LOTR RPG Update

[ColonelHardisson]

My preferred interpretation is that Dol Guldur’s gates and walls where strengthened by evil sorcery and could not be destroyed by mundane means. Galadriel was the only elf in Lothlorien with the power needed to break the spell; when she did so, they fell on their own accord.

This would be similar in concept to the foundation of Barad-dur being laid with the power of the One, and that they could not be destroyed while it survived; yet, upon its destruction, the foundations cracked and brought the whole fortress down.

You could also relate this to the contest over the door in Moria between Gandalf and the Balrog. Gandalf put a spell on the door to lock and strengthen it; the Balrog contested that spell; the door itself broke under the strain of the opposing magics.

That's an interesting interpretation; I'm almost inclined to adopt your way of looking at it. The only hazy part is when Galadriel went to Dol Guldur; was it before or after the Ring was destroyed? I don't have the book right here. I think it was after, which means that it would have been likely that Dol Guldur's magic would have failed at the same time as Barad-dur's.

Also, this Decipher book is looking really nice. Really, really nice.

 

[tmaaas]

The only hazy part is when Galadriel went to Dol Guldur; was it before or after the Ring was destroyed? I don't have the book right here. I think it was after, which means that it would have been likely that Dol Guldur's magic would have failed at the same time as Barad-dur's.

I wouldn't tie the power of Dol Guldur directly to the ring. If the walls and gates had been built using the ring's power, the point would be moot. While the ring survived Galadriel couldn't have cast down the walls, and when the ring was destroyed it would have automatically resulted in the fall of Dol Guldur without Galadriel's intervention.

Instead, I attribute Dol Guldur to a work of evil independent of the ring. Sauron used the stronghold after his defeat by Gil-galad and Elendil and strengthened it via the Nazgul and the One, but its original power did not depend on the ring and was not directly tied to it.

After the One was destroyed, both Dol Guldur's and Lothlorien's powers were diminished, but Dol Guldur's more. The valor of the Elves under Celeborn and the innate power of Galadriel where then sufficient to overthrow it.

I was just pointing out that there was precedent for fortress walls/gates in Middle Earth having powerful enchantments protecting them, and that destroying the enchantment also resulted in destruction of the structure.

This is all just a rationalization as to why Galadriel had to be the one destroying Dol Guldur and how she did it. Having her use evocation-style magics is one possible explanation, but it just doesn't seem to fit right.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

It seems to fit to me. The bearers of the Three had to keep them and their power hidden; that doesn't mean they didn't have flashy powers - they just couldn't use them often. This is something Gandalf alludes to at Redhorn Pass.

I don't know of Dol Guldur predating Sauron's construction of the Ring. Maybe it did. But Barad-dur was as likely to predate the Ring as Dol Guldur, by that way of thinking.

Regardless, the gist of all this is: Galadriel had real power, that was almost certainly necessary to destroy Dol Guldur. It was very unlikely to have been done by mundane means alone.

 

[Squire James]

You know, it's pretty amazing how much information can be assumed and debated on from reletively short passages of the book. For instance, take out one non-essential paragraph from EITHER "The Two Towers" (Faramir's account of Gandalf's alternate names) or "The Simarillon" (info about Olorin, which happened to be one of those names) and we would never had known Gandalf was actually a Maia. From over the Sea, sure, but he could have just as well been a Noldo or Vanya in disguise! His performance against the Balrog wasn't much better than one of the more powerful Noldor... such confontrations in the First Age also tended to be "double kills".

I can see Galadriel doing some powerful magical effect similar to a D&D Transmutation ("stone to air") or Abjuration ("dispel") to achieve the effect noted in that short passage in the timeline. I doubt the Elven Ring had much to do with it, but the deed was done very quickly after the destruction of the One Ring (ie: Frodo and Sam were probably still unconcious), so it may have taken a few days for the power of the Elven Ring to fail.

