LOTR from a gamer's perspective

[Rykion]

I agree that flying giant eagles to Mount Doom is a decent gamer idea on how to destroy the ring. It's far from a sure bet to work, and probably has less chance than the actual plan used in the book. People have already brought up a lot of good reasons not to try the eagle method. Even if the eagles made it into Mordor, there is no guarantee that the ring could just be dropped in. Just because Orodruin is a volcano doesn't mean that there is a big hole in top that leads directly to lava.

That point aside, ok, its a Balrog: does that mean its a D&D Balrog with all the spells and abilities...all we know is that it had a wip and sword of fire, it could fly and it was a demon. That's it, you cant just go throwing in other powers because since then D&D has added new things to the Balrog.

Ok, also, Gandalf was not a GOD...he may have been Godly, or Godlike since there were only a few beings able to do magic. Also, like Ive said before. The world is a much toned down place; very few times was magic even used, and if was, it wasn't as powerful as one would've thought a Godly, or Godlike being could have used. This is why I say Gandalf, nor Saruman, or Sauron were GODS..they wern't they were just much more wise and powerful than the middleages world they lived in. I mean, light, and raising the water of a river were some of their most powerful effects.

Balrogs along with Gandalf, Sauron, and Saruman all belong to the same race, the Maiar. They were created by Illuvatar to help in the creation of the world. They were second in power only to the Valar. They could be seen as gods in the D&D sense, or treated as very powerful celestials. Gandalf definitely knew what the Balrog was when he saw it.
Edit: fixed typo

 

[Celebrim]

Balrogs along with Gandalf, Sauron, and Saruman all belong to the same race, the Maiar. They were created by Illuvatar to help in the creation of the world. They were second in power only to the Valar. They could be seen as gods in the D&D sense, or treated as very powerful celestials. Gandalf definitely knew what the Balrog was when he saw it.

In early drafts, JRRT referred to the Valar as 'the Gods'.

Then again, he also referred to the Noldor - that is to say, Galadriel's family - as the Gnomes.

Galadriel the Gnome does not conjure up the same images in D&D players that it did in the mind of the author.

 

[molonel]

just the delusional ones.

Flatterer.

If Batman is built to the same point system as Superman, then Im sure he'd have Kryptonite Bat Spray or some ancient martial art that lets you use the enemies strength against them, thus making Superman's strength a liability. But, since I never said Batman could beat Superman, I'm not sure how far I should argue the strawman.

You're missing the point.

I've had this EXACT same argument with Frank Miller fanboys.

The reason Batman won against Superman in The Dark Knight Returns is because Frank Miller wanted him to. Not because it was logical, or he thought through all the possible options and it seemed the most sensible, or absolutely no other ending made sense.

It happened that way because he wanted it to.

If Tolkien had wanted the ring flown to Mt. Doom on the back of an eagle, it would have happened that way. And nothing could have stopped it. Not Sauron, not a thousand orcs with bows, and no, not even the Nine on their fell beasts.

Because it's a fantasy. A well-written fantasy? Sure. A perfect, every-hole-stopped, flawless or nearly flawless work of staggering perfection unequalled by anything ever penned by the hand of men? No.

It's called Traveling at the Speed of Plot:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TravelingAtTheSpeedOfPlot

It came from a quip by J Michael Straczynski when asked about the traveling speed of the Excalibur. Basically, he said, it moves at the speed of plot.

Which means: exactly as fast as he wants it to.

Ultimately, the best and only argument as to why they didn't fly the ring to Mt. Doom on the back of an eagle is because, "That's not the way Señor Tolkien wanted to write it."

And to this, there is no counter-argument.

I'll have to tell all the GM's that ran me through such games that they were failures then. It will hurt them to shatter their reality, but since you've made your decree, it must be done.

Then I shouldn't have to explain these things.

Then again, he also referred to the Noldor - that is to say, Galadriel's family - as the Gnomes. Galadriel the Gnome does not conjure up the same images in D&D players that it did in the mind of the author.

Tolkien wasn't wrong in that, either. Gnomes and elves are distinct, very different races in D&D. This was not always the case in classical literature and myth.

 

[molonel]

True, but that's also the reason it would annoy DM's.

Scry-buff-teleport?! Aw hell naw, not against *my* near-invincible army of darkness and evil. You're going to have to work for your victory, you would-be heroes...

And Frodo's player would be complaining that Sam is pretty damn useless as a Cohort. There's a REASON that halfling took Leadership, and it wasn't to just have a first level commoner as a love interest.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Celebrim]

Tolkien wasn't wrong in that, either. Gnomes and elves are distinct, very different races in D&D. This was not always the case in classical literature and myth.

