LOTR from a gamer's perspective

[molonel]

If discussing what would have been impossible is ridiculous, it's hardly arguable that it's worth discussing what would have been possible, right?

No, and that doesn't follow logically, either. There is a great deal of room to argue about the possible or the probable. But telling me that something is simply IMPOSSIBLE is ridiculous. It's possible if the author says its possible. Authors are not interested in the most efficient route to an end. They want to tell an interesting story. Tolkien accomplished that. He wrote the story he wanted to write. The fact that he didn't write another story doesn't mean that story was impossible, and even he said so, himself.

And who cares what an author thinks about their own works anyway?

You don't, evidently.

 

[Numion]

And who cares what an author thinks about their own works anyway?

Well, both Tolkien and Lucas made changes to their work after first editions

IIRC Tolkien modified the phases of the moons at some points, for example, to make the times different.

 

[Vocenoctum]

No, and that doesn't follow logically, either. There is a great deal of room to argue about the possible or the probable. But telling me that something is simply IMPOSSIBLE is ridiculous. It's possible if the author says its possible. Authors are not interested in the most efficient route to an end. They want to tell an interesting story. Tolkien accomplished that. He wrote the story he wanted to write. The fact that he didn't write another story doesn't mean that story was impossible, and even he said so, himself.

Tolkien didn't think the lack of eagles was a flaw though, he just said their were flaws. The man could admit it wasn't perfect.

That said, within the world, you're assuming that the idea was not thought of, rather than thought of and discarded. There's no evidence for either position and in any case people tend to form an opinion about this "matter" and ignore any arguements to the contrary, so I'm not even sure why that tangent continues.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Hrm, my players would have handed the ring to Tom Bombadil and then gone off to kill stuff and take their treasure.

Problem solved.

My players would have killed Bombadil, then sold the ring in Rivendell, along with all of Bombadils gear.

Then they'd look at the exasperated DM with a "what?" look as he threw the adventure away and told them they all died.

 

[Aus_Snow]

lmao

roleplayers, huh.

 

[Celebrim]

Okay, guys, listen. There is something you need to understand.

I'm all ears.

It's a fantasy story. So talking about what would have been impossible is ridiculous.

Quite the contrary. One of the things that Tolkien brings to the fantasy genera is unprecedented internal consistancy. He spends a great deal of time figuring out exactly how far everything is from everything else, how much time each 'party' covers in a day, where all the peices are, and so forth. He brings to the battles an officers eye for tactics, to caves a cavers love of caves, to the language a linguist's love of language, to the flora a naturalists love of flora, and so on and so forth. We can judge whether something is impossible in a fantasy story based on its internal logic. Tolkien was very aware of that and did his level best to create internal consistancy. It's not perfect, but its not going to be blown away by something as silly as 'why don't they fly the ring to mordor on the backs of eagles', which is the sort of question that people ask only when they have a casual acquaintance with the story. The answer to the question is, "Because it would have been a very foolish plan.", and that is that. No student of Tolkien thinks that would have worked, and Tolkiens stories are filled with 'therefore as it happened they passed through by the only route that was any good', etc. There is a serious internal reason in the story why the adventure is by and large what gamers would call a 'railroad'. Tolkien isn't making the point by accident.

If Señor Tolkien...

Those are fighting words.

...had declared that the only way to get the ring into Mordor would be to have the Hobbits strip naked, cover themselves with purple body paint and hop through the gates of Mordor on pogo sticks while farting and humming the National Anthem, then that's how it would have worked.

And likely no one would have cared, so we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Tolkien himself admitted that there were problems in his stories, and everything didn't necessarily jive.

This is a complete red herring. Yes, the story has flaws, but this isn't one of them.

The reason we read his work is in spite of its flaws.

We enjoy his work despite of its minor flaws, but the reason we read his work is not that it is flawed, but rather because it is so very much not flawed.

Not because it was perfect.

No one said it was. I only said that according to the internal logic of the story, attacking Mordor on the backs of eagles just wouldn't have worked.

If he can admit that, then so can you.

