LOTR from a gamer's perspective

[molonel]

Pot. Kettle.

Sadly, I have demonstrated both a sense of humor and a lack of pretensiousness in this discussion. When you do, I'll let you know. But comments like this:

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.

... indicate that's probably not happening any time soon.

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

What constitutes a legitimate answer from the text is up for grabs, however, when this is not a question Tolkien answered, either directly or indirectly.

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.

You assume that someone's understanding of the text necessarily grows with each reading. Having taught literature and theology classes, both, I assure you that sometimes fresh readers catch things that dedicated enthusiasts miss.

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.

Since you seem to admit no actual possibility of him stumbling, anywhere, I fail to see how this illuminutes the discussion in any meaningful way.

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

No, they don't.

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.

Since I'm actually willing to agree to disagree, and you allow no possibility of error but simply insist on repeating how many times you've read the books, I see no real reason to continue this unless you're simply vying for the last shot.

If that's what you want, then you are welcome to it. If I see nothing worth replying to in your next inevitable reply, I'll simply pass it over.

The floor is yours, sir.

 

[Rothe]

If you have read the Silmarillion, and all of the Books of Lost Tales, this may make some more sense.

To Sum up: Eagles are the emissaries of Manwe. Manwe only sends the servants needed to get the job done. Manwe sent Gandalf to deal with Sauron. Hence no need for Eagles until after Gandalf completed his task.

Manwe, of course, is the chief of all the Valar. God of the Sky and Eagles. If you remember at the end of the Silmarillion when war was finally loosed on Morgoth, Manwe himself didn't show up, he sent his herald in his place to put the smackdown on.

When Sauron, a Maiar, declared himself the enemy of Men, The Valar sent 5 lesser Maiar to help rouse the people of MIddle Earth to a defense: Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast, and the two blue Wizards. Gandalf himself was Manwe's chosen Maiar to send.

Hence, Gandalf is the chosen enemy of Sauron and needs no other help.

The Eagles appear at the end AFTER Manwe's task has been completed as a sign of Grace. Not as divine intervention. The twice fallen Elves of Middle Earth, (Feanor's rebellion, refusal of return after Morgoth's fall), and the diminishing of the House of Elendil (Kinslaying, split kingdoms, fear of death) both made a choice to waver and fall. They needed to choose to resist and stand and fight.

That's why Gandalf acts as a counselor. A Catalyst. The guy who gets things going, but doesn't actually make the political decisions or seek power for himself, like Saruman. He acts as Manwe's agent, and acts accordingly. Give the forces of Men and Elves only what they need. Nothing more. Let them (Aragorn, Theoden, Eowyn, Frodo, Faramir), do the rest.

That would be Tolkien's reason.

Now if we're taking Movies, let's add another 2 reasons:

First, we all agree to Eagles are beings of great power and wisdom. As beigns of Great power and Wisdom, maybe they are more susceptible to the Ring's lure, and thus can't be trusted with it. Upon taking Frodo, they'd be tempted to seize the ring themselves, and turn into something beyond imagination.

Second, maybe racing to Mt. Doom isn't the wisest thing for a ringbearer. Frodo's will needs to be strengthened as he approaches the Volcano. Perhaps going there at a higher speed will make him fall to the ring's power. Maybe he'll put on the ring and alert Sauron. Maybe he'll get suspicious of the Eagle carrying him, and jump off to his death. Lots of possibilities here...

Well said. There is a constant thread through JRRT's work that points to limits on how directly the Valar and Maiar can use their power to intervene in the affairs of men, who are intimated as the only creatures with true souls. There is also a strong thread of free-will and that the lesser races will have to do for themselves and cannot count on the Valar and Maiar to solve all their problems for them.

IIRC from the Silmarillion, it was men elves and dwarves that trusted Sauron and let him make the rings in the first place.

And lastly as CrusaderDave pointed out, I think, the one rings power increases as it nears it's master, and I think it is safe to postulate that should Sauron turn his attention to the ring in his own domain that power would be irresitable. Hence, anyone entering Mordor with the ring that gained Sauron's attention would instantly put the ring on, and likely be driven by the hubris (and the ring) to take Sauron on directly. That is exactly what Sauron wants, IMO.