Did I say he was wrong? Do I seem to need instruction on classical literature and myth?

I merely pointing out a gamer's expectations of how things work shouldn't necessarily color thier perception of how things work in the book setting. Questions like, "Why didn't Elrond kill Isildur?", "Why didn't they just fly to Mordor with eagles and drop it in the volcano?", or "If Gandalf was such a powerful wizard, why didn't he just teleport to Mordor?", are based on a false understanding of the story setting.

And your argument that it boils down to, "Because the Good Professor said so.", ignores the fact that said professor didn't feel that he had complete freedom to write whatever he wanted to, to the extent that near the end of his life he was so unsatified that he was meeting his design goals that he started gutting his own setting. But those passions were not driven by the feeling that the eagles could have mounted an expedition to Mordor was some big oversight. Once JRRT decided on a myth, and an empowering cosmology behind his fantasy, he loses freedom of action. Sure, he technically could have had Sauron destroyed by a bubble gum cannon, but if he had we wouldn't have believed it because that breaks theme with the myth. The myth - the one he is drawing on and subcreating - prevents that sort of ending. JMS may believe in the speed of plot, and you can find speed of plot devices in LotR ('How fast can Shadowfast run?', 'How enduring can Frodo be?', etc.), but JRRT isn't nearly so lose with speed of plot devices as that, but to the extent that he is, speed of plot cuts both ways.

Question: 'How many aerial defenses against commando attacks does Sauron have?'

Answer: 'As many as he needs, and a little extra besides'.

Why is that the answer? Because the internal testimony of the story is that the forces of good lack the power to open the way to the Fire BY ANY MEANS AT THIER DISPOSAL. by the internal testimony of the story, only the armies of the Valar arriving from the Undying Lands would have been able to enter Mordor in force while Sauron gaurded it, and (as emissary of the Valar) we have Gandalf's testimony that they aren't coming and middle earth is left to its own devices. The fact that they had eagles they didn't use is not a plot hole, because by the internal testimony of the story we can infer that using eagles would have done no good - even if those eagles residing in Middle Earth would have been willing to go along with the plan. Possibly, Manwe could have sent more eagles, enough to overcome whatever fell beasts, dragons, and other defenses Sauron was keeping back in expectation of this very sort of move by Manwe and or the rest of the Valar (I say possibly because by this point, Sauron has become very great on the Earth and a rival in power (relatively) to his master Morgoth), but then he could have sent an army of the Eldar with Orome at its head too. The point is we know that middle earth lacks the force to overcome Sauron by a direct blow, that there is no other trustworthy carrier for the ring but Frodo, and that no other help is coming. We know this because the story tells us this, so we dont' have to independently check off all possible plans to beat Sauron (and yet not raise a new Dark Lord) by some other fashion than having a lowly hobbit carry the ring into Mordor in humble submissiveness with no expectation of reward or success, because the story says thats the only way. If there had been any other way, then 'The Wise' would have thought of it. Since they didn't, we know that that was the only way, and we can presume from what we know of the meta-story (for example that Sauron would have been very afraid of intervention from 'the West', that he's keeping back something precisely for that sort of (to Sauron) obvious attack) why it wouldn't have worked.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I agree that flying giant eagles to Mount Doom is a decent gamer idea on how to destroy the ring. It's far from a sure bet to work, and probably has less chance than the actual plan used in the book. People have already brought up a lot of good reasons not to try the eagle method. Even if the eagles made it into Mordor, there is no guarantee that the ring could just be dropped in. Just because Orodruin is a volcano doesn't mean that there is a big hole in top that leads directly to lava.

In fact, the fact that the Sammath Naur (Chambers of Fire) are called that indicates that Mount Doom probably looks a lot more like it does in the films than like a big open volcanic crater.

To go back to the gamer-logic thing: If I were DM, and some player suggested doing this, I would allow them to try it... but I'd also have Elrond and Gandalf warn that it *wouldn't work* due to the defenses at Sauron's disposal. PCs who are unwilling to listen to the advice of high-level NPCs with high Int and Wis scores deserve what they get.

 

[molonel]

Did I say he was wrong? Do I seem to need instruction on classical literature and myth?

No, but a sense of humor and a bit less pretensiousness might be in order. Just a thought.

I merely pointing out a gamer's expectations of how things work shouldn't necessarily color thier perception of how things work in the book setting. Questions like, "Why didn't Elrond kill Isildur?", "Why didn't they just fly to Mordor with eagles and drop it in the volcano?", or "If Gandalf was such a powerful wizard, why didn't he just teleport to Mordor?", are based on a false understanding of the story setting.

