Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 2042415" data-attributes="member: 3400">I think you're getting farther and farther off base trying to deal with some of these arguments.Gandalf can freely come and go because he's neither incognito in a delicate political situation nor directly involved in patient care. That particular issue is entirely irrelevant. And just because Gandalf knows more about the Nazgul means that he has learned the skills of healing the Nazgul wounds.Ultimately, I have no more evidence that Aragorn is a healer because of reasons other than being the king than you do that his healing is  inherent in being the king. The prophecy is not conclusive because it doesn't need to be interpreted as indicating he can heal because he's the king. It could just be the marker that will enable others to identify him as the rightful king.Smelling straw again. I said nor implied nothing of the sort. The common name for athelas is kingsfoil, right? What's the etymology of that word? We have no idea. I'm making the supposition that, being useful in the treatment of Nazgul wounds, it may have picked up its name as being a foil for the kings who fell to Sauron. Seems just as plausible as your assertion that it's only useable by kings, especially considering the reference in the thread above that suggests that it was widely known and used by the Numenorians once they came to Middle Earth.That is completely bogus. Tolkien is also not choosing to show anyone going to the bathroom. Does that mean they don't do it? The absence of anyone else healing is no evidence at all.Lack of skill != ignorance or lack of general knowledge and lore. There certainly may be things Aragorn happens to be better at than Gandalf. Powerful as he is, it's unlikely that Gandalf can do everything/know everything better than everybody else. There's no evidence to suggest he can/does.I am making neither argument. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes symbolism and metaphor mean things that are more mundane than some literary analysts want them to mean. Sometimes a turn of phrase or reference is a work of fiction was just a good and convenient way to get from point A to point B and not some deep symbol to be found by people spending too much time engaging in navel contemplation.</blockquote>

Verification