Thanks in advance to those who answer this question.
Useful Party Members:
Aragorn-Fighter 10
Boromir-Corpse 12 (Er Fighter 6)
Gandalf - Wizard 20
Gimili - Fighter 9
Legolas - Ranger 9
Worthless party members(or hobbits.... pota-to/po-tat-o)
Merry-Fighter 2
Pippin-Fighter 1
Sam - Rogue 1
Frodo - Wuss extrordinare. Or a level 1 minion.
I'll use 4e numbers but the point is the same.
Useful Party Members:
Aragorn-Fighter 10
Boromir-Corpse 12 (Er Fighter 6)
Gandalf - Wizard 20
Gimili - Fighter 9
Legolas - Ranger 9
Worthless party members(or hobbits.... pota-to/po-tat-o)
Merry-Fighter 2
Pippin-Fighter 1
Sam - Rogue 1
Frodo - Wuss extrordinare. Or a level 1 minion.
Frodo got owned.
*****
Boramir - Fighter 3, Got owned by canon fodder lol
Gandalf - Gesalt Druid/Cleric 20 (worst DMPC ever)
Gimili - Fighter 4/Barbarian 1
Legolas - Ranger 3/Fighter 2
Merry - Fighter 2
Pippin - Fighter 2
Sam - Fighter 2/Rogue 1
Frodo - Rogue 2
The Witch-king of Angmar: 12th-level Fighter/Sorceror/Abjurant Champion (forgot what was what, but a little higher than I was originally going for)
Nazgûl-bird: I think I based it on the Eagle with a made-up "Dire" template (does a Dire template exist?).
Mûmakil: Huge, max-HD elephant.
That's all I got around to statting. The Witch-king is heavily based on the movie version, using "Enlarge Weapon" to let him wield a large flail one-handed, but otherwise he just fights melee using his AC class to boost his offensive and defensive abilities. I tried to give him as many subtle spells as possible, but even then I try to use them as sparingly as possible since Middle-earth is very low-magic; think I did give him the Lich template, though, but changed his damage reduction to 15/piercing and magic (curse those barrow blades).
I can't picture Sauron as being any higher than Lv20. I honestly believe he has to be a wizard or sorceror with all the feats needed to give him the Craft Artifact salient divine ability. In all honesty, even though he owned Gil-Galad and Elendil, he still lost; he also lost to a wolf-hound (albeit, a large, talking wolf-hound, but still) in the First Age, and he was only slightly weaker then then at the end of the Second Age with the Ring (especially since, during his battle with the elf and man, he was on his second body). My point is, he should be just weak enough for a high-level (not Epic, but stronger than Aragorn) elf and man to take him down while they themselves die. After all, Sauron is argueably stronger than the Balrogs, and they themselves are certainly weaker D&D's Balors in terms of Challenge Rating.
Now Morgoth would be interesting to stat out, especially prior to the First Age before he dispersed his power into the world and was stronger than all the other Valar combined (atleast when going by Morgoth's Ring).
P.S. If Mithrandir is to be considered a bad DMPC, imagine if Tolkien had decided to leave Glorfindel in the Fellowship intead of Legolas? From what little I remember, he was atleast as powerful in body and spirit as Elrond and Galadriel, if not as powerful as some of ther lower Maiar themselves (Mithrandir and Curunír, perhaps?).
Regarding Merry's Barrow Blade, I do recall that it was forged specifically to injure the Nazgûl (or perhaps just the Witch-king, I can't remember that well), so... +1 ghost strike dagger of fierce undead bane? That would certainly allow Merry who, rogue or not, to inflict some serious damage on the Witch-king (and if rogue, definitely allow him to sneak attack!).
Ugh, why did I have to leave behind my History of Middle-earth when I moved out!?
I think a semi-conversion like SAGA or D20 Modern would be best.
Powers would be a lot more free-form, for one thing.
What about characters like Grima? Or Saruman? Obviously a wizard, but would he be more powerful than Gandalf or not, because of the whole White Wizard thing? I think Grima would be a Rog3 with a lot of skill point thrown at Gather Information, Bluff, Sense motive, and things of that sort.
I would like to see a Lord of the Rings sourcebook, personally. Any opinions on that?
I agree that Merry and Pippin would be rogues, and Sam a fighter. I have no idea what Frodo would be though, because my bias against him makes me want to give him some really poor class levels (such as 1 or 2 NPC ones).
In the book he was good at sneaking. He and Sam sneaked through a good part of Mordor and even eavesdropped some orcs arguing. They're both definitely rogues. Sam could have a fighter level though.
Isn't there a LotR RPG game yet?
Mithrandir was brought back in white because he was ordained to take Curunír's place; "Saruman as he should have been." Still, I don't suppose I could be talking about my you-know-what, but at any rate I feel that I can safely say Curunír was stronger than Mithrandir in the beginning, but over time (atleast after Curunír's fall and Mithrandir's return) Mithrandir became the stronger of the two. Not sure how much it matters, but both Varda and Galadriel had Mithrandir in their minds first and foremost when deciding his place amonst the respective parties (first, in what order the wizards would travel to Middle-earth, and then who would rule the council). Either way, Curunír wasn't too happy with either situation, nor with the fact that Mithrandir received Narya from Círdan.
*racks his brain for a moment* The whole "White Wizard" thing didn't denote rank at all. Curunír was called the White Wizard because.. he was a wizard. Who wore white. Mithrandir was called the Grey Wizard 'cause he wore grey. And, that's pretty much it. Curunír was chosen to be the head of the White Council because he was deemed the wisest and most powerful amonst them, and thus the council was named for him (I think). Of course Curunír had to go and get delusions of grandeur and start calling himself "Saruman of Many Colors", which is probably the closest rank has ever come to defining the wizards.
Mithrandir was brought back in white because he was ordained to take Curunír's place; "Saruman as he should have been." Still, I don't suppose I could be talking about my you-know-what, but at any rate I feel that I can safely say Curunír was stronger than Mithrandir in the beginning, but over time (atleast after Curunír's fall and Mithrandir's return) Mithrandir became the stronger of the two. Not sure how much it matters, but both Varda and Galadriel had Mithrandir in their minds first and foremost when deciding his place amonst the respective parties (first, in what order the wizards would travel to Middle-earth, and then who would rule the council). Either way, Curunír wasn't too happy with either situation, nor with the fact that Mithrandir received Narya from Círdan.
Translation or the non-Tolkien scholars in the room and to all who weren't paying attention when they read the books. (Not me otherwise I wouldn't be able to translate, but I know you're out there.)
Curunir= Saruman
Mithrandir= Gandalf
Narya= One of the three elvish rings of power
Cirdan= Well he's just an elf. An elf in the grey havens.
As for what bloodsoul wrote I would agree that the colors don't denote rank, but the question of which wizard was more powerful when Gandalf was "the Grey" is debatable. Gandalf definetly was the only wizard who was able to stay on top of his mission and not falter, but he was captured by Saruman.
As or the RPG questions. Decipher made an RPG based on the movies (mostly) and that has been the most recent one. However, I'm sure some an will make a 4e port eventually.
Ah, well, that makes sense, and clears up a bit of confusion. Hmm. Perhaps I should buy books other than the main trilogy and The Hobbit. The lore seems fascinating.
It is a lot of fun to go through it all and discover so much. I'm playing LotR online right now and I always find myself thinking about all I've read and discussing it with others.
Off topic: what was the name of Gandalf's sword? I can't remember.
