailed off with his ship Éarendel and never returned.
>Ælfwine was later forced to flee beyond Ireland, and passed into fog, falling unconscious.
>When Ælfwine woke up, he found himself lying on a beach of Tol Eressëa and a group of Elves pulling up his ship on the shore. He came to Tavrobel, where lived Pengolodh who told him the Ainulindalë, and he was shown the Lammas, the Quenta Silmarillion, the Golden Book, the Narn i Chîn Húrin, and the Annals of Aman and Beleriand.

>> No.36674387

Eressëa, not Valinor.

>> No.36674432

thats correct. its what I said.

>> No.36674438

Somebody ought to archive this

>> No.36674473

oh look, the pussy that called for daddy when he saw the rightful rulers of the world coming

>> No.36674526

you know what makes me sad, tulk?
the fact we never got to run down that huge ass spider. I wanted its nasty fucking pincers lopped off for the grand trophy hall, but no "king" manwe just leaves the thing to eat itself

>> No.36674687

what, a squad of mairon's posing for portraits in his many gaudy outfits? he wasn't that tough. bet he could have gotten out of mandos in an age if he'd come back. sucks for him

>> No.36674726

That'd be Manwë. I was all for wrecking your shit, but he's the king. Some ofus know how to listen to simple instructions, unlike you.
Me too, bro. But oh well, big brother always gets his way. No point dwelling on the past when there's shit to do today.

>> No.36674768

Too stuck up to face judgement. Oh well, he's a sissy. Now how about another wrestling match, glory boy? I'll tie one hand behind my back, if you like. I'll buy the beer after.

>> No.36674786

no asshole. Me. I was supposed to free melkor and get immortality, just like king excellent said. it was going to be so perfect, teaching those uppity elves their place with the great armament. NUMENOR WILL RISE AGAIN!!!!

>> No.36674825

sure man, I'm down.
I guess I keep getting hung up on the Mairon thing cause he was aule's second, like me to manwe. wonder how things would have gone down if things were opposite?

>> No.36674847

I know it's supposed to be tobacco but watching the hobbits in the movie smoke that dank old toby just reminds me of getting stoned with my friends. Like they find a barrel of the stuff, smoke it, get hungry and wander until they discover an entire pantry of food which they eat.

I fucking love Hobbit Leaf.

>> No.36674875

I remember reading on /tg/ that Tolkein also wanted to do a story about two wizards venturing out to the east and exploring the other human civilizations. Is that true or was somebody making shit up?

>> No.36674880

what would have happened was they'd let me out, and I'd burn your ships to cinders myself. with a death ray. I could make one if I really wanted to. just watch, mortal.

>pic related
>they really went all out with the tapestry for it
>your failure, more immortal than you'll ever be

>> No.36674898

its cannon, but only background lore

>> No.36674915

Neat either way. They discover anything interesting or is it just mentioned in passing?

>> No.36674930

never given any detail so make your own stuff, but be tasteful

>> No.36675024


>> No.36675121

Cool. I think I understand where you're coming from, but try not to dwell on shit, y'know? Sometimes I catch myself wondering about could've-beens, but I snap out of it. Beer helps. Father bless the human who thought that up.

>> No.36675269

yeah. when I was last around the noldor they were doing some strange thing to they wine. boiling it through tubes or something, distilling they called it. it was one of the ex-exiles too. no idea what they're up to

>> No.36675701

once they find gandalf hat would they even do?
I'm sure he'd humor them, being who he is, but what would he pay them with?
how would manwe react to human's theological trifles

>> No.36675790

The bard turns out to maglor

>> No.36676089

Gandalf seemed like a stand up guy but I'm not well versed in LoTR lore. Seems to me has though he'd pay them back in a fashion. That fashion being:

>Gandalf: Oh my yes your money. Why I know just the place where you can get it three times over. Are you a decent burglar by any chance? Nevermind that, just go with these Dwarves to a dungeon. You're going on an adventure my friend!
>Barkeep: No, no, no! Just give me back the money and I'll leave.
>Gandalf: Well if you don't go on the adventure I suppose that the dwarves might just go to your bar and break all your plates. Would you like that?
>Barkeep: Fucking wizards...

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.