Was Gandalf Just A 5th Level Magic User?

This article from Dragon Magazine, back in 1977, is likely very familiar to many of you (feel free to yawn - this item isn't for you!) However, there are many newer fans of D&D who don't even remember Dragon Magazine, let alone issues from nearly 40 years ago. In the article, Bill Seligman posits that Gandalf was merely a 5th level magic-user. Given Cubicle 7's recent announcement about an official Middle Earth setting for D&D, it seems like a nostalgia piece worth revisiting.

Some folks I hear discussing this topic these days take the position that Gandalf is actually a paladin. Certainly "wizards" in Tolkien's works aren't the same magic-missile-throwing folks as in regular D&D; in fact there are only five wizards in the whole of Middle Earth - and at least one of them (the 7th Doctor) is very clearly a druid.

What do you think? Is Gandalf a 5th level magic-user? What about in 5th Edition, given the upcoming Middle Earth release? I'm sure Cubicle 7 will tells for certain this summer, but until then...

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Any movie adaptation that fails to spend hours of on-screen time faithfully bringing the Bombadil story arch to painstaking life is a travesty and deserves all our scorn!

All hail Tolkien!

 

[Relic Dice]

Funny, I remember reading this!
I also remember reading a page 4 articles later that explained why Gandalf was just a 2nd level Magic User, since the Balrog was just a minor illusion he cast to properly motivate the dwarves after his "death".

In short, it's proven good DM's (or storytellers) don't need a character to be powerful to be great in the story. Except his superb combat abilities. That certainly helped!
- Holly

 

[Guest 6801328]

If arguing that Gandalf was a 5th level magic user has any utility, it's to illustrate that a 5th level magic-user is actually pretty interesting and powerful.

I'm reminded of Bernard Cornwell's portrayal of Merlin in his Arthurian trilogy (Winter King, Excalibur, and Enemy of God...all fantastic). Except for some ambiguous stuff at the end, Merlin doesn't actually perform any magic. He's just really good at convincing everybody that he can (and his protege, who becomes Morgan le Fay, shares the gift.)

Not exactly the same thing as "Merlin was a 5th level magic-user" but illustrative of how a little big of "magic" can go a long way.

 

[Gadget]

A somewhat random post, more-or-less apropos this thread:

On the tram coming home this evening, a group of three friends was debating who is the hero of LotR (the two candidates being Frodo and Sam). The discussion then turned to who is the best character (the one who had plumped for Sam nominated Galadriel; someone else thought Strider). As I was getting off, they were debating who was the truer or more noble of Boromir and Faramir - the Sam and Galadriel advocate was taking the side of Farimir, on grounds that he could have taken the Ring, but didn't. (The case against him seemed mostly to be that he was a "daddy's boy".)

So anyone, the posters in this thread are not the only people exercised by the proper interpretation of LotR.

Who is the real hero of tLotR? The question has been debated by fans and scholars of tLotR for quite a while (usually between Sam & Frodo), so that is very understandable debate. But anyone who has actually read the books, as opposed to merely seeing the movies as these two commuters apparently have (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here), and needs to debate who was more true and noble between Boromir and Faramir has some reading comprehension problems.

 

[pemerton]

anyone who has actually read the books, as opposed to merely seeing the movies as these two commuters apparently have (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here)

There were three, but (on the basis of my eavesdropping) I can only report on two: the Sam/Faramir/Galadriel advocate has read LotR, the Hobbit and the Silmarillion. One of her interlocutors had read LotR and the Silmarillion, but not the Hobbit. I don't know about the third.

 

[Eric V]

Yup, makes sense.

So we have:
- They're largely independent, not necessarily "allied" with the wise, and hard to reach on a moment's notice.
- They may not be allowed to directly interfere in the war against Sauron.
- Gandalf recognizes that this is something the free people have to solve for themselves, not have others solve for them.

All solid (and interrelated) reasons why they don't ask the Eagles.

Hobbits walking into Mordor inherently a less risky plan than having Eagles fly there? Not so much.

Wasn't there also a danger of bringing the Ring so close to the Eagles, who are very proud powerful creatures themselves?

 

[Maxperson]

I hear he can also shoot laser beams out of his eyes.

Eye

 

[Maxperson]

I think i understand what you are trying to say, but what i meant by autonomy, i meant most of all autonomy from whatever power or chain of command there was among the free peoples of Middle Earth. I.E. even Radagast was a "friend" with the birds, not their master. In the end they probably called their own shots (the will of the Powers in the West excluded). When they arrived in force at the Black Gate, it was either on their own volition or under direct intervention of Manwe (or even Iluvatar).

Gotcha! That makes more sense and I can agree with it.

 

[Maxperson]

Any movie adaptation that fails to spend hours of on-screen time faithfully bringing the Bombadil story arch to painstaking life is a travesty and deserves all our scorn!

All hail Tolkien!

I was disappointed that he wasn't in it, but I understood that some things need to be cut and he really didn't move the story very much. What was an abomination was all the crappy changes that the movies made. Putting elves in Helms Deep and things like that. Still, the Hobbit "adaption" made the Lord of the Rings movies seem as if they followed the books word for word. ::shudder::

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Personally my opinion on the movies is mixed (depending on which movie we are talking about), with the extended editions IMO providing better "Tolkien Experience". However, if asked how to put Tom Bombadil into any adaptation i would be hard pressed to make a call. Except for the Barrow Downs, there is very little you can do with him on the screen. Unless you are making the TV Show or a mini series.....