D&D 5E Which parts of D&D came from Tolkien?

mflayermonk · Nov 13, 2017

A couple of things here

1. There is a book "Tales Before Tolkien: The Roots of Modern Fantasy. Tales That Inspired the Author of Lord of the Rings" edited by Douglas A. Anderson that is a good read. Also, the Annotated Hobbit is good.
Tales Before Tolkien leans towards many of these ideas existing pre-JRRT.

2. Moorcock's Corum (1971) was an elf (or half-elf). Hawkmoon may have been as well.

3. There is a library of occult books at San Diego State University: https://library.sdsu.edu/scua/exhibits-library/odd-scraps
I had chance to look at some of these and there was no shortage of hokum, magical items, and magical races (of all size and stature) in the book sphere, pre-JRRT.

4. Anyone see the 1973 movie The Wicker Man? The ending has a pagan town burning a Christian man as a sacrifice for a good harvest. As he burns he screams out "I am a Christian man!". Paganism was under attack and fantasy considered pagan was hidden and instead, Narnia and Lord of the Rings were the substitutes used to fill the void. I don't think the resurgence in popularity of LoTR at the same time was a coincidence (that dialogue was also cut out of a recent remake of the Wicker Man). Its likely that Gygax's view of fantasy was shaped by "pagan" works from before WW2 and that very little contained in LotR was new to him.
https://youtu.be/74DeoFjmA74

MackMcMacky · Nov 13, 2017

I think it's pretty obvious Gygax and others at TSR lifted from Tolkien. However, some of the conclusions people are making seem to be ignoring other influences and a very compelling element of game design. Rangers may have powers displayed in Tolkien's works but they also appear to borrow significantly from Jack the Giant-Killer (who had a magic hat, magic sword, cloak of invisibility which appears all over Arthurian material, and shoes of speed), etc.

Game design explains the concept of the "party" far better than lifting the "fellowship" from Tolkien. The game would be far less profitable if it encouraged one dungeon master and just one player. Game design also explains the "limited" number of followers a ranger has. Game design also means Elves aren't better at basically everything.

Gygax and company were lifting from here and there, mixing and matching. Just in this thread someone has argued that Aragorn is a paladin while another has argued he is a ranger. Well, he can't be both as a PC, not in the old days.

As far as Tolkien goes, he synthesized a ton of European mythology AND some Biblical traditions in telling his tales. The eagle has a special place in various traditions. Now, the Giant Eagle has plenty of shadings that would remind someone of Tolkien but, let's remember, they were buddies of the wizard (angel) not the elves. So, even when TSR added elements of Tolkien into their work they always shaped it for their own purposes in game design and, often, a D&D concept has more than one source of inspiration.

P.S. Am I missing something? I don't remember Aragorn being especially noted for his giant and giant-kin killing prowess?

Parmandur · Nov 13, 2017

MackMcMacky said:
I think it's pretty obvious Gygax and others at TSR lifted from Tolkien. However, some of the conclusions people are making seem to be ignoring other influences and a very compelling element of game design. Rangers may have powers displayed in Tolkien's works but they also appear to borrow significantly from Jack the Giant-Killer (who had a magic hat, magic sword, cloak of invisibility which appears all over Arthurian material, and shoes of speed), etc.

Game design explains the concept of the "party" far better than lifting the "fellowship" from Tolkien. The game would be far less profitable if it encouraged one dungeon master and just one player. Game design also explains the "limited" number of followers a ranger has. Game design also means Elves aren't better at basically everything.

Gygax and company were lifting from here and there, mixing and matching. Just in this thread someone has argued that Aragorn is a paladin while another has argued he is a ranger. Well, he can't be both as a PC, not in the old days.

As far as Tolkien goes, he synthesized a ton of European mythology AND some Biblical traditions in telling his tales. The eagle has a special place in various traditions. Now, the Giant Eagle has plenty of shadings that would remind someone of Tolkien but, let's remember, they were buddies of the wizard (angel) not the elves. So, even when TSR added elements of Tolkien into their work they always shaped it for their own purposes in game design and, often, a D&D concept has more than one source of inspiration.

P.S. Am I missing something? I don't remember Aragorn being especially noted for his giant and giant-kin killing prowess?

