Magic in Middle-earth

[Nukapei]

I've been thinking (never a good thing! :p) about the difference between modern fantasy epics and Lord of the Rings, and one thing that really stuck out in my mind was their different approaches to magic. Whereas most modern fantasies are so chock-full of magic it's hard to breathe, Tolkien is much more subtle in his magic usage. The only things I could think about that were "magical" were the Rings of Power, and the Istari.

Then I got to thinking about Lúthien, and the way she used magic in helping Beren steal the Silmaril from Morgoth, including rescuing him from Sauron. Now I am confused. What role does magic play in Middle-earth? Obviously it can be wielded by semi-divine beings (like the Maia, and the Istari), and contained in an object to be wielded by those who control it (like Lúthien and her suit, and Frodo and the Ring), but what else? Is it the object or the person that has the magic?

[Neithan]

An interesting topic, nonetheless for having been discussed before. The nature of Tolkien's magic is very different than that of other fantasy books. I already posted something about the nature of magic in another thread so allow me to reproduce it here.

----------------------------------------------------
Magic, I believe, refers always to those things that the speaker does not understand. Therefore the word is used for many different things that are not really related at all. Here I will describe several different forms of "magic" as I see them.

Dwarf: the Dwarves are said to use magic especially when making secret doors. I think that Dwarf magic is nothing more than a type of technology as Mithalwen said earlier.

Ents: the drink that Treebeard gave the hobbits could be said to be magical, but it seems only natural that "tree people" would have such drinks.

Elves: they seem to have great skill in making things: the cloaks, the gems of the Noldor, the Ships of the Teleri, and the Palántiri stones for example. Those Elves who beheld the light of the two trees also had a power within them that repelled evil. Also they could sing songs of power, more on this in a minute.

Tom Bombadil: Tom was one with the land he inhabited, it's life was his. He was master of everything that dwelled in said land and everything he commanded happened.

Valar/Maiar: they shaped the world and their power flowed in every inch of it. Therefore they could, to some extent (depending on their personal power), command the matter of the world. They also sang songs of power.

Music and Magic: Although I can not claim to fully understand how this worked, music had power in Tolkiens world. The foundation of the world was the music of the Ainur, and Sauron had a contest with Finrod using songs of power. And Tom Bombadil used songs of a sort to. There were other examples of course but you get the idea.

This is not a complete list by any means (and you could probably have an entire thread for each type of magic and how they worked) but I was just trying to get the point across that what is referred to as "magic" is not one thing but many different things.

Also, I think that the different kinds of "magic" could be learned by the other races, so that "Dwarf Magic" could be learned by Elves for example. However there are exeptions to this, Tom Bombadil for example. Also there are some things that the Ainur could do that lesser beings could not because they don't have the power required.

---------------------------------------------------------

Luthien is a mix between an Elf and a Maia so her powers would reflect that.
Of course there is much more to discuss about magic than what is contained in that rather condensed and simplified version.

[Nukapei]

Umm . . . wow. Thanks, Neithan, for that concise and well-written post. That's very helpful! And, you're right, most of what we call "magic" is nothing more than technology or just what we don't understand.

And I'm sorry to repeat the subject. I looked, but couldn't find a thread on magic. And I always remember that Search option after I make a complete fool of myself by repeating a subject people just finished a big debate about last week! (I've actually been chewed out before for this, but it didn't seem to work!) :rolleyes:

Thanks again!

[Neithan]

And I'm sorry to repeat the subject.
Just because it has been discussed before doesn't mean we can't say anything new on the subject. I am going to browse through some of the Magic threads for inspiration but in the meantime, if anyone wants give their own thoughts on magic or argue with or expand on what I said then they should go for it.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am going to browse through some of the Magic threads for inspiration To assist browsing, here are some of the highlights:

Magic v Power (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1312&page=1&highlight=magic)
The Istari’s Magic ……. And other beings? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1859&highlight=magic)
Magic in Middle-earth (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2341&highlight=magic)
Music and Magic in Middle Earth (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11261&highlight=magic)
Differences in magic (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11467&highlight=magic)

Not all of the threads that have explored Tolkien's depiction of magic by any means, but a good selection nevertheless.