I agree that based on the movies Gandalf seemed much more "rugged," but in the novels didn't he use magic a lot (within the context of LoTR)? Also, his sword was named Glamdring. If I remember correctly.
Off topic: what was the name of Gandalf's sword? I can't remember.
Glamdring I believe...or was that Thorins...hrm.
*shrugs*
Mean's "Foe Hammer" iirc...funny name for a sword XD
For a wizard, Gandalf never used much magic. I can only think of three spells he cast (and this is from the movies--it's been a while since I read the books). He cast Light on his staff in Moria, cast Daylight to blind the orc army at Helms Deep and later to drive off the Nazgul, and cast--what exactly, Earthbolt?--to destroy the stone bridge out from under the Balrog. In actual combat, he always used his longsword. At least as far as the movies go, he'd have to have more levels in Fighter than in Wizard.
Off topic: what was the name of Gandalf's sword? I can't remember.
In the middle earth, magic is much rare than in a typical d&d world. Also, Gandalf is bond by an oath to not use is powers except for very exceptional situation. The wizard are in the middle earth as counselor for the free people and not as artillery; they must work as indirectly as possible.
I will use the characters from the book, as the ones from the movie were a joke.
Strider/Aragorn/ King Elessar: Ranger/Fighter of very high level. He's over 80 years old (he stood in as a captain in Boramir's grandfathers army when Denetheir was only a little boy). He has reached high regard in the north as a chieftain of the Dúnedain. He's also not human, he's a Numenorian- the leaders of men (and he's a king of that ilk, when those words mean something, those kings are greater than their subjects) they are the descendants of a man who mated with a half elf, half god.
Boromir- Fighter nearing 20th level. This was the greatest warrior men had to offer the world. During the siege on Osgiliath just before going to Rivendell Boromir singlehandedly slew a Cave Troll inspiring his men to win the battle (remember, in this world, you are royalty, you lead men). He was slain by Uruk-hai, and if I remember it took more than 14 arrows to put him down, in addition to any injury that the 50 or so dead bodies laying around him caused. The Uruk arn't normal orcs (who happen to be mutated elves) They are the magical breeding of men and elves to make them something more. So imagine if you will a new race of super orcs, so good that small raiding squads can take on calvary effectively. Now take a group of over 50 of them vs. one man. Tough enough? na, let's do that fight while under arrow fire, well placed fire.
Gandalf- he's an angel, a godling, one of a few sent to help men just before the close of the age of legends. He is not a man. For men who are spell slingers, look at wyrmtoung, it's evil in Tolkien's world. He is far above the power level of all of the party put together.
Gimli- a remote descendant of Durin the Deathless, chief of the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves and ancestor to the Dwarven people to which Gimli belonged, the Longbeards. Gimli was of the royal line, but not close to the succession. Other than the fact that he was a battle hardened dwarf, there is not too much on him... so yah the fact that he can hang with the others is testament enough to his skill. That and the kill count he and Legolas engage in, remember they aren't gaining levels in a game, in the book, this is just how good they are.
Legolas- The son of Thranduil, and so a prince of the Woodland Realm in the northeast of Mirkwood, Legolas was descended from the Sindar, but counted himself one of the Silvan people. The date of his birth is not known, but he seems to have been several thousand years old at the time of the War of the Ring, there is also a small thread that he is old enough to have been born in the first age, and if that is indeed true, then he has mad amounts of skill.
Merry- um.. bumpkin level 3, realistically fighter/rouge 1/2 (3)
Pippin- reverse the last one, rouge/ fighter 1/2 (3).
These two were gaining xp steadily, so depending on where your at. Tolkien seems to indicate that all hobbits have a natural ability to be thieves, so maybe a natural 2-3 levels of rouge, just to be generous on how they can live in so many adventures with the other heroes.
Sam- I think he never really gains much levels, because he's always a support element to Frodo. In fact I'd say he's more of a follower than an actual pc.
Frodo- maybe a 10lvl fighter by the end of it, but I think that's pushing it... Though his act was great, if it wouldn't have been for Gollum's treachery he wouldn't have succeeded, so his "saves" aren't that good, but then again, no one's is against the ring.
How is LoTR online? I'd like to try it someday, but at the moment I only have one computer and it's a laptop that doesn't support games very well. My desktop hasn't worked since last summer.
It's fairly good, but it does have its share of problems. I have a lifetime sub though so I'm not leaving it anytime soon.
Pros:
-Big free update every 10 weeks on average. (These are really big)
-The community is top notch for the most part. The forums are even a pleasant place to go.
-While nothing new, the game system is solid
-The storylines are well written
Cons:
-Enemy diversity is low for an MMO. Be prepared for a lot o goblins, orcs, wolves, spiders, etc.
-Lack of a full pvp system upsets some people (not me, but some)
-The game plays a bit like WoW. (Can be good or bad)
.....
I can't picture Sauron as being any higher than Lv20. I honestly believe he has to be a wizard or sorceror with all the feats needed to give him the Craft Artifact salient divine ability. In all honesty, even though he owned Gil-Galad and Elendil, he still lost; he also lost to a wolf-hound (albeit, a large, talking wolf-hound, but still) in the First Age, and he was only slightly weaker then then at the end of the Second Age with the Ring (especially since, during his battle with the elf and man, he was on his second body). My point is, he should be just weak enough for a high-level (not Epic, but stronger than Aragorn) elf and man to take him down while they themselves die. After all, Sauron is argueably stronger than the Balrogs, and they themselves are certainly weaker D&D's Balors in terms of Challenge Rating.
.....
I would point out, geek that I am, that the wolf-hound was pretty much the concentrated essence of hound awesome given form. He was more of maiar than just a big dog, as I recall. Not that that invalidates the point entirely, but it boosts Sauron a bit there...*shrugs*
Gandalf- he's an angel, a godling, one of a few sent to help men just before the close of the age of legends. He is not a man. For men who are spell slingers, look at wyrmtoung, it's evil in Tolkien's world. He is far above the power level of all of the party put together.
Sam- I think he never really gains much levels, because he's always a support element to Frodo. In fact I'd say he's more of a follower than an actual pc.
Frodo- maybe a 10lvl fighter by the end of it, but I think that's pushing it... Though his act was great, if it wouldn't have been for Gollum's treachery he wouldn't have succeeded, so his "saves" aren't that good, but then again, no one's is against the ring.
That's another good reason why Gandalf didn't cast many spells like a dnd wizards would have done so; wizards (Istaris) are a race (more accurately, a sub-race of maiar) of godly angelic being and not a class of spell caster.
For Frodo and Sam, I think there importance is reverse. Sam is the main caracter, the one of the four hobbits who have dove done the most heroics and greater deeds. He should have win more level than any other hobbit. Afetr all, he has defeated Shelob and saved Frodo from Cirith Ungol alone. That's quite heroic. Frodo just transported the one ring and he didn't even throw it in mount doom. It's quite an incredible task but is role is more passive than Sam.
For the hobbits class, they all start as rogue with the exception of Sam who start as an expert (gardener) and end with a few fighter level with the exception of Frodo who stay a rogue from the beginning til the end.
I think you highly underestimate Frodo.
*****
Nope. Frodo represents the "average" person in all of us. IOW, we're wuss extraordinaires. That's why we play D&D to be rangers and paladins, rather than actually go out and be physically and mentally trained as one of them.