Whether I or he admit that it is flawed does not detract from my point nor does it prove anything to the contrary.

 

[molonel]

Tolkien didn't think the lack of eagles was a flaw though, he just said their were flaws. The man could admit it wasn't perfect.

He said he tried not to use them too often. They were pretty much a deus ex machina where he wanted them as a get out of jail free card, once he resolved plot points in another fashion, rather than a plot-solving device.

The only problem is, he made them too powerful, and the reason this discussion continues is because as an author he really didn't have a GREAT reason why the wisest of the wise didn't think to use them for more efficient and probably safer transport of a dangerous artifact.

That said, within the world, you're assuming that the idea was not thought of, rather than thought of and discarded. There's no evidence for either position and in any case people tend to form an opinion about this "matter" and ignore any arguements to the contrary, so I'm not even sure why that tangent continues.

So we can't argue about it, or we shouldn't argue about it, or you disagree, or the author agrees with you, or his opinion ultimately doesn't matter.

You've presented us with a dazzling array of choices in a rather compact space.

Do you actually believe any of them?

It's a legitimate question to ask of the text itself. Tolkien wasn't the first fantasy author to stumble in this fashion, and this certainly isn't the only place in his work where these sorts of questions arise.

 

[molonel]

Quite the contrary. One of the things that Tolkien brings to the fantasy genera is unprecedented internal consistancy. He spends a great deal of time figuring out exactly how far everything is from everything else, how much time each 'party' covers in a day, where all the peices are, and so forth. He brings to the battles an officers eye for tactics, to caves a cavers love of caves, to the language a linguist's love of language, to the flora a naturalists love of flora, and so on and so forth.

He was a philologist and translator by profession. What he actually brought to the story was an unprecadented knack for creating langauges. I know people with degrees in studying the languages he created.

Beyond that, though, his knowledge on particular is questionable. He was not an expert on all subjects, nor a God, like some of his followers seem to think.

We can judge whether something is impossible in a fantasy story based on its internal logic. Tolkien was very aware of that and did his level best to create internal consistancy. It's not perfect, but its not going to be blown away by something as silly as 'why don't they fly the ring to mordor on the backs of eagles', which is the sort of question that people ask only when they have a casual acquaintance with the story. The answer to the question is, "Because it would have been a very foolish plan.", and that is that. No student of Tolkien thinks that would have worked, and Tolkiens stories are filled with 'therefore as it happened they passed through by the only route that was any good', etc. There is a serious internal reason in the story why the adventure is by and large what gamers would call a 'railroad'. Tolkien isn't making the point by accident.

See, this is why I laugh.

It's not a silly question. It's not a very important question, true, but it's valid all the same. People don't ask it because they just aren't as deeply acquainted with the story as you. They simply ask it because it's one of those plot holes that a team of sarcastic 15-year olds would ask. It's blatantly obvious to anyone except those committed to the absolute perfection of Tolkien's work.

In Tolkien's stories, eagles swoop in and help people at the last possible second. It happened in the Silmarillion with Thorondor. It happened in the Hobbit. It happened when Gandalf was rescused from Saruman. It happened at the end with Frodo and Sam.

They do so because that is the role he assigned them, and not because he simply couldn't have written the story any other way.

And likely no one would have cared, so we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Which is saying it would have been boring and silly, right.

But my point remains unmolested. He's the author, and he could have done it that way.

This is a complete red herring. Yes, the story has flaws, but this isn't one of them.

In your opinion.

We enjoy his work despite of its minor flaws, but the reason we read his work is not that it is flawed, but rather because it is so very much not flawed.

Tolkien's work was a watershed, and pivotal, and - at that point - without a market flooded with similar fantasy stories. It was an earthmover, certainly, but neither perfect nor untouchable. I'm glad he wrote. But I read it the same way I watch any other classic, and am mindful of its problems and flaws. It doesn't have to be perfect for me to enjoy it.

No one said it was. I only said that according to the internal logic of the story, attacking Mordor on the backs of eagles just wouldn't have worked.