In addition, here are Tolkien's own thoughts on the nature of magic in LotR, from The Letters:


I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and other show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult; and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely about motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a psuedo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia. Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy.' Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life.'

Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' - with destructive and evil effects - because 'magicians,' who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so). The basic motive for magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological: the tyrant lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.

Letter #155 (draft letter to Naomi Mitchison)Traditionally, I believe, the terms magia and goeteia are used to distinguish between "Angelic magic" on the one hand and "Demonic magic" on the other. It appears from this passage, however, that Tolkien is using them to distinguish between that magic which affects the world physically, and that which does not but which is merely illusionary.

[Neithan]

Thank you SpM for the links and the quote.
Just a quick thought before I plunge into the threads,
I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word
I think that Tolkien is acknowleging that the different kinds of "magic" are not necessarily related. It does seem that I will have to revise my ideas on how the magic of the Ainur works though.

[Nukapei]

Thanks, Saucepan Man, for that Tolkien quote. When one doesn't understand something, it's usually best to go to the source! But that's more-or-less how I had pictured magic being used in Middle-earth -- it's there, but as more of a last-resort type thing. However, I, like Neithan, will now have to revise my views of the different types of magic!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Seems to me the more I read and think about this topic the less it seems that there is magic in Middle-earth. There is only the Lore, Art and Knowledge of the West which is present in various forms.

I mean, I honestly can't think of a single 'magical' character, item or anything that doesn't owe its descent to the West: either via Morgoth and Sauron, the Istari, or the Noldor. There's nothing strictly speaking magical about any of what they do: there are only well crafted objects, manifestations of their own natural powers or abilities, etc.

Seems to me, that in the East of Middle-earth, where none of these powers are known -- except for Sauron -- there would be no 'magic' except for the dark perversions and illusions practiced by the Dark Lord.

[radagastly]

Fordim
Seems to me, that in the East of Middle-earth, where none of these powers are known -- except for Sauron -- there would be no 'magic' except for the dark perversions and illusions practiced by the Dark Lord.

Don't forget Alatar and Pollando. They were wizards, after all, and if they failed of their mission as Tolkien surmised, and abandoned the restrictions that brought Gandalf to success, then no doubt they had some real magic, er nature, to show the Eastern people.

[The Saucepan Man]

There's nothing strictly speaking magical about any of what they do: there are only well crafted objects, manifestations of their own natural powers or abilities, etc.What is magic if not the manifestation of the natural powers or abilities of someone or something? Surely, in its most basic form, magic is simply a term for that which cannot be explained. Once it can be explained, it is no longer magical. Hence Galadriel's fountain appears magical to Frodo and Sam, but she does not view it in the same way.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

What is magic if not the manifestation of the natural powers or abilities of someone or something? Surely, in its most basic form, magic is simply a term for that which cannot be explained. Once it can be explained, it is no longer magical. Hence Galadriel's fountain appears magical to Frodo and Sam, but she does not view it in the same way.

That's my point. All that is considered magical in Middle-earth is really 'just' the expression of the natural powers or abilities brought by those who have been to the West. And they got it from the Valar, who got it from Illuvatar, who created the natural world and everything in it -- to the magic we see is just another part of the created nature. It's just a part of nature that is 'out of place' in Middle-earth insofar as it more properly belongs to the West.

[The Saucepan Man]

Then we are in agreement. Save, perhaps, on one point:


It's just a part of nature that is 'out of place' in Middle-earth insofar as it more properly belongs to the West.I wouldn't even say that magic is necessarily out of place in Middle-earth. The natural powers and abilities of Elves are sometimes referred to as magic (from the perspective of other races), and they awoke in Middle-earth. Or would you say that all such powers were taught to them by the Lords of the West, and that they had no innate "magical" powers or abilities of their own?