Linky
For Frodo and Sam, I think there importance is reverse. Sam is the main caracter, the one of the four hobbits who have dove done the most heroics and greater deeds. He should have win more level than any other hobbit. Afetr all, he has defeated Shelob and saved Frodo from Cirith Ungol alone. That's quite heroic. Frodo just transported the one ring and he didn't even throw it in mount doom. It's quite an incredible task but is role is more passive than Sam.
I see that, though I can see more roleplayers that I know would love the brooding Frodo part, but they are very immersive type players. You know, with this discussion in mind, if I were building them in Hero, I build them out of the same points... I mean for your standard rpg they really are one person, one seems to be more "out" when the other is in, and vice versa. It might also be that I just can't see Frodo as a side kick, even though I really can see what your saying, for RP considerations, it just gives me indigestion thinking about it.
For the hobbits class, they all start as rogue with the exception of Sam who start as an expert (gardener) and end with a few fighter level with the exception of Frodo who stay a rogue from the beginning til the end.
Agreed as far as I can think. Though I think it's Meriadoc that should have a few more levels of figher, just for riding into the last battle with the Rohan, even though they both fought, I just see Merry as being more of a fighter. Could just be the way that I visualized them as I read.....
There was the Ent Drought that made them grow, and became much better suited for fighting taller people, so they also have extra ability to be capable of being a skilled fighter by the end of the series.
Yah, Frodo is still a rouge through and through, and Sam should be an expert, with levels of rouge and then one or two of fighter.
Nice post, I like the ideas.
Nope. Frodo represents the "average" person in all of us. IOW, we're wuss extraordinaires. That's why we play D&D to be rangers and paladins, rather than actually go out and be physically and mentally trained as one of them.
Frodo is far different than that, IMHO.
Boromir and Faramir (may Odin slay all those involved in making Faramir into a wuss on film) were the two aspects of the average person. At worst, the ring takes us over and we destroy who we love. At best, we set the ring free and have hope in our friends and those we love.
Frodo may appear to some as being a wuss - and it may be very difficult to portray his inner struggle in D&D terms, but I see him as being one of the most heroic figures in the book. To carry the ring he had to constantly put himself above destructive desires that were constantly consuming those around him. Sam's desire to strangle Smeagol. Gollum's desire to smash Sam in the head with a rock.
Frodo actually had to place all those desires aside - not an easy thing.
I would say his saves and mental defenses were as strong or stronger than any other person that lived in Middle-Earth.
Also, ultimately, it can easily be said and seen that the ring destroyed itself.
*****
I see that, though I can see more roleplayers that I know would love the brooding Frodo part, but they are very immersive type players. You know, with this discussion in mind, if I were building them in Hero, I build them out of the same points... I mean for your standard rpg they really are one person, one seems to be more "out" when the other is in, and vice versa. It might also be that I just can't see Frodo as a side kick, even though I really can see what your saying, for RP considerations, it just gives me indigestion thinking about it.
I understand with you meen. Sure, for the average PC, Sam has a more out and proactive role. He is the one who fight Shelob and sneak into Cirith Ungol. He has the «out» role. Not necessarily the more interesting role to play but certainly the more attracting role of the two (for the average dnd PC). Frodo has an inner struggle role, more difficult to play in the context of a DnD game. Is role is more important in the story but less attracting for the average DnD player. Playing Frodo is like constantly making will save to resist the ring. But like you said, they are like the 2 faces of a same caracter. Maybe they would have been one caracter in the context of a Dnd game.
LOTR would give a very unique kind a campain with two major part: an heroic part with Frodo, Sam and a paragon part with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli. In a way, I always think that these 3 caracters would be the more playable caracters in the context of a DnD game.
I understand with you meen. Sure, for the average PC, Sam has a more out and proactive role. He is the one who fight Shelob and sneak into Cirith Ungol. He has the «out» role. Not necessarily the more interesting role to play but certainly the more attracting role of the two (for the average dnd PC). Frodo has an inner struggle role, more difficult to play in the context of a DnD game. Is role is more important in the story but less attracting for the average DnD player. Playing Frodo is like constantly making will save to resist the ring. But like you said, they are like the 2 faces of a same caracter. Maybe they would have been one caracter in the context of a Dnd game.
LOTR would give a very unique kind a campain with two major part: an heroic part with Frodo, Sam and a paragon part with Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli. In a way, I always think that these 3 caracters would be the more playable caracters in the context of a DnD game.
I could see how a DM could "run" it that way. every other week, "even weeks" run Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, and "odd weeks" run Frodo, Sam, and Gollum.
That would be a hell of a way to expand the usefulness of a 3 person party, while still maintaining an epic story.
Frodo is far different than that, IMHO.
Boromir and Faramir (may Odin slay all those involved in making Faramir into a wuss on film) were the two aspects of the average person. At worst, the ring takes us over and we destroy who we love. At best, we set the ring free and have hope in our friends and those we love.
Frodo may appear to some as being a wuss - and it may be very difficult to portray his inner struggle in D&D terms, but I see him as being one of the most heroic figures in the book. To carry the ring he had to constantly put himself above destructive desires that were constantly consuming those around him. Sam's desire to strangle Smeagol. Gollum's desire to smash Sam in the head with a rock.
Frodo actually had to place all those desires aside - not an easy thing.
I would say his saves and mental defenses were as strong or stronger than any other person that lived in Middle-Earth.
Also, ultimately, it can easily be said and seen that the ring destroyed itself.
*****
I do think Frodo and Sam were the "common clay" but they were uncommon in that. Remember it was "created" during WWII, so the common Brit was looking at them being this tiny island who was standing up against this massive machine, who is bent on taking the world over... the Brits said, "no, you won't take us."
Boromir and Farimir (yes he was a weak willed puss in the movies) were the last of a dyeing breed of man, two sides of the same coin. Remember they were of the line of stewards, mixed men, of Numenorian and mannish blood line. Boromir was more the uber man, stronger, more physical, and all balls to the wall type. Farimir was more the elven/Numenorian (frodo even comments on how much Farimir looks "older" than his brother, and Farimir says that he's more of the old line) and thus stronger of mind and will, and one of the only 3 who could resist the ring (Gandolf, Galadrial, and Farimir- though he figured out what Isildurs Bane was from Boromir's dream, and didn't want the ring named, as to tempt him). As I remember Strider was only offered in the movies, as he had legitimate claim to the ring, due to Isildur having once posessed it, and Gandalf said Sauron was afraid that that might give him power over the ring beyond the evil.
They are there to remind us of the power of our bloodlines, while Frodo and Sam are there to remind us of our strength, and choice. Aragorn was almost a hobbit in Tolkien's older notes, remember that.
As far as Frodo's "will save" Gandolf suggested that hobbits have amazing willpower, and Frodo seemed to have good willpower for a hobbits, so he was ment to bear the ring. I like the thought that the ring destroyed itself.
on "their" system Galdalf the grey was a level 40 magician (26 magic-user). Gandalf the White was a level 60 magician (level 40 magic-user) (remember, this was WAY back, and 1st edition classes
Saruman was a level 50 astrologer (level 32, split between cleric and magic-user). dropping to a level 2 magician, with no spell-points, after the loss of Orthanc
I can't remember what cvlass/level most of the others were - the hobbits were mostly level 5 rogues or thieves (in RM, they were different classes - the rogue being a kind of fighter-thief). Sam, however, had some Animiust (druids in our language) skills, though
Galadriel was the highest level "good" character in any of the books
I do think Frodo and Sam were the "common clay" but they were uncommon in that. Remember it was "created" during WWII, so the common Brit was looking at them being this tiny island who was standing up against this massive machine, who is bent on taking the world over... the Brits said, "no, you won't take us."