Another part of it is that although Sauron may intellectually recognize self-sacrifice, he cannot grasp it and has a hard time thinking of plans where someone would willing sacrifice themselves to save others even if the chance of saving others is slim; recognize the Christian parallel?

I beleive that it is clear from the LOTR that the main reasons Fordo and Sam made it was Sauron: (1) thought Sauruman might have the ring but obviously not, so the ring is not with the hobbits but Gandalf, I mean who else could resist its power and it is silly to think an artifact would be in the hands of some 0-level NPCs; (2) had to focus on destroying Minas Tirith; (3) adventurers never split up the party so the ring is likely with the party and Gandalf who is heading to Minas Tirith; (4) once the battle at Minas Tirith is won a large army sets off for Mordor before Sauron has time to gather his thoughts and even notice what is going on in his own back yard (logical to conclude Gandalf has the ring and they are coming to attack sauron why he is weakened, it's what Sauron would do; otherwise marching on The Black Gate is suicide); (5) giant eagles were probably already on their way for the battle at The Black Gate further distracting Sauron; and (6) their plan was so ridiculous that a BBEG would never have thought of it.

So even for a Maiar such multi-tasking has got to be distracting let alone dealing with being incoporeal, getting the men of the east to not fight with your orcs, writing your victory monologue where you ask Gandalf to join with you to destroy the Valar after you expalin how you are really not that different from each other. It's hard being a BBEG, especially speech writing when your incoporeal.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

This is the issue, as I said before. There is no answer to the question that will convince the opposite from their position.

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.

The fact it is not addressed directly does not mean the plan would work. It is addressed indirectly by the fact that they don't do it. The Giant Eagles are used within the text, so it's not like they're "forgotten" in any way.

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.

I think what you've missed, is that I understand everything you've typed, and simply disagree with you. The circular arguement doesn't go anywhere by definition. I don't see certainty, I just see plenty of signs that say a direct Eagle Ride wouldn't be feasible for success.

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.

I have said before that this is a non-discussion since folks made up their mind by a reading of the material. Your statements are assumptions as much as anyone, but instead of presenting them that way, you argue that others are close minded.

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.

We have only Gandalfs belief that stealth was important.

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

You said it's authors will that dictates what happens, which is obvious. You then point to Superman vs Batman as another example. Superman is more powerful within the works, are the Eagles more powerful within the works? It's two seperate issues here, and merging the two serves no purpose. The Author can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean the Eagles In Mordor arguement is valid, any more than it means it's invalid. So no strawman here, except maybe bringing up Batman vs Superman.

So, we have three things here: The circular arguement about Eagles in Mordor (which is never going to end, since the "proof" is marginal and it's a matter of opinion), the Author Is God arguement (which is a non-arguement, since no one said they can't have events happen as they wish) and the "what if LotR was a roleplaying game" which you started the thread with, and then let die in spite of others adding to it.

 

[Vocenoctum]

And lastly as CrusaderDave pointed out, I think, the one rings power increases as it nears it's master, and I think it is safe to postulate that should Sauron turn his attention to the ring in his own domain that power would be irresitable. Hence, anyone entering Mordor with the ring that gained Sauron's attention would instantly put the ring on, and likely be driven by the hubris (and the ring) to take Sauron on directly. That is exactly what Sauron wants, IMO.

Geography heightening the rings power (as opposed to time) seems to fit. Though of course, Sauron's growing power has some connection. It's also possible that he grew stronger as the ring returned towards him. Frodo might have been able to hold the ring for a long while, had he not continually advanced towards Mt Doom. Theoretically of course.

I beleive that it is clear from the LOTR that the main reasons Fordo and Sam made it was Sauron:

I think it all comes down to Sauron's confidence in the rings corrupting ability, and it's desire to return to him. Plus he doesn't understand the idea that others might not use the ring for power, just as he does. Giving it to hobbits and getting them to sneak past defenses would never occur to him.

Besides, my players would have hated 'destroying the villain by destroying his ring". They'd have to melee the guy at some point, or be eternally unhappy with the game.

That's beside the Witchking being invulernable to all the PC's except for the DM's GF's PC.