I think that the powers of any race which cannot be explained by another might potentially be referred to by those others as "magic". Was it Gandalf who said that there is a magic of sorts in the Shire? The natural powers of Hobbits which are not present, or not as developed, in other races. Their indomitability, their toughness in a pinch, their loyalty and friendship and their humility (which enables them to better withstand the "magical" deceptions of the One Ring, since there is little that it can offer them). And then there is their ability to move quietly and "disappear" (without the aid of any magical Ring) when they do not want to be seen. That too might be described as a magic of sorts.

So, yes, I would describe magic as the innate (or learned) abilities and powers of a being which is perceived as inexplicable by beings of a different order. But I do not think it exclusive (in origin) to the Undying Lands (although all such power does, of course, ultimately originate from Iluvatar).

[Gurthang]

But you must also remember that Man and Elves came from Eru, also, so they may have had some 'magic' in them from the start. It does seem that men possess very little(if any) magic, but that may come from them being much younger than Elves.

In some cases, 'magic' does seem to simply stem from technology. For instance, Sauron's ringcraft was something developed and refined. That doesn't sound like magic. It sounds more like the painstaking work that it took to harness electricity.

But I think there is a line where 'magic' becomes the magic that we think of. Luthien singing and putting Morgoth to sleep would be an example of this. The 'light-up" ability of swords like Narsil and Sting is another. These seem like magic magic to us, but may not have to the elves.

It's kind of like magic tricks. All magicians know that their tricks are just that: tricks. It seems like magic to those who don't know how it's done. They see the trick, and say, "That's magic!". But anyone who knows how the trick is done knows the truth. They can see that it's just an illusion, so it isn't magic to them.

[Neithan]

And then there is their ability to move quietly and "disappear" (without the aid of any magical Ring) when they do not want to be seen. That too might be described as a magic of sorts.
I assume you got that idea from the prologue to LotR? Yes, I was going to point it out when I posted my revised summary of magic but you beat me to it.

By the way I will post the revised summary as soon as I have time. Which may be a while because it is going to be long and take quite a while to do.

[Rumil]

I've been wondering too about the magic of Thranduil's wood elves. If you remember, in the hobbit, the Dwarves and Bilbo wander into an elven 'party', the lights are all suddenly extinguished and the interlopers immediately fall asleep. This sounds much like a traditional Dungeons and Dragons first level sleep spell to me! In character it seems closer to Gandalf's 'practical magic' eg. commanding the wood to burst into flame, while different from Galadriel's more mysterious 'item-associated magic'. Also there is no mention of Bilbo et al being sung at in the manner of Luthien.

The wood elves were noted as being less wise than Elrond's people and maybe this explains their willingness to use magic at the drop of a hat. I wonder if the magic ability was confined to certain of the silvan elves, as, for example, Legolas appears not to have overtly used magic. Maybe his snow-running trick had a spot of elven magic behind it, maybe his sharp eyesight and accuracy with the bow was similarly enhanced, I'm not sure. I'd guess that if he did have magic ability he would have avoided using it to keep from calling attention to the party, as Gandalf appears to imply, on Caradhras, that the use of magic can be detected easily by other magic-users.

[The Saucepan Man]

Hello there Rumil. Good to see you again. :)

Maybe his snow-running trick had a spot of elven magic behind it, maybe his sharp eyesight and accuracy with the bow was similarly enhanced, I'm not sure.Which rather underlines the point: they may have seemed like magic to others but, to Legolas, they were simply his natural abilities.

[Fingolfin II]

These magic threads are all very interesting. Neithan, I think the bit about Hobbits that SpM was referring to was somewhere in the start of The Hobbit. I don't own a copy (lost mine years ago), but I'm pretty sure Tolkien actually uses the word magic and says that the only magic Hobbits have is the 'everyday' type to disappear 'when huge, big folk like you and me come blundering along' (something like that, anyway). I liked your analysis on the type of 'magic' the different races/powers of the world wielded, if any. I'll throw another example of magic into the fray; Finrod bewitched his company and himself to take on the exact appearance of orcs- pretty decent.

[Neithan]

From FotR, Prologue, 1 Concerning Hobbits, pg 20
They possessed from the first the art of disappearing swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to meet come blundering by; and this art they have developed until to Men it may seem magical.
Of course he may have mentioned it in the Hobbit as well, I can't remember.