Boromir and Farimir (yes he was a weak willed puss in the movies) were the last of a dyeing breed of man, two sides of the same coin. Remember they were of the line of stewards, mixed men, of Numenorian and mannish blood line. Boromir was more the uber man, stronger, more physical, and all balls to the wall type. Farimir was more the elven/Numenorian (frodo even comments on how much Farimir looks "older" than his brother, and Farimir says that he's more of the old line) and thus stronger of mind and will, and one of the only 3 who could resist the ring (Gandolf, Galadrial, and Farimir- though he figured out what Isildurs Bane was from Boromir's dream, and didn't want the ring named, as to tempt him). As I remember Strider was only offered in the movies, as he had legitimate claim to the ring, due to Isildur having once posessed it, and Gandalf said Sauron was afraid that that might give him power over the ring beyond the evil.
They are there to remind us of the power of our bloodlines, while Frodo and Sam are there to remind us of our strength, and choice. Aragorn was almost a hobbit in Tolkien's older notes, remember that.
As far as Frodo's "will save" Gandolf suggested that hobbits have amazing willpower, and Frodo seemed to have good willpower for a hobbits, so he was ment to bear the ring. I like the thought that the ring destroyed itself.
You have to remember, those that "resisted" the ring's temptations only did so for brief periods of time.
Frodo resisted for the 99.9% of the quest AND took the thing to where it eventually would be unmade.
The only one that was totally beyond the ring was - of course - Tom Bombadil.
*****
The only one that was totally beyond the ring was - of course - Tom Bombadil.
Now someone try to stat up this chap!
You have to remember, those that "resisted" the ring's temptations only did so for brief periods of time.
Frodo resisted for the 99.9% of the quest AND took the thing to where it eventually would be unmade.
The only one that was totally beyond the ring was - of course - Tom Bombadil.
*****
Granted, not at all trying to take away from that, consider it an oversight in verbiage.
Frodo is far different than that, IMHO.
Boromir and Faramir (may Odin slay all those involved in making Faramir into a wuss on film) were the two aspects of the average person. At worst, the ring takes us over and we destroy who we love. At best, we set the ring free and have hope in our friends and those we love.
Don't let Odin slay them!!!! The answer is simple: movies and litterature just don't work the same way. Faramir letting Frodo go away in the movie would have been quite anti-climatic. And the ring won't have seems so tempting and dangerous after that. They don't have made a Faramir a wuss (at the end, he is still a strong, wise and honorable man who have do the good choice); they just play by the rules of these different arts. In the same way, a RPG story must be played differently than the story of a movie or a book.
In the 4e edition, the fellowship could look like that:
Aragorn : Fighter with multi-class in ranger. Paragon tier
Legolas : Ranger. Paragon tier
Gimli : Fighter. Paragon tier
Boromir : Warlord. Paragon tier.
Faramir : Ranger with multi-class as priest (that's why he is more wise and less combat oriented than is brother). End of heroic tier, beginning of paragon tier.
Gandalf : First a member of a unique and particular kind of angelic creature (a mix of angel and human). He is not necessarily a tipical dnd wizard but is powers could look like a mix of wizard and cleric. In combat situation (and also in non-combat situation), he act like a leader. He is at epic level.
Pippin and Merry : rogue with multi-class as fighter. Heroic level.
Frodo : rogue qith multi-class as priest (or an equivalent) for extra will power. Heroic level
Sam : Fighter. Heroic level.
Don't let Odin slay them!!!! The answer is simple: movies and litterature just don't work the same way. Faramir letting Frodo go away in the movie would have been quite anti-climatic. And the ring won't have seems so tempting and dangerous after that. They don't have made a Faramir a wuss (at the end, he is still a strong, wise and honorable man who have do the good choice); they just play by the rules of these different arts. In the same way, a RPG story must be played differently than the story of a movie or a book.
*claimer*
First of all I want to announce this is not a Mad- on or geek rage, it's just my passion, so there is no anger in this, though it may be tense. That said, I am a LOTR geek, the way trek[er/ie] (never know how to tell them apart) would be for Star Trek, and so this is one of my biggest problems of the movies. Also this is not meant in any way as an attack, just a comment, WITH FEELING :D
*claimer*
Faramir taking the hobbits into Osgiliath was the MAJOR oversight of the movie. Sauron knew that the ring had flown into The Lórien when Frodo escaped the Ring Wraiths (with whoever helped him, Glorfindel (book) or Arwen (movie)). Since he did not have eyes able to spy into The Lórien he was unsure where the ring went after that. Did the elves have it, did the two Hobbits, did Saruman, did Aragorn, and on and on. Sauron held most of his troops in reserve only committing a few at a time to any one area (he attacked Lothlórien 3 times, thinking the elves still had it).
If events transpired as they did in the movie, and Frodo was taken to Osgiliath, and had his little breakdown, showing the one ring to ANY of the Nazgûl, much less the Witch King himself; Sauron would have committed all of his forces there to Gondor that second (yes he can communicate with The Nine). Frodo and Sam would have met the entire armies of The Enemy marching into Fields of Pelennor (far more than were seen during the battle that ended up being played out).
Even if the two Hobbits escaped, or evaded the full armies of Sauron on the march (who happened to know now where they were, and what they looked like, with no small amount of force being spared to look for them, they do have the one ring after all. Do you think that The Eye would have let them go for a second, that close to Mordor?), the white city would have probably fallen.
In my opinon this was a poorly written attempt by the director to correct things that he didn't like about the series, Sam even looks directly into the camera and says (talking to Frodo, but we know it's Jackson talking to us), "I know, by all rights, we shouldn't even be here." Jackson damn well knew!
I understand that movies need different narrative style than books, or RPG's, but seriously, don't sacrifice internal consistency to do it, especially when you've done so well up to that point. I like the hobbit, and much of the rest of the movies, but that was right out!
rant over.
*claimer*
First of all I want to announce this is not a Mad- on or geek rage, it's just my passion, so there is no anger in this, though it may be tense. That said, I am a LOTR geek, the way trek[er/ie] (never know how to tell them apart) would be for Star Trek, and so this is one of my biggest problems of the movies. Also this is not meant in any way as an attack, just a comment, WITH FEELING :D
*claimer*
Faramir taking the hobbits into Osgiliath was the MAJOR oversight of the movie. Sauron knew that the ring had flown into The Lórien when Frodo escaped the Ring Wraiths (with whoever helped him, Glorfindel (book) or Arwen (movie)). Since he did not have eyes able to spy into The Lórien he was unsure where the ring went after that. Did the elves have it, did the two Hobbits, did Saruman, did Aragorn, and on and on. Sauron held most of his troops in reserve only committing a few at a time to any one area (he attacked Lothlórien 3 times, thinking the elves still had it).
If events transpired as they did in the movie, and Frodo was taken to Osgiliath, and had his little breakdown, showing the one ring to ANY of the Nazgûl, much less the Witch King himself; Sauron would have committed all of his forces there to Gondor that second (yes he can communicate with The Nine). Frodo and Sam would have met the entire armies of The Enemy marching into Fields of Pelennor (far more than were seen during the battle that ended up being played out).
Even if the two Hobbits escaped, or evaded the full armies of Sauron on the march (who happened to know now where they were, and what they looked like, with no small amount of force being spared to look for them, they do have the one ring after all. Do you think that The Eye would have let them go for a second, that close to Mordor?), the white city would have probably fallen.