No, they are legitimate questions that any reader might bring to a text of any kind. The LOTR is not some sort of holy writ that only true believers understand, and the unwashed mashes cannot grasp. Authors - yes, even great authors - stumble all the time. To quote an old literary trope, even Homer nods.

Not all answers to these questions are equally legitimate, but the questions themselves are not fundamentally wrong.

And your argument that it boils down to, "Because the Good Professor said so.", ignores the fact that said professor didn't feel that he had complete freedom to write whatever he wanted to, to the extent that near the end of his life he was so unsatified that he was meeting his design goals that he started gutting his own setting. But those passions were not driven by the feeling that the eagles could have mounted an expedition to Mordor was some big oversight. Once JRRT decided on a myth, and an empowering cosmology behind his fantasy, he loses freedom of action. Sure, he technically could have had Sauron destroyed by a bubble gum cannon, but if he had we wouldn't have believed it because that breaks theme with the myth. The myth - the one he is drawing on and subcreating - prevents that sort of ending. JMS may believe in the speed of plot, and you can find speed of plot devices in LotR ('How fast can Shadowfast run?', 'How enduring can Frodo be?', etc.), but JRRT isn't nearly so lose with speed of plot devices as that, but to the extent that he is, speed of plot cuts both ways. Why is that the answer? Because the internal testimony of the story is that the forces of good lack the power to open the way to the Fire BY ANY MEANS AT THIER DISPOSAL. by the internal testimony of the story, only the armies of the Valar arriving from the Undying Lands would have been able to enter Mordor in force while Sauron gaurded it, and (as emissary of the Valar) we have Gandalf's testimony that they aren't coming and middle earth is left to its own devices. The fact that they had eagles they didn't use is not a plot hole, because by the internal testimony of the story we can infer that using eagles would have done no good - even if those eagles residing in Middle Earth would have been willing to go along with the plan. Possibly, Manwe could have sent more eagles, enough to overcome whatever fell beasts, dragons, and other defenses Sauron was keeping back in expectation of this very sort of move by Manwe and or the (I say possibly because by this point, Sauron has become very great on the Earth and a rival in power (relatively) to his master Morgoth), but then he could have sent an army of the Eldar with Orome at its head too. The point is we know that middle earth lacks the force to overcome Sauron by a direct blow, that there is no other trustworthy carrier for the ring but Frodo, and that no other help is coming. We know this because the story tells us this, so we dont' have to independently check off all possible plans to beat Sauron (and yet not raise a new Dark Lord) by some other fashion than having a lowly hobbit carry the ring into Mordor in humble submissiveness with no expectation of reward or success, because the story says thats the only way. If there had been any other way, then 'The Wise' would have thought of it. Since they didn't, we know that that was the only way, and we can presume from what we know of the meta-story (for example that Sauron would have been very afraid of intervention from 'the West', that he's keeping back something precisely for that sort of (to Sauron) obvious attack) why it wouldn't have worked.

You know, this is just going to be one of those things we agree to disagree about. I believe that authors maintain creative control over their work. You believe otherwise. I see plot holes. I see an author admitting that plot holes and problems exist in his stories. You see perfection in every way.

Enjoy the books. No sarcasm was intended or implied in the making of this post.

Peace.

 

[Vocenoctum]

You're missing the point.

I've had this EXACT same argument with Frank Miller fanboys.

I understand the point that the author can do whatever he wants. But that's a seperate arguement from whether the eagles could have done it in the context of what is written. Do you want to argue that the eagles could logically have performed the mission, and it was silly for the Council not to, or do you want to argue that "Tolkien decided they wouldn't", because frankly the last isn't an arguement. Could the eagles have flown into Mordor? Only if Tolkien wanted. Could Superman beat Batman? Only if the Authors wanted.

You're mixing two different streams of thought, and using the superman-batman arguement to try to prove something that is totally different. Is Superman more powerful than Batman, sure. Does that mean Batman can't beat Superman? of course not. 99% of the time, Superman might win, but the author can write about that 1%.

That doesn't matter where the eagles are concerned though, because you're not argueing Plot Is King, you're saying that the ONLY reason the eagles couldn't work was because of Plot, rather than accepting the idea that within the text as written, it was obvious to those within that the Eagles were not a workable plan.

Ultimately, the best and only argument as to why they didn't fly the ring to Mt. Doom on the back of an eagle is because, "That's not the way Señor Tolkien wanted to write it."

And to this, there is no counter-argument.

Just as there is no counter to the statement that "the only reason the eagles could have made it into Mordor is if tolkien wanted to write it". I don't see any value to that non-discussion, I thought the matter was about whether the Eagles in Mordor solution made sense within the work as written.

