Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 6385061" data-attributes="member: 3400">I really don't think this comparison makes any sense. As you're pointing out above, correctly, Aragorn is worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights but much of it is because of all sorts of reasons utterly external to the things a fighter or even a wizard in D&amp;D have and do. Aragorn is significant in the eyes of Sauron because, fundamentally, he has the right to counter Sauron's might. That's how he wrests control of the palantir - because it is his by right. Why is he a significant leader of men? Because it is his birthright, his destiny. These concepts are pretty big thematic elements of Lord of the Rings. And none of that are really things D&amp;D has done much modeling of outside of Birthright because they are (and should be) highly campaign dependent. So why exactly we are supposed to use them as some kind of benchmark for a 20th level fighter is beyond me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 6385061, member: 3400"] I really don't think this comparison makes any sense. As you're pointing out above, correctly, Aragorn is worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights but much of it is because of all sorts of reasons utterly external to the things a fighter or even a wizard in D&D have and do. Aragorn is significant in the eyes of Sauron because, fundamentally, he has the [b]right[/b] to counter Sauron's might. That's how he wrests control of the palantir - because it is his [b]by right[/b]. Why is he a significant leader of men? Because it is his birthright, his destiny. These concepts are pretty big thematic elements of Lord of the Rings. And none of that are really things D&D has done much modeling of outside of Birthright because they are (and should be) highly campaign dependent. So why exactly we are supposed to use them as some kind of benchmark for a 20th level fighter is beyond me. [/QUOTE]

Verification