In my opinon this was a poorly written attempt by the director to correct things that he didn't like about the series, Sam even looks directly into the camera and says (talking to Frodo, but we know it's Jackson talking to us), "I know, by all rights, we shouldn't even be here." Jackson damn well knew!
I understand that movies need different narrative style than books, or RPG's, but seriously, don't sacrifice internal consistency to do it, especially when you've done so well up to that point. I like the hobbit, and much of the rest of the movies, but that was right out!
rant over.
The old «The book is better than the movie argument» lol. In this kind of argument, the book is always perfect and the movie always being an imperfect copy of the book. Why not see things like 2 differents ways to tell a story, with the two having their different logic and the story of the two being sometime a little different. This way, we must not see the movie with the internal consistancy of the book, but with is very own internal consistancy. That way, is more easy to enjoy the two equally without always trying to compare the two. But I must admit that I like the middle earth universe but that I find LOTR books sometime quite boring so I was quite opened to change in the movie (ok, I was just telling you before to not compare but hey, I'm not perfect :D ).
The change that you talk about (that is just partly link to the change in Faramir caracter since they have gone to the city and never met the Nazgul). You part right when you say that it change the consistancy of the story but you must take in account two things. First, the Nazgul in osgiliath never saw Frodo and the one ring (hey, Nazgul are almost blind, in the movie at least) maybe just feel them (impossible to say for sure in the movie). The nazgul just saw and really feel the ring when it is used (in the consistancy of the moovie at least). The second, it was never mentioned that the Nazgul in Osgilliath was With-King. But it's odd since many people I know take for granted that the Nazgul was the with-king. So, that consistancy of the story is not that broken (in my opinion at least).
Personnaly, I think that the more complete wuss of middle-earth is Sauron (in the book and the movie alike lol) who just live through every age from a defeat to another defeat (what a loser) and didn't even think to leave at least some kind of gardians in from of mount doom when he as some very good reason to believe someone will come to destroy the ring (hey, with the capture of Frodo, he certainly could have a good reason to think someone will try to throw the ring in mount doom).
In the 4e edition, the fellowship could look like that:
Aragorn : Fighter with multi-class in ranger. Paragon tier
Legolas : Ranger. Paragon tier
Gimli : Fighter. Paragon tier
Boromir : Warlord. Paragon tier.
Faramir : Ranger with multi-class as priest (that's why he is more wise and less combat oriented than is brother). End of heroic tier, beginning of paragon tier.
Gandalf : First a member of a unique and particular kind of angelic creature (a mix of angel and human). He is not necessarily a tipical dnd wizard but is powers could look like a mix of wizard and cleric. In combat situation (and also in non-combat situation), he act like a leader. He is at epic level.
Pippin and Merry : rogue with multi-class as fighter. Heroic level.
Frodo : rogue qith multi-class as priest (or an equivalent) for extra will power. Heroic level
Sam : Fighter. Heroic level.
To add some change in the class of the caracters, maybe Aragorn could be consider like a paladin multi-class with ranger. And he could be consider like an half-elve but with the appearance of a human. Frodo could be a kind of warlock with the ring being the equivalent of a dark pact. After all, the ring give him some power and ability, even if it's at a great cost.
For the supporting cast:
Galadriel and Elrond: Priests (or wizard or multiclass wizard) of epic tier.
Eowyn: Fighter of heroic level.
King Theoden : Warlord of paragon tier.
Eomund : Warrior of heroic tier.
Tom Bonbadil: Silly caracter of epic tier (sorry but I don't like this caracter).
The old «The book is better than the movie argument» lol. In this kind of argument, the book is always perfect and the movie always being an imperfect copy of the book. Why not see things like 2 differents ways to tell a story, with the two having their different logic and the story of the two being sometime a little different. This way, we must not see the movie with the internal consistancy of the book, but with is very own internal consistancy. That way, is more easy to enjoy the two equally without always trying to compare the two. But I must admit that I like the middle earth universe but that I find LOTR books sometime quite boring so I was quite opened to change in the movie (ok, I was just telling you before to not compare but hey, I'm not perfect :D ).
No, the book is better than the movie argument is closer to the fact that there is more immersion and depth in a book than there can be in a movie. So there is more material from witch to draw on in the book, the special effects in your head are higher budget, and the actors are usually perfect caliber and match the character (as written) well (all provided that the author is at least decent). So the Book becomes better than the movie because there is just more all around. There are times when that's not the case, usually when the writer/ director of the movie is better than the one who wrote the book. Rare, but it has happened.
The change that you talk about (that is just partly link to the change in Faramir caracter since they have gone to the city and never met the Nazgul). You part right when you say that it change the consistancy of the story but you must take in account two things. First, the Nazgul in osgiliath never saw Frodo and the one ring (hey, Nazgul are almost blind, in the movie at least) maybe just feel them (impossible to say for sure in the movie). The nazgul just saw and really feel the ring when it is used (in the consistancy of the moovie at least). The second, it was never mentioned that the Nazgul in Osgilliath was With-King. But it's odd since many people I know take for granted that the Nazgul was the with-king. So, that consistancy of the story is not that broken (in my opinion at least).
The change is linked to Faramir because it was Faramir's weakness that brought them to Osgiliath in the first place. If Faramir was able to stay strong, and resist temptation, then they never would have gone backwards and ended up in Gondor.
The Nazgûl in Osgiliath (who I cede may not be the witch king, as on review, didn't ware the Iron Crown) did see Frodo with the ring, Frodo jumped up in front of him, took the ring out, and showed him. They had no trouble seeing the water at the ferry, they had no trouble seeing Aragorn and the hobbits when fighting on Amon Hen, they had no trouble walking into Bree, entering doors and stabbing the beds, They didn't have trouble following Frodo and Arwen when they were riding to Rivendell when Frodo never put the ring on, they had sight when fighting the Rohirim during the battle of Pelennor Fields, or attacking the White City. No, they have perfectly serviceable sight, as is consistent with the movie. I don't know where you got that they were blind, I agree that the hobbits weren't hiding well, but they were hidden in the first movie on the road. The beds were disguised to look like people were sleeping in them in Bree. Again I'll say there is no distinct proof that it was the Witch King himself at Osgiliath, but that still doesn't discredit the inconsistency, Sauron would have still been instantly notified, and his armies would have been committed, all internal to the movie. And if you want proof that the movie shows that the Nazgûl communicate with Sauron, then they still receive orders while alone, you can hear the commands from Sauron as they leave the tower, when Gollum breaks about the name of the one with the ring (Bagens's!!!).
Personnaly, I think that the more complete wuss of middle-earth is Sauron (in the book and the movie alike lol) who just live through every age from a defeat to another defeat (what a loser) and didn't even think to leave at least some kind of gardians in from of mount doom when he as some very good reason to believe someone will come to destroy the ring (hey, with the capture of Frodo, he certainly could have a good reason to think someone will try to throw the ring in mount doom).
In this yes, Sauron is the wus, I'll agree. He's been somewhat of a pus the entire time, even when he was lord of Warewolves trying to see the doom of Beren. He, however, by this time is confidant in the power of The One Ring, and the greed of men. He's sure that even if they could find someone strong enough to take the ring to Mt. Doom (Frodo), they wouldn't be able to throw it in (Isildur, Frodo). He wasn't counting on a fight taking it off the ledge... So in a way He was right, without Gollum Frodo would have turned around from the edge and taken the ring strait to Sauron... why hedge that much of a sure bet, at that point the ring is right on his doorstep. Not to mention, Hobbits are natural thieves, and with cloaks of elven kind, as it were, able to hide better than most anyone else... they snuck through legions of Sauron's armies.
