gizmo33 said:
Neither of us is going to believe anything we don't want to. Not a big deal, I'm alreadying find the stuff you have to say useful and interesting and if that continues until the cows come home I have no objection.
Cool, as long as we're just debating and you're enjoying the dialogue, I'm happy to continue the conversation. You make some very good points, and as you pointed out in your post, we pretty much agree about what "level" Aragorn would be fixed at in D&D.
gizmo33 said:
There's a difference between knowing facts and reasoning. Nobody's reasoning is infallible. What "mindfulness" means to me is that the fact is incorporated into the reasoning. I'll try to point out where I don't think this is happening.
Basically I think the closest, and most useful way of correlating DnD game statistics with a novel is to ask how the character views the challenges in his environment. Some of this, of course, is based on dependancies, so if you fix an orc warrior as War 1, then the rest might follow.
Fair enough. I agree. However, as Elphilm pointed out, Middle Earth's "orcs" are actually D&D goblins - sorta. The standard ones are. The "black Uruks of Mordor" are much larger and more akin to D&D's orcs. They also tend to travel in packs rather than groups of 3-4.
gizmo33 said:
But again, what does this establish in terms of character level? Being "worth" something doesn't necessarily mean combat power. From a strategic perspective it often means the other things I've mention. *Especially* consider the theme of much of what Tolkien is writing about in terms of self-control and not being corrupted by evil. Frodo was probably worth 1,000 knights in terms of the objectives of the powers of good in the story.
True. But this particular comment is on whether their assault on Mordor is laughable. Their numbers (7000 soldiers) are considered a fly to Sauron's army. However, there is the valid point that Tolkien's notion of worth is not strictly measured in combat prowess - King Elessar is a name for Sauron is afraid of, not because of his battle prowess (which is considerable - see below) but because he can unite all the people of Middle Earth against Sauron.
gizmo33 said:
It's a DnDism to assume that someone who fights for 67 years has linearly gained combat power like they would in DnD. Again, referring to my earlier point, I think the approximation is better made in terms of how Aragorn perceives risks in his world. How many orcs is he really willing to face at once.
There's also the notion that a LOT of D&D players metagame. The player knows he has hundreds of hit points, and so certain dumb decisions get made. An arrow or a fall isn't perceived as a serious threat by the player, even though the CHARACTER should remain reasonably cautious. If the MDT was low enough that a crit forced a save vs. death, high-level D&D players would be afraid of a sufficient number of orcs too.
However, let's see the number of orcs Aragorn is willing to face.
"How many there were the Company could not count...When thirteen had fallen, the rest fled shrieking, leaving the defenders unharmed, except for Sam who had a scratch along his scalp." (FR, Book II, Chapter 5 -
The Bridge of Khazad-dum)
Fleeing from the "hundreds of orcs" driven before the Balrog, Aragorn and company find the Gate guarded by orcs.
"Aragorn smote to the ground the captain that stood in his path and the rest fled in terror of his wrath. The Company swept past them and took no heed of them."(FR, Book II, Chapter 5 -
The Bridge of Khazad-dum)
When Aragorn finds Boromir, he is pierced with many black-fletched arrows. At least 20 Uruk-Hai lie dead there. Boromir faced the entire host of Orcs (with Merry and Pippin) and killed many. However, this isn't indicative of the might of Aragorn, except by comparison. Since Boromir killed 20 foes, and we know Aragorn's more powerful than Boromir, then obviously 20 Uruk-hai would not be sufficient to slay Aragorn. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that an Uruk-hai is CR 2. That means 32 would be CR 7. That's sufficient for an even fight for Boromir (that can go one way or the other). He does lose, but he faces many more than that (and leaves 20 dead). Pippin relates that he and Merry were held by dozens of foes. More than a hundred took them.
Eomer attacks them with 120 men and loses 15. Ouch!"
And yet, this is the group Aragorn would assail with only Gimli and Legolas for aid. I think it's safe to say that he considers 50 or so orcs "a reasonable, but not overwhelming" challenge.
gizmo33 said:
On foot not even Aragorn and Glorfindel together can withstand all 9 at once. I'll also point out that Tolkien's language is often vague in my opion as to combat prowess. One of the "problems" is that he doesn't really make a distinction between courage and combat powers. There's a quote where he says that the elves of Rivendell no longer fear the ringwraiths, and would not longer allow themselves to be corrputed by Sauron. Many of Gandalf's statements about power IMO should take into account that Tolkien was often writing about something greater and different than killing power.