He was good at killing orcs and trolls, which in OD&D would be giant-kin I believe.

We have specifically proven that the Ranger was designed by a player who wanted to play Aragorn, so it's not exactly subtle.

MackMcMacky · Nov 13, 2017

Parmandur said:
He was good at killing orcs and trolls, which in OD&D would be giant-kin I believe.

We have specifically proven that the Ranger was designed by a player who wanted to play Aragorn, so it's not exactly subtle.

Aragorn was good at killing most anything besides Balrogs. I am not familiar with the OD&D Ranger but I think it's safe to say there is more to the 1E Ranger than an Aragorn simulation.

Parmandur · Nov 13, 2017

MackMcMacky said:
Aragorn was good at killing most anything besides Balrogs. I am not familiar with the OD&D Ranger but I think it's safe to say there is more to the 1E Ranger than an Aragorn simulation.

But the 1E Ranger is immaterial, the OD&D explicit Aragon simulation is what was under discussion.

MackMcMacky · Nov 13, 2017

Parmandur said:
But the 1E Ranger is immaterial, the OD&D explicit Aragon simulation is what was under discussion.

Nope. What is under discussion is "Which parts of D&D came from Tolkien" and that invariably means distinguishing between what did and did not come from Tolkien. So, no, the 1E Ranger is not immaterial. It may not help the point you are trying to make but it is not immaterial.

lowkey13 · Nov 13, 2017

*Deleted by user*

Parmandur · Nov 13, 2017

MackMcMacky said:
Nope. What is under discussion is "Which parts of D&D came from Tolkien" and that invariably means distinguishing between what did and did not come from Tolkien. So, no, the 1E Ranger is not immaterial. It may not help the point you are trying to make but it is not immaterial.

Nah, it is completely irrelevant: by 1E things were evolving in their own direction, which may have involved more or less Tolkienian influence in some areas, but it is not part of this discussion, being too late in the game. The OD&D was specifically designed because one of the Greyhawk players wanted to play Aragorn: so he and Gygax worked out a set of rules to simulate what that meant in game terms. I really don't see why folks want to die on this particular Hill: the Ranger is based on Aragorn.

Parmandur · Nov 13, 2017

lowkey13 said:
This isn't a very good example. It's one of the worst. By analogy, it would be akin to saying, "But the Balrog was renamed a Balor, therefore not Tolkien."

There is not much daylight between the OD&D and 1e Ranger. The OD&D Ranger was explicitly created so that someone could play Aragorn. The class features would not make any sense in isolation but for Aragorn (scrying ability at high level?).

...the second level title is Strider. I mean ... c'mon.

Gygax did borrow from multiple sources. In the case of the Ranger, he borrowed from Tolkien. To view that in any other way is to make the same mistake that you view those who ascribe to much influence to Tolkien are doing, but in reverse. Just as you can clearly trace the lineage of the fire and forget magic system to Vance (the, ahem, Vancian magic system) you can trace the Ranger directly to Tolkien.

(Also, when looking at the history, the rule is that the closer you get to the source, the better. So the OD&D example would be a better example than the 1e, which is better than the 2e, and so on.)

Yes, while both the minimalist and maximalist positions here are unreasonable, this does indicate how the minimalist approach is slightly more out of line with reality: creating false positives (named magical swords) is less problematic than trying to pretend the Ranger isn't Aragorn translated into OD&D.

RobertBrus · Nov 13, 2017

Based upon much of what I have read here, this would seem a fair description: Tolkien's writings played a role in the formation of D&D. However, so did many other sources. And Tolkien drew from many much older sources of myth and fantasy writing--not the least was fantasy writing for children, where he got his names for the dwarves and the wizard in The Hobbit--so the issue would seem to be where we draw the line. And I would suggest we can only draw an approximate line, and that line would include Tolkien, but not a Tolkien that was instrumental in the formation of a fantasy RPG. And as there is probably no way to convince the one side or the other, as to where the line should be drawn, these discussions, while interesting and of some historical value, will never reach an endpoint.

It is much like the historical discussions on Custer and the Battle of Greasy Grass/Little Bighorn. In spite of all the years that have gone by, testimony given under oath, modern forensics and archeology, we still can't come to a consensus. Perhaps one day a diary will be found that helps to draw the line, though I doubt it.