Then I shouldn't have to explain these things.

Explain what? That Superman is more powerful than Batman and therefor Giant Eagles can fly into Mordor? If that makes sense to you, then you need to explain it better, because I think you're confusing two seperate issues.

 

[molonel]

I understand the point that the author can do whatever he wants. But that's a seperate arguement from whether the eagles could have done it in the context of what is written.

No, it's not. Because the author creates the work, and the work is the context. The author controls the story, the author controls the story elements and quite frankly the question wouldn't have been knocked around this long if there were absolutely no merit in it, whatsoever.

Authors do not create seemless works without holes. This is one of the problems Tolkien didn't close. He answered why the Valar weren't coming in force from the West. He never addressed this one, directly or indirectly.

Do you want to argue that the eagles could logically have performed the mission, and it was silly for the Council not to, or do you want to argue that "Tolkien decided they wouldn't", because frankly the last isn't an arguement. Could the eagles have flown into Mordor? Only if Tolkien wanted. Could Superman beat Batman? Only if the Authors wanted.

The last part shows me that you're beginning to understand. Since Tolkien didn't close the question, it's anybody's guess. Did he consider it impossible? Perhaps. We'll never know, because he didn't tell us. You see certainty. I see a valid question.

You're mixing two different streams of thought, and using the superman-batman arguement to try to prove something that is totally different. Is Superman more powerful than Batman, sure. Does that mean Batman can't beat Superman? of course not. 99% of the time, Superman might win, but the author can write about that 1%.

No, I'm recognizing authorial control of the material. We don't know that the eagles would have failed 99% or 50% or even 1% of the time. We simply don't have that information. We can make all kinds of assumptions, and the statements you've made are only that.

That doesn't matter where the eagles are concerned though, because you're not argueing Plot Is King, you're saying that the ONLY reason the eagles couldn't work was because of Plot, rather than accepting the idea that within the text as written, it was obvious to those within that the Eagles were not a workable plan.

There is no way to determine if it was a workable plan or not. There is speculation, and there is more speculation. Tolkien closed some plot holes. He didn't close them all.

Just as there is no counter to the statement that "the only reason the eagles could have made it into Mordor is if tolkien wanted to write it".

You are exactly right in this statement.

I don't see any value to that non-discussion, I thought the matter was about whether the Eagles in Mordor solution made sense within the work as written.

That's part of the discussion.

Explain what? That Superman is more powerful than Batman and therefor Giant Eagles can fly into Mordor? If that makes sense to you, then you need to explain it better, because I think you're confusing two seperate issues.

Nice straw man. I've tried to treat your statements seriously. Please offer me the same courtesy.

 

[Celebrim]

No, but a sense of humor and a bit less pretensiousness might be in order. Just a thought.

Pot. Kettle.

No, they are legitimate questions that any reader might bring to a text of any kind.

They become illegitimate when the legitimate answers from the text are discarded.

The LOTR is not some sort of holy writ that only true believers understand

I don't know what you mean by that, but I do know that it is an extremely subtle text and that critics frequently simply miss its subtlety. For I example, I do know that its not merely an allegory of WWII or anything else for that matter, and I do know that when Gollum says 'Sneaking' the author is most certainly not laughing.

and the unwashed mashes cannot grasp.

Well, unwashed or washed, there were parts of the story that I didn't understand until like the 15th time through, and large parts of the story that you can't fully understand based on the text alone. That itself could well be considered a flaw in the text.

Authors - yes, even great authors - stumble all the time. To quote an old literary trope, even Homer nods.

You keep returning to this red herring like it was some sort of Aegis. Whether or not Tolkien stumbles in the writing has nothing to do with whether he stumbled here.

Not all answers to these questions are equally legitimate, but the questions themselves are not fundamentally wrong.

Legitimate or not, the questions betray a lack of familiarity with and understanding of the text.

I believe that authors maintain creative control over their work. You believe otherwise. I see plot holes. I see an author admitting that plot holes and problems exist in his stories. You see perfection in every way.

If you read Tolkien as carefully and as respectfully as you read what I right, I'm not at all surprised to know you think as you do. You simply cannot reasonably infer from what I wrote that I believe the text is perfect in every way. But it makes you feel better to mischaracterize what I wrote, repeatedly attack my character and not my argument, and so forth, I can't prevent you from doing so.

Any sarcarms or derision implied by this post is intended in whatever amount is actually there. I'm not one to say 'Good morning', or 'I beg your pardon', or 'I don't mean to be rude', when I in fact mean something else.