True enough. Tolkien also uses phrases like "many," "too many to count," or "a great host" frequently. So pinning down the numbers of orcs to establish something like CR is tough.
gizmo33 said:
I'm a little unclear as to the exact wording of the prophecy but I think it's misleading to equate "not killed by a living man" as some sort of power - as if Eowyn were somehow more powerful than all other warriors? I don't think the prophecy has any direct bearing on DnD level.
Yeha, I'd say it's more prophecy than power. But there is some comment about the greater members in Sauron's armies being immune to ordinary weapons. Boromir's blade can't injure the cave troll, but Sting can, as can the blades the Hobbits pulled from the Barrow. And it's Merry's blade that deals the critical blow, though Eowyn lands the killing stroke. ANd here's my evidence:
"So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. And glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long ago in the North-kingdom when the Dúnedain were young and chief among their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king. No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh,
breaking the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.
Aragorn also makes two interesting comments in FR:
"Sauron can put fire to his evil uses, as he can all things, but these Riders do not love it, and fear those who wield it." (Book I, Chapter 11 -
A Knife in the Dark)
"all blades perish that pierce that Dreadful king." (Book I, Chapter 12 -
Flight to the Ford).
gizmo33 said:
Gandalf also runs from goblins and wargs. He's a literary device and the problem I have with trying to assess his power is that he's really just around to dispense advice. He's not being "played as a PC" in DnD terms, as he's often elsewhere during important parts of the adventure. Also, as an angel-like being I've always gotten some vague sense as to unstated limitations that he has on his ability to act.
I'd say that's right. Gandalf's power seems to be somewhat conditional on the foes he faces. So that against goblins and wargs, he can use some magic, but must mostly rely on his skill with Glamdring. Which he does.
However, against mightier foes, his power increases. He's a supernatural creature with the limitation of "can only use an ability of appropriate power."
gizmo33 said:
Whatever level would give them the right "feel" in terms of who they could face. Granted, of course, that the approximations wouldn't be perfect. Again, as far as the level of a thousand year-old elf, I would set aside the DnDism of equating time spent adventuring with power.
True. But in a previous incarnation, Glorfindel battled and slew aBalrog though it cost him his own life. Though there's some back and forth on whether it's the same character, Tolkien eventually confirmed it. This is the same Glorfindel reborn with all his power.
By the way, that implies that all nine Nazgul are comparably powerful to a Balrog.
gizmo33 said:
A huge problem with DnD magic vs. the magic in novels is that in DnD, magic is technology, whereas in novels it is most often treated as a narrative device and there's little sense of a working system imparted. My defense of Vancian magic is that it's one of the few "magic systems" that I can find in novels - treated as technology because Vance's stories are told from the wizard's perspectives, while Tolkien's, like many others, are not.
I actually like Jim Butcher's
The Dresden Files for similar reasons. Harry's power is quite well described and the degree of his limitations are addressed. Since Gandalf talks about his powers "tiring him," Harry's limitations seem more in line with those of traditional fantasy wizards. The whole bit of "guessing what you'll need that day" and "preparing in advance" is pretty idiosyncratic to Vance. By contrast, Dresden's combination of fatigue and needing time to cast is a LOT more normal.
gizmo33 said:
I think Arthur killed something like 700 enemy warriors at Mount Badon. Lancelot IIRC defeated 40 knights at a melee tournament - where traditional Medieval theory treated a knight equal to 10 footmen. Arthurian legend, Greek myth, and other more ancient stories are not shy about implausibilities. Tolkien is a relatively modern author, and with LotR we're talking about a single source. Arthurian legend has many sources and I would not expect a high degree of consistency with the characters and their capabilities. LotR is a lot easier to wrap one's mind around IMO.
True, but that's mostly because people ignore Tolkien's numbers. Tolkien doesn't relate the number of enemy warriors during Pelennor fields. He and Eomer meet in the middle of the field "though all the hosts of Mordor stand between them."
Badon was a siege that lasted for days. A week or so, if I recall correctly. In that time Arthur killed 700 men. Consider Leonidas' 300 at Thermopylae. They slew hundreds of time their number. So terrain clearly makes a difference to the death toll one can inflict in a battle.
Depends what you mean by dumb - it could be Conan that's being dumb by not realizing that since he's beat 20 man-eating apes in the past, that maybe he's got a good chance at 21. Kidding aside, I agree with what you're saying here. It's what I was trying to say when I said that authors of novels can "manipulate the perception of risk" in ways that a game cannot. A player sees his stats in front of him and assesses risk in a much more repeatable and rational way than an authors descriptions.
Was he really reborn with all his power? I thought that the earlier ages were essentially more heroic than the third age. Otherwise that's a good comparison though. And also the implication IMO in the "Glorfindel and Aragorn together couldn't stand against all 9" would be that Aragorn and Glorfindel were roughly equivent.
