Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6877735">Not sure exactly what corner-case pemerton is referring to.&nbsp; I think I agree with him in principle, but I haven't yet seen such a corner-case in the Eloelle/ZoT scenario.&nbsp; Nor can even picture what such a corner case might look like: if you are truly separating narrative from mechanics then you can literally invoke *any* intervention to avoid a paradox.This conversation reminds me of one that reemerges in The One Ring forum every now and then, about Mannish spirits.&nbsp; One poster in particular, someone extremely knowledgeable about Tolkien insists that Mannish spirits are effectively non-existent, and has very good rationales to explain why the Nazgul and the Oathbreakers are unique exceptions.The thing is, while his position is perfectly consistent with the texts, it is not the only consistent interpretation.&nbsp; Yes, the Oathbreakers were under a curse spoken by a king and invoking the name of Eru, and you might very well conclude that only a king of Elendil's standing invoking only Eru could enact such a curse.Or you could rule that anybody with royal blood, invoking one of the Valar, might do the same thing.It all depends on what you want your game...your fiction...to be like it.&nbsp; Do you want more narrative possibilities, or fewer?&nbsp; I find it not only silly to try to parse the text...whether of Tolkien's work or the PHB...to prove that a narrow interpretation is the definitive one (rather than just one of many valid interpretations) but also kind of willfully unimaginative.&nbsp; As [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] replied to one of the naysayers early in this thread: &quot;Your concept negates cool concepts and enables nothing.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6877735"] Not sure exactly what corner-case pemerton is referring to. I think I agree with him in principle, but I haven't yet seen such a corner-case in the Eloelle/ZoT scenario. Nor can even picture what such a corner case might look like: if you are truly separating narrative from mechanics then you can literally invoke *any* intervention to avoid a paradox. This conversation reminds me of one that reemerges in The One Ring forum every now and then, about Mannish spirits. One poster in particular, someone [I]extremely[/I] knowledgeable about Tolkien insists that Mannish spirits are effectively non-existent, and has very good rationales to explain why the Nazgul and the Oathbreakers are unique exceptions. The thing is, while his position is perfectly consistent with the texts, it is not the only consistent interpretation. Yes, the Oathbreakers were under a curse spoken by a king and invoking the name of Eru, and you might very well conclude that only a king of Elendil's standing invoking only Eru could enact such a curse. Or you could rule that anybody with royal blood, invoking one of the Valar, might do the same thing. It all depends on what you want your game...your fiction...to be like it. Do you want more narrative possibilities, or fewer? I find it not only silly to try to parse the text...whether of Tolkien's work or the PHB...to prove that a narrow interpretation is the definitive one (rather than just one of many valid interpretations) but also kind of willfully unimaginative. As [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] replied to one of the naysayers early in this thread: "Your concept negates cool concepts and enables nothing." [/QUOTE]

Verification