Good debate by the way.
Proof that books are better than movies: Eragon.
The same argument could be applied to Dungeons & Dragons ... well, pre-4e anyway. :D
For a wizard, Gandalf never used much magic. I can only think of three spells he cast (and this is from the movies--it's been a while since I read the books). He cast Light on his staff in Moria, cast Daylight to blind the orc army at Helms Deep and later to drive off the Nazgul, and cast--what exactly, Earthbolt?--to destroy the stone bridge out from under the Balrog. In actual combat, he always used his longsword. At least as far as the movies go, he'd have to have more levels in Fighter than in Wizard.
The Dragon #5 (March 1977) has an article about this specifically. It includes an itemized list of spells he has cast in the books. The conclusion the article comes to is that Gandalf could not have been any higher than 5th level as a mage (of course this is his mortal body)
Off topic: what was the name of Gandalf's sword? I can't remember.
Glamdring
The DMPC- I mean Gandalf (Grey ) - Wizard 3/Druid 3/Mystic Theurge 2/Fighter 1
Gandalf (White) - Wizard 3/Druid 3/Mystic Theurge 3/Fighter 1/Eldritch Knight 3
Aragorn - Fighter 2/Ranger 1/Paladin 2
Legolass - Ranger 5
Gimili - Barbarian 4/Fighter 1
Boromir - Fighter 5
Merry/Pippin - Rogue 2/Fighter 1
Sam - Rogue 1/Fighter 3
Frodo - Commoner 1
This is my list. They couldv'e died many times on their quest, but they just had lucky dice. Also assume Ring Wraiths are normal CR 5 wraiths (even the Witch King).
The change is linked to Faramir because it was Faramir's weakness that brought them to Osgiliath in the first place. If Faramir was able to stay strong, and resist temptation, then they never would have gone backwards and ended up in Gondor.
They could do the change without including the Nazgul part but anyway, that's not really important. Probably the Nazgul encounter was planned with they decided the change to create a more climatic ending of The two towers (climatic ending are important in movies for more than in books).
The Nazgûl in Osgiliath (who I cede may not be the witch king, as on review, didn't ware the Iron Crown) did see Frodo with the ring, Frodo jumped up in front of him, took the ring out, and showed him. They had no trouble seeing the water at the ferry, they had no trouble seeing Aragorn and the hobbits when fighting on Amon Hen, they had no trouble walking into Bree, entering doors and stabbing the beds, They didn't have trouble following Frodo and Arwen when they were riding to Rivendell when Frodo never put the ring on, they had sight when fighting the Rohirim during the battle of Pelennor Fields, or attacking the White City. No, they have perfectly serviceable sight, as is consistent with the movie. I don't know where you got that they were blind, I agree that the hobbits weren't hiding well, but they were hidden in the first movie on the road. The beds were disguised to look like people were sleeping in them in Bree.
Nazgul could see only shadows of the world of the living because they partly live in the wraith world. There vision could look like the one of Frodo when he put the ring (but maybe worst because they are dead and they live more deeply in the wraith world). They can see rough details of the world like roads, dorrs, houses, men but could not distinguished details like faces of men, colors of houses, etc. So they can easily move in the world but more hardly identified people or distinguished little detail like the ring. That could explain why the first nazgul the hobbits encounter don't see them even if they are poorly hidden, are easily duped at the inn and the Nazgul at the marsh of the dead don't see Frodo, Sam and Gollum. Also, when they ride a horse or a fell beast, it's the vision of there mount that guide them. If the Nazgul at Osgilliath was not at Weathertop, it could be explain that he cannot recognised Frodo not even a hobbit because he never really saw one (hey, orcs and ents just can't recognise hobbits so they are not alone :D ).
And if you want proof that the movie shows that the Nazgûl communicate with Sauron, then they still receive orders while alone, you can hear the commands from Sauron as they leave the tower, when Gollum breaks about the name of the one with the ring (Bagens's!!!).
I would hesitate to take that has a proof since this scene was more a kind of summary of what happen between the time when Frodo received the ring and when Gandalf come back. These events could have taken months if not years (in the book, they say 17 years have passed in this could be the case in the movie). When we ear the voice saying «Baggins, Shire», is just Gollum who speak under torture, not necessarily Sauron who give order to the Nazgul. The order could have been send by a messenger, by a magical device or simply by telepathy but it's impossible to tell and never mentioned.
Again I'll say there is no distinct proof that it was the Witch King himself at Osgiliath, but that still doesn't discredit the inconsistency, Sauron would have still been instantly notified, and his armies would have been committed, all internal to the movie.
I agree that it was quite a inconvenient move from the part of Jackson that could bring some inconsistancy(the debate we have here is the ultimate proof of that). He should at least stay more careful and let Frodo not within eyesight (whatever the eyesight of the Nazguls) so no doubt would have been raised. But anyway, I think that Sauron plan was already in move and that is army was not already commited just for logistic reasons.
In this yes, Sauron is the wus, I'll agree. He's been somewhat of a pus the entire time, even when he was lord of Warewolves trying to see the doom of Beren. He, however, by this time is confidant in the power of The One Ring, and the greed of men. He's sure that even if they could find someone strong enough to take the ring to Mt. Doom (Frodo), they wouldn't be able to throw it in (Isildur, Frodo). He wasn't counting on a fight taking it off the ledge... So in a way He was right, without Gollum Frodo would have turned around from the edge and taken the ring strait to Sauron... why hedge that much of a sure bet, at that point the ring is right on his doorstep. Not to mention, Hobbits are natural thieves, and with cloaks of elven kind, as it were, able to hide better than most anyone else... they snuck through legions of Sauron's armies.
That's more a joke than anything else but why Sauron just didn't at least put a door at the entrance of mount doom forge.:D He should have been named Mauron, not Sauron. :D
Good debate by the way.
I agree, it's always fun to have a debate with someone who have different opinion but used good arguments without entering in clumsy personnal attacks.
That's more a joke than anything else but why Sauron just didn't at least put a door at the entrance of mount doom forge.:D He should have been named Mauron, not Sauron. :D
I always felt that the reason why was because he could never trust his own people with the information (or even a hint of information) that Mount Doom held any importance to him whatsoever.
In addition to his own feelings that no one could ever even possibly consider destroying the One Ring... well, he just never would have done anything beyond what he did.
Now in my D&D game, the Ring would never even have made it as far as it did - it would cause inter-party conflicts, PvP battles to the death, and all sorts of nastiness.
*****
Gandalf: Lvl 15 Wizard/Lvl 5 Paladin
Divine Mount is Shadowfax, Holy Avenger is Glamdring. Had magic ring, Palantir and magic staff too. Gandalf player did not distribute wealth fairly per RAW. Gandalf's player had blackmail or relationship with DM.
Aragorn: Lvl 11 Ranger (Melee)/Lvl 5 Paladin/Lvl 4 Fighter
Vorpal Holy Avenger +5 is Anduril. Aragorn Min-maxed levels well
Boromir: Lvl 18 Fighter/Lvl 2 Paladin
Rolled a '1' for his will save against ring.