 

[mmadsen]

For instance, take out one non-essential paragraph from EITHER "The Two Towers" (Faramir's account of Gandalf's alternate names) or "The Simarillon" (info about Olorin, which happened to be one of those names) and we would never had known Gandalf was actually a Maia.

How many casual fans of The Lord of the Rings even know Gandalf wasn't supposed to be human? Or, if they know that, know what a Maia is?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

How many casual fans of The Lord of the Rings even know Gandalf wasn't supposed to be human? Or, if they know that, know what a Maia is?

I've rarely seen a casual fan of LotR. Either people love the books, or hate them, in my experience.

I don't know the answers to the questions, but I can say this - it's not really important, except to those who are anything but casual fans. When it comes to discussing RPG adaptations of the books, you have to be aware of, and faithful to, what was written by Tolkien. Otherwise, there would be umpteen Tolkienites ripping apart whatever was done as far as a LotR RPG or adaptation is concerned. It may not be important to some, but staying consistent with the source material (even if interpretations vary) is of paramount importance. Tolkien's meticulously detailed world and its history are what set LotR apart from any other fictional world. If we didn't delve into that detail, the result would be no better than the average run-of-the-mill RPG world out there. If we ignored that background material, and simply used a casual overview of what Tolkien seemed to have meant, then the result would ring hollow. So while discussions/arguments about minutiae may seem pointless to some, there really is an underlying importance to it all.

 

[mmadsen]

I've rarely seen a casual fan of LotR.

What, you didn't go see the movie in theaters? Many of those people didn't read the books at all, and probably don't even count as casual fans, but many have read the trilogy once or twice -- or read it for the first time after seeing the movie. I'd consider those casual fans.

Either people love the books, or hate them, in my experience.

I guess our experiences are very, very different then. I know plenty of people who enjoyed the books, but only read them once or twice -- the way most people read entertaining books.

Now certainly the people discussing LotR (and using the abbreviation "LotR") on-line are either fanatics (pro) or trolls (con), but that doesn't say much for the population as a whole.

Even on a fantasy RPG site like this one, it's very difficult for the average LotR fan, the casual kind, to even engage in a conversation like the one you're having. As I said, "How many casual fans of The Lord of the Rings even know Gandalf wasn't supposed to be human?"

When it comes to discussing RPG adaptations of the books, you have to be aware of, and faithful to, what was written by Tolkien.

I don't disagree at all, and I don't mean to disparage Tolkien fans at all, but I think a hardcore fan tends to underestimate just how far removed his concerns are from the casual fan's.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I don't disagree at all, and I don't mean to disparage Tolkien fans at all, but I think a hardcore fan tends to underestimate just how far removed his concerns are from the casual fan's.

Errr...you do realize how ironic that sounds, considering the fact that the concerns of an RPG fan are far removed from those of...well, everybody else? Or that anyone who posts to these boards can be considered a D&D (or at least RPG) fanatic? Are LotR "fanatics" to be further compartmentalized, even here on these boards?

 

[mmadsen]

Errr...you do realize how ironic that sounds, considering the fact that the concerns of an RPG fan are far removed from those of...well, everybody else? Or that anyone who posts to these boards can be considered a D&D (or at least RPG) fanatic? Are LotR "fanatics" to be further compartmentalized, even here on these boards?

I guess I don't see the irony. I agree that we're on a D&D fan site. Thus, discussions of D&D minutia are on topic, and most people can follow them. Those same discussions would be out of place just about anywhere else, even a sci-fi site full of casual D&D players, because most people couldn't follow them.

This D&D-fan site we're on is full of casual LotR fans. Any long, detailed post arguing minutia from the Silmarillion naturally excludes these casual fans, even though they'd be excited to discuss Legolas and Gimli comparing body counts, or Gollum creeping them out, or the elf rope untying itself (or did it?) for Frodo and Sam, etc.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

I've rarely seen a casual fan of LotR. Either people love the books, or hate them, in my experience.

I consider myself a casual fan.

The book are ok, but sliced bread has nothing to worry about.

FD