Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3870608" data-attributes="member: 30001">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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.How do you know?  In any case if he's killing orcs in groups of 2 or 3, that only equates to high level in terms of DnD experience awards.  What Tolkien thought of the character's capabilities probably doesn't equate to that.Me too.  That's actually the number I would pick for Aragorn if I were going to try to model Middle Earth.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 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.</blockquote>

Verification