I never said to attack Mordor. Get in, get the hostages, and get out.

Whether I or he admit that it is flawed does not detract from my point nor does it prove anything to the contrary.

Oh, you're not going to admit that it's a flaw, come hell or high water. You've made that painfully clear.

 

[Vocenoctum]

He said he tried not to use them too often. They were pretty much a deus ex machina where he wanted them as a get out of jail free card, once he resolved plot points in another fashion, rather than a plot-solving device.

The only problem is, he made them too powerful, and the reason this discussion continues is because as an author he really didn't have a GREAT reason why the wisest of the wise didn't think to use them for more efficient and probably safer transport of a dangerous artifact.

I've seen plenty of mention of the Eagles not being allies of the Forces of Good, so I don't see how they had to. Most of us accept that the Eagles would not have been able to penetrate the defenses undetected. The idea of running Eagle Screening Attacks to get Mordor used to them doesn't hold much water while Eagles are dying. The Eagles were indebted to Gandalf personally, but that doesn't mean they are willing to involve themselves in the battle vs Sauron.

So we can't argue about it, or we shouldn't argue about it, or you disagree, or the author agrees with you, or his opinion ultimately doesn't matter.

You've presented us with a dazzling array of choices in a rather compact space.

Do you actually believe any of them?

I believe the matter, within the world, was discussed at the Council and decided that the Obvious Path wouldn't work. If one of Sarumans feathered spies had gained the Ring, all is lost.

It's a legitimate question to ask of the text itself. Tolkien wasn't the first fantasy author to stumble in this fashion, and this certainly isn't the only place in his work where these sorts of questions arise.

It's a legitimate question if you wish to debate the merits of the arguement. Instead, you've chosen your position and set out to shoot down those who oppose it. In the end, you will not admit that it's not a flaw, come hell or high water and you've made that painfully clear. So the idea that the discussion can be "won" is futile.

If you want to continue a humorous "what would my players do" thread, I'm not sure why you're clogging it with the age old debate.

 

[molonel]

I've seen plenty of mention of the Eagles not being allies of the Forces of Good, so I don't see how they had to. Most of us accept that the Eagles would not have been able to penetrate the defenses undetected. The idea of running Eagle Screening Attacks to get Mordor used to them doesn't hold much water while Eagles are dying. The Eagles were indebted to Gandalf personally, but that doesn't mean they are willing to involve themselves in the battle vs Sauron.

Not being the allies of the forces of good? They were sent directly by Manwe, the lord of the air, to watch over the Noldor. They have never done anything BUT good, never done anything but save heroes from the fire, and always arrive exactly when needed. They fought with Eärendil against the dragons, marred the face of Morgoth, recovered the body of the elven king who fought against Morgoth, saved Beren and Luthien, saved the dwarves, saved Gandalf (twice), and saved Frodo and Sam from certain death.

They were already involved in the battle against Sauron, fought against him and were good and noble creatures. Arguing that their allegiance in the world was somehow in doubt runs contrary to everything Tolkien ever wrote about them.

Not only were they willing to get involved, they did so, and at great peril to themselves.

It's a legitimate question if you wish to debate the merits of the arguement. Instead, you've chosen your position and set out to shoot down those who oppose it. In the end, you will not admit that it's not a flaw, come hell or high water and you've made that painfully clear. So the idea that the discussion can be "won" is futile.

I've set out to shoot down people who disagree with me?

As opposed to what? All the people who, like you, simply say that it's impossible and refuse to be moved in any way, shape or form?

Come now. If you're saying I have to be willing to budge, then lead by example.

This discussion cannot be won, but the only people who believe otherwise are those who wish to say that my solution, or any that goes against the Great God Tolkien, was simply impossible.

I don't think I can win the argument. The only people who appear to believe that they can are those who disagree with me.

If you want to continue a humorous "what would my players do" thread, I'm not sure why you're clogging it with the age old debate.

Most questions on any forum of this size have been knocked around at one time or another.

If you have something better to do, my friend, it's not like anyone is twisting your arm to participate.