"But you guys got to kill the pirate leader guy!"
"We never even got his name!"

 

[molonel]

This is the issue, as I said before. There is no answer to the question that will convince the opposite from their position.

And that's called ambiguity. My proposed suggestions are a gamer's perspective, and not nearly so interesting of a story. Absolutely doomed to failure, or even with moderate certainty? No.

I have said before that this is a non-discussion since folks made up their mind by a reading of the material. Your statements are assumptions as much as anyone, but instead of presenting them that way, you argue that others are close minded.

When others argue certainty where I see ambiguity, yes. They are being closed-minded.

You said it's authors will that dictates what happens, which is obvious. You then point to Superman vs Batman as another example. Superman is more powerful within the works, are the Eagles more powerful within the works? It's two seperate issues here, and merging the two serves no purpose. The Author can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean the Eagles In Mordor arguement is valid, any more than it means it's invalid. So no strawman here, except maybe bringing up Batman vs Superman.

You could use any discussion of this sort from any book or movie with equal relevance.

It's a parallel. I could write a thousand more like it. The stories themselves are unrelated, but the answer to both questions is that the author controls the outcome, and even controls the world in which the outcome takes place. A book is not a closed system. People tend to see books and movies that way, even moreso the more they become dedicated to them. Gamers tend to see things as an open system, and tend to be more inventive in that regard. Even though purists tend to see them as tourists getting mud all over the floor.

 

[molonel]

Besides, my players would have hated 'destroying the villain by destroying his ring". They'd have to melee the guy at some point, or be eternally unhappy with the game.

That's beside the Witchking being invulernable to all the PC's except for the DM's GF's PC.

"But you guys got to kill the pirate leader guy!"
"We never even got his name!"

That, by the way, was hilarious. I remember reading over on Monte's forums about the phenomena of Beckyquesting.

 

[fusangite]

In my view, it would be highly problematic to deal with Tolkien in an RPG.

One could create a game in which the events described in the books had already taken place. This would suck -- the big world-altering quest has been completed and the unknown has been revealed.

One could creat a game version of the quest but the fact is that anything PCs came up with would be a lesser triumph than what the characters in Fellowship do.

Tolkien's world is beautiful but it's done.

 

[Darth Shoju]

In my view, it would be highly problematic to deal with Tolkien in an RPG.

One could create a game in which the events described in the books had already taken place. This would suck -- the big world-altering quest has been completed and the unknown has been revealed.

One could creat a game version of the quest but the fact is that anything PCs came up with would be a lesser triumph than what the characters in Fellowship do.

Tolkien's world is beautiful but it's done.

I agree. One could dub it "Dragonlance Syndrome" as that campaign setting had the same problem (at least initially-not sure how it plays now). It's why I balk at the idea of playing a Middle-Earth RPG or MMORPG: the best stories of that setting have been told-why not play somewhere else?

Oh, and as far as I am concerned, the whole "eagle" debate is one of the great pointless exercises of the internet-right up there with "who was the best Star Fleet captain", "who is faster, Superman or the Flash?" and "the Star Wars prequels suck and Lucas is a hack."

 

[molonel]

Oh, and as far as I am concerned, the whole "eagle" debate is one of the great pointless exercises of the internet-right up there with "who was the best Star Fleet captain", "who is faster, Superman or the Flash?" and "the Star Wars prequels suck and Lucas is a hack."

A. The best at what?
B. Whoever was writing the story at the time decided that.
C. That's even a debate?

 

[Vocenoctum]

I agree. One could dub it "Dragonlance Syndrome" as that campaign setting had the same problem (at least initially-not sure how it plays now). It's why I balk at the idea of playing a Middle-Earth RPG or MMORPG: the best stories of that setting have been told-why not play somewhere else?

They shuffled the setting a bunch, and the result was something that was playable after the War of Souls, IMO.

But, they didn't stop there. They just keep shaking up the world. It also pains me since the authors they use for lots of it don't seem to have any notion of the Dragonlance feel. Even when they're authors that have written for DL for a long time. The Solamnia novels, the Wizard book, all just make the world worse and drove me away.

YMMV