Legolas: Lvl 12 Ranger (Ranged)/Lvl 8 Fighter
Left his animal companion in Mirkwood
Gimli: Lvl 12 Fighter/Lvl 8 Barbarian
Gimli's player forgot armor restrictions for barbarian. Bad DM for not catching this mistake
Frodo: Lvl 20 Rogue
Frodo had the only artifact. His player was a noob so DM railroaded with Gollum NPC to keep story going.
Sam: Lvl 12 Rogue/Lvl 4 Fighter/Lvl 4 Druid
Sam had Druid levels for gardening and for Remove Fear.
Merridoc: Lvl 16 Rogue/Lvl 4 Fighter
Merridoc got Ad Hoc experience for attacking Witch King
Pippen: Lvl 16 Rogue/Lvl 4 Bard
Bard levels for singing for Denethor
I don't know the universe as much as my players do, but I master the game concept.
I think that during the first movies these are the characters levels :
All hobbit aren't hero yet. Even during the Moria part, they are just "NPC" classes. Or maybe, they are playing their past before becoming heroes.
Gimli, Legolas, Boromir and Aragorn would be near the end of the Heroic tier (lvl 8 or 9).
Gandalf is surely near the end of the paragon. After defeating the balrog, he would be in the epic tier.
In the end of the trilogy, the hobbit would have gained maybe enough levels to be near the end of the heroic level. Aragorn, Gimli etc would be near the end of the Paragon tier.
What you think?
Have fun.
-wrecan, your friendly neighborhood forum lead[/highlight]
Proof that books are better than movies: Eragon.
You...you...you mean the movie was actually BASED on the book?
Me and my friends managed to keep our sanity by convincing each other it was just a strange coincidence with the title.....
;)
Going by the 3.5 base class system, making them all level 20 epics --
Why level 20? None of them showed any kind of outstanding power, except perhaps Gandalf's struggle with the Balrog.
Also note: level 20 is not epic.
Frodo is far different than that, IMHO.
Boromir and Faramir (may Odin slay all those involved in making Faramir into a wuss on film) were the two aspects of the average person. At worst, the ring takes us over and we destroy who we love. At best, we set the ring free and have hope in our friends and those we love.
AFAIC, Faramir is not a wuss on film. I'm glad he's affected by the One Ring as anyone.
Frodo may appear to some as being a wuss - and it may be very difficult to portray his inner struggle in D&D terms, but I see him as being one of the most heroic figures in the book. To carry the ring he had to constantly put himself above destructive desires that were constantly consuming those around him. Sam's desire to strangle Smeagol. Gollum's desire to smash Sam in the head with a rock.
Putting himself above destructive desires? Yeah, he's still a wuss. :D
I'd rather be Samwise or Merry.
Aragorn may or may not have used magic. With LotR it's hard to tell. Like Harry Potter.
So, from what is KNOWN, only Gandalf had any spell casting levels. That makes everyone else a fighter or rogue.
In Harry Potter someone could cast spells or they were a "muggle".
Galadriel had that scrying pool (of sorts). The palantíri could be considered magical, and Sauron was said to be a great sorceror (I would imagine the Witch-king and the Mouth learned their arts from him, especially since the Witch-king once controlled the barrow-wights). The balrog of Moria also countered the spell that Gandalf tried placing on the door.
Yes, I know, I'm referring to the main characters only. None of those were able to cast spells.
Saruman : Like Gandalf, he is an angelic being with both wizard and priest power in the epic tier. When Gandalf is grey, Saruman has a few level above Gandalf. When Gandalf is white, he as a few level under.
Grima Wormtongue : Warlock with is association with Saruman as is dark pact (Saruman as given a part of his power). He is in the heroic tier. In my opinion, he is the least interesting and the more silly caracter Tolkien had created. How anyone can trust a guy that is named «Wormtongue». There is a lack of subtlety that we fortunately don't see anywhere else in LOTR.
Mouth of Sauron : Paladin of Sauron with warlock multi-class (Sauron is his dark pact). Paragon tier.
Gollum : A thieve with warlock power (the ring has a kind of Dark pact like Frodo). Because of the ring, he is a mutant hobbit and he received permanent power and weakness. Heroic tier.
Nazgul : They are a special kind of wraith. The witch-king as a warlock template to complete (Sauron as the drak pact). They are at paragon tier.
Sauron : Priest with wizard multi-class. He is also a kind angelic (demonic) creature. At the end of epic tier, at the edge of demi-power. He is far more powerful than any other caracters in middle-earth.
Balrog : Something like a pit fiend.
So, from what is KNOWN, only Gandalf had any spell casting levels. That makes everyone else a fighter or rogue.
In Harry Potter someone could cast spells or they were a "muggle".
Well I'm not going to consider Harry Potter "magic" as magic until I see at least a fireball.
Well I'm not going to consider Harry Potter "magic" as magic until I see at least a fireball.
Harry Potter magic is more similar to World of Darkness Mage than DnD magic system (whatever the editions).
Grima Wormtongue : Warlock with is association with Saruman as is dark pact (Saruman as given a part of his power). He is in the heroic tier. In my opinion, he is the least interesting and the more silly caracter Tolkien had created. How anyone can trust a guy that is named «Wormtongue». There is a lack of subtlety that we fortunately don't see anywhere else in LOTR.
His nick-name is "Wormtongue" - it is not his real name and was given in a derisive manner with as much loathing and distaste as possible.
All save Theoden, if I recollect properly, called him Wormtongue - but it was no proper name.
*****
Aragorn may or may not have used magic.
AFAIK, the only thing that comes close to Aragorn using magic is healing. But even that is subtle.
Well I'm not going to consider Harry Potter "magic" as magic until I see at least a fireball.
Like showing boobs for gratuitous sex, hurling loads of fireballs is gratuitous magic, and may hurt the tone of the films.
His nick-name is "Wormtongue" - it is not his real name and was given in a derisive manner with as much loathing and distaste as possible.
All save Theoden, if I recollect properly, called him Wormtongue - but it was no proper name.
*****
Anyway, just is description doesn't fit a guy that should have been charismatic and handsome, not ugly not ugly and repulsing. Maybe is just LOTR's Raputine :D .
They could do the change without including the Nazgul part but anyway, that's not really important. Probably the Nazgul encounter was planned with they decided the change to create a more climatic ending of The two towers (climatic ending are important in movies for more than in books).
That's one of the original points I was driving at... That they didn't need to put the Nazgûl part in, and the Faramir thing happened, really to get them to Osgiliath. But you are right that movies need that "Major ending" to get things done. Doesn't mean I have to like how they went about doing it.
Nazgul could see only shadows of the world of the living because they partly live in the wraith world. There vision could look like the one of Frodo when he put the ring (but maybe worst because they are dead and they live more deeply in the wraith world). They can see rough details of the world like roads, dorrs, houses, men but could not distinguished details like faces of men, colors of houses, etc. So they can easily move in the world but more hardly identified people or distinguished little detail like the ring. That could explain why the first nazgul the hobbits encounter don't see them even if they are poorly hidden, are easily duped at the inn and the Nazgul at the marsh of the dead don't see Frodo, Sam and Gollum. Also, when they ride a horse or a fell beast, it's the vision of there mount that guide them. If the Nazgul at Osgilliath was not at Weathertop, it could be explain that he cannot recognised Frodo not even a hobbit because he never really saw one (hey, orcs and ents just can't recognise hobbits so they are not alone :D ).
