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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1255114" data-attributes="member: 3146">Actually, I think your analysis is missing some of the subtleties of the Lord of the Rings. Sauron could have been (and was) defeated without the Istari.In the second age, Ar Phazon of Numenor landed with his ships and Sauron, knowing that he could not prevail, surrendered to him. In your terms, he was defeated by another paranoid freak. In a D&D world, he's unlikely to fall for Sauron's "for immortality, invade Numenor" trick too so the end of that story would be different. Now, Ar Phazon might have attempted to become a lich or vampire, given his desire for immortality, but it's not certain that he would have, and, even had he done so, he would still be unlikely to have oppressed Middle Earth as consistently or as successfully as Sauron. So, just because one of the freaks beats replaces another freak wouldn't mean that things wouldn't change.The other problem with your analysis is that Sauron's triumph was not assured without the interference of the Valar by sending the Istari. Had Aragorn, Galadriel, Elrond, Glorfindel, Denethor, Faramir, or possibly even Boromir taken the ring, Sauron could have been defeated handily. The problem was that such a victory would have been no better than defeat for the people of Middle Earth--and, accepting the moral view of the books, would also have been worse than defeat for the victor as well.So grace was not necessary for the defeat of Sauron. It was necessary for the victory of good. There's a big difference between those two contentions.This is exactly what happened regularly in the real ancient world. Tax collectors were often hated for exactly this reason--they collected as much as they could and gave what their masters demanded unless they thought they could get away with keeping it.The history of Israel, Assyria, Syria, Babylon, Egypt, etc are full of events like "King X was defeated by the Israelites and upon his return home, he was killed by his sons while making offerings to his god and Y became king and ruled in his place for one year."Some individuals like King David and Solomon (according to the biblical narratives), Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, and others, were good enough judges of character and personally powerful enough to inspire loyalty in most of their servants. They died of old age and left more or less stable kingdoms to their children.Also some individuals were personally powerful in their own right--although not as powerful as some of their servants. According to the biblical record, King Saul, his son Jonathan, and King David were such kings (although his "mighty men" were reported to accomplish greater exploits than he did). Alexander the Great and Richard the Lionhearted were also examples of such personally powerful rulers. (Solomon (unless you take into account Islamic stories that have him binding Djinni, etc which would make him personally rather powerful), Xerxes, and many others were not noted for personal power).Among those who were not personally powerful, their ability to inspire loyalty, to rule wisely, and to judge character, determined the length and success of their reign. Solomon was reportedly able to hold Israel together and to be a very successful ruler. On the other hand, his son, Rehaboam, was not a wise ruler and lost most of his kingdom to Jereboam (one of those personally powerful men who was once a servant of Solomon).I don't see that D&D magic would change the situation too much. Personally powerful leaders who are good judges of character and inspire loyalty would create nations. Personally weak leaders who were good judges of character and loyalty could maintain and prosper nations. Personally weak leaders who were not good judges of character and didn't inspire loyalty would lose their nations to personally powerful people.A society that fostered loyalty to institutions would also be more likely to remain stable despite personally weak rulers. If the court wizard is loyal to the crown despite the person who wears it, the kingdom is likely to last longer despite personally weak rulers.The other thing that has not been discussed is the possibility that personal power could coincide with royal bloodlines without specific divine intervention. The rulers of the six kingdoms in Robin Hobb's Assassin series, for instance, were the only members of that society to have the gift for a particular kind of magic. It was never clear whether they initially came to be kings because of that particular power but its persistence in the royal line certainly helped them to preserve their power.</blockquote>

Verification