Is your explanation internally consistent? yes, however it's based on a lot of supposition and theory, being that it's circumstantial. Outside the Nazgûl on Weathertop, that's a pretty good argument, however all 9 rode out to the shire at the very beginning, so they all have seen what hobbits look like, granted they may not know Frodo specifically. I'll begrudgingly admit that there is possibility in this explanation though I enjoy well thought out story lines that explain things like this fully (a voice over explaining the lack of vision of the Nazgûl). I still fully expect that Jackson didn't even think about the long ranging complications of sticking the Osgiliath scene in the movie and went with what looked cool. (remember Sam still states that he and Frodo have no right to be there, and I still think that's Jackson talking to fanboys like me, indirectly).
I would hesitate to take that has a proof since this scene was more a kind of summary of what happen between the time when Frodo received the ring and when Gandalf come back. These events could have taken months if not years (in the book, they say 17 years have passed in this could be the case in the movie). When we ear the voice saying «Baggins, Shire», is just Gollum who speak under torture, not necessarily Sauron who give order to the Nazgul. The order could have been send by a messenger, by a magical device or simply by telepathy but it's impossible to tell and never mentioned.
Yah, well it was shaky, and I wasn't sure I'd get much traction on that line of logic, but I had to try. Due to there not being a ton of material out there on the movie version of the world, I don't have much to go off of... so I tried. Also the fact that the Nazgûl fly (when on a Fell Beast that is) is a pretty quick way to relay information quickly.
I agree that it was quite a inconvenient move from the part of Jackson that could bring some inconsistancy(the debate we have here is the ultimate proof of that). He should at least stay more careful and let Frodo not within eyesight (whatever the eyesight of the Nazguls) so no doubt would have been raised. But anyway, I think that Sauron plan was already in move and that is army was not already commited just for logistic reasons.
Sound logic by what you've built, as far as evidence as to events being different than in the book, but I still think that most of it is creating some outside theory to make sense of internal logic failings. And we're agreed that he could have made more of an attempt to make this make sense.
That's more a joke than anything else but why Sauron just didn't at least put a door at the entrance of mount doom forge.:D He should have been named Mauron, not Sauron. :D
Yah, well.. what can you do? Your villain has to be defeatable, however I agree, maybe not with such a big window... I still think it works, based on Sauron's personality, and he's always been the half failing lackey of Melkor, and always will be. Melkor was the true power there, and he's gone (from direct influence).
I agree, it's always fun to have a debate with someone who have different opinion but used good arguments without entering in clumsy personnal attacks.
I would have ( :D I kid), but there is so much of that going around, I figured I'd try to do it different for a change of pace.
AFAIK, the only thing that comes close to Aragorn using magic is healing. But even that is subtle.
I agree, it's subtle, but it's strong. I mean the work he did at the houses of Healing was some powerful stuff... but as to being able to even codify it in D&D terms is a bit harsh.
As a side note, that's why Rangers had the divine connection in the older editions, Aragorn had the ability to heal. Granted only the king could heal, Aragorn was a ranger, so they wanted rangers to be able to heal. The two weapon fighting was all about Aragorn using Andúril and the knife Galadriel gave him. Na, that class was designed around Aragorn.
Looks like the AD&D PHB (with the Ranger)has a 10 year jump on Drizzt. I do agree that the extra attack was a bit wonky in the first edition, though.
However The Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring (1954) has a 24 year lead on AD&D's PHB.
Concidering, though, I think that the 2nd ed AD&D Ranger had some flavor attributed to it from Drizzt, namely the 2 weapon fighting as it ended up.
Is your explanation internally consistent? yes, however it's based on a lot of supposition and theory, being that it's circumstantial. Outside the Nazgûl on Weathertop, that's a pretty good argument, however all 9 rode out to the shire at the very beginning, so they all have seen what hobbits look like, granted they may not know Frodo specifically. I'll begrudgingly admit that there is possibility in this explanation though I enjoy well thought out story lines that explain things like this fully (a voice over explaining the lack of vision of the Nazgûl). I still fully expect that Jackson didn't even think about the long ranging complications of sticking the Osgiliath scene in the movie and went with what looked cool. (remember Sam still states that he and Frodo have no right to be there, and I still think that's Jackson talking to fanboys like me, indirectly).
I don't if (in the movie and in the book) the four Nazguls who wasn't at weathertop enter in the Shire or just stay behind near Rivendell to stop anyone who try to go to Rivendell. For the vision of the Nazgul, I admit that my information comes mostly from the book and it's not much explain in the movie. The best way to really explain would have been to put a Nazgul point of view at least once during the saga (what Jackson don't have done for the reason you have say).
what if the hobbits were replaced by kender, how would the war and storyline have ended\changed?
Frodo would have stolen Galadriel's ring.
Samwise forgot to give Frodo the Star of Lothlorien
Pippin would have opened a door and let the Balrog in. Oops.
Merry would have stolen Eowin. Hey, you rode with a beautiful princess, something's gotta give.
what if the hobbits were replaced by kender, how would the war and storyline have ended\changed?
I don't remember what book (unfinished tales 1??), but there was one, written by J.R.R. released by his son (I forget his name at the moment), where there were some early stories about the trilogy where Stryder/Aragorn was a hobbit... now how would that have changed things?
I don't remember what book (unfinished tales 1??), but there was one, written by J.R.R. released by his son (I forget his name at the moment)
Christopher Tolkien.
Gandalf is a 5th level wizard.
There was a thread about it on the Knights and Knaves Alehouse forum somewhere...
On the other hand he's a pretty hardcore fighter.
Battle Mage with Two-Weapon Fighting, perhaps?
That article speaks the truth. If I recall correctly, Gandalf did little more than light pinecones on fire (albeit, colourful fire) in The Hobbit.. well, he did do quite a number on the Great Goblin, but certainly nothing paragon-like.
Battle Mage with Two-Weapon Fighting, perhaps?
Can't. In the D&D rule, the staff is a two-handed weapon. You need a feat or suffer a penalty to wield it one-handed.
That article speaks the truth. If I recall correctly, Gandalf did little more than light pinecones on fire (albeit, colourful fire) in The Hobbit.. well, he did do quite a number on the Great Goblin, but certainly nothing paragon-like.
Battle Mage with Two-Weapon Fighting, perhaps?
I am actually reading Bilbo : The hobbit (quite funny to see the middles earths before LOTR) and Gandalf use more magic than in LOTR, but his spells are quite simple (mostly fire trick). His sword also have magic powers. He kill the great Goblin with a power of is sword (a kind of lightning power).
Also other things changed as Tolkien went on:
Orcs - Tolkien struggled to fit an intrisically evil race with his basically Christian ideology. They were at varying points:
Mere puppets of the Dark One.
Corrupted Elves
Corrupted Men
and other things besides. There was a site on it somewhere.
He wavered on whether or not orcs had souls and could receive salvation.
Gandalf changed from wizard to semi-divine being (I'm pretty sure at the time of wirting the LOTR Gandalf was still considered a wizard by Tolkien).
Pretty much every fantasy world has had some "reboots" in its history, Middle Earth perhaps less so than the D&D wolrds which have changed partly to incorporate the varying rules/philosophies of different editions (such as 3E's introduction of sorcerers and so on) but they are stilll pretyy significant.
Perhaps one way of viewing it is that in the extremely low availabilty magic setting of ME wizard is a prestige class not available until around level ten (so Gandalf would be a fighter/expert /wizard)
An interesting note: I finally understand why WereBear are chaotic good; the caracters of Beorn is the inspiration for the werebear.