[Garen LiLorian]

Although everything you've said is reasonable, I remain unconvinced. There are several times when the people in question call what they are doing magic. Like, for example, the dwarf song in the hobbit; The Dwarves of yore made mighty spells, and Gandalf puts 'a shutting spell' (in his own words) on the door in Moria, and says at the west-gate of Moria 'I once knew every spell in all the tongues of Elves or Men or Orcs, that was ever used for such a purpose.'

Now, it seems fairly reasonable that, whether magic consists of just knowing something extra, or actual spells (although, I don't really see the difference) if the person doing the spell calls it magic, than so can we.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

It’s interesting that you cite those particular instances of magic Garen insofar as they are “spells”. The earliest appearance of the word spel in English was in none other than Tolkien’s favourite work, Beowulf where it means a narrative or prolonged (and learned?) discourse, and sometimes, even, a sermon. Now, as time went on, “spell” began to become more and more closely associated with magical incantations, but the references to story or narrative, and even to time (“let’s sit here for a spell”) remain.

Tolkien, obviously, knew very well what a ‘spel’ was: a discourse or narrative told by someone. In the case of the magical spells “cast” by his characters, then, they are not doing anything ‘un’ or even ‘supernatural’ they are just telling particular kinds of stories or narratives. More intriguingly, they are doing so with an idea to instruct. In all the instances of spel in Beowulf the word is used not just to tell a story, but a story that is being told with a specific purpose: there is a point to the telling, and this point is invariably to provoke action from the listener, or to sway their opinion.

So these narratives, or discourses (or sermons?) that people give to inanimate objects in Middle-earth are being told in order to ‘convince’ or to sway these inanimate objects to behave in particular ways. Just as the ‘magic’ that lies behind the Lorien cloaks or the One Ring are really just forms of ‘technology’ that we don’t understand, so too are the spells cast really just forms (or even dialects) of language that we don’t know. In effect, when Gandalf casts his spell on the door he is speaking a ‘stone-language’ and ‘convincing’ the door to remain shut.

(As I write this, I seem to recall davem making very much this same point in another thread, somewhere, sometime. Should try to dig that up and reference it here.)

[Garen LiLorian]

Most instructive, Fordim. I learn something new every day around here.
And, although that all makes sense, why does Tolkien then only use 'spell' in a context that could mean magic? At other times, when the 'convincing' is a bit more mundane, there is no mention of spells. (See Theoden and Bilbo) Indeed, with Bilbo, although Gandalf does a good deal of convincing, he later tells Frodo that Bilbo gave up the ring of his own accord. I don't actually know what that might mean, but it seems to be significant somehow.:rolleyes: I mean, if he was compelled by spell to give up the ring, gandalf says that it would break him. (well, actually Frodo. But, since Frodo had had the ring at that point for about 24 hours, we may assume that it would have broken Bilbo as well)
Although, I still don't really get why spel makes it not magic. Wherever the word came from, it certainly now carries the magic connotation. I can't remember where the quote is from, but I've always agreed with whoever said "ninety nine percent of magic is simply knowing one extra fact)

[Essex]

Whenever we speak of magin in LOTR, I always think of Gandalf's confrontation with the Balrog, not at the Brdige, but by the Doors of Balin's Tomb. 'But I found myself suddenly faced by something that I have not met before. I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength.....Then something came into the chamber – I felt it through the door, and the orcs themselves were afraid and fell silent. It laid hold of the iron ring, and then it perceived me and my spell.

What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge. The counter-spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control and began to open! I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door burst in pieces...... Ah! I have never felt so spent, but it is passing.This Word of Command always fascinates me, and I've never been able to find anything else about them. (I know Gandalf uses a Word of Command to light up the wood on Caradrhas, but I think we're talking different levels of spell here!)

Anyone ever found anything that mentions these 'Words of Command'?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I have found the post (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=356079&postcount=7) by davem in which he addresses pretty much all the same things I do above, but in a much more compelling and fully developed manner.

quel suprise

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Interesting observations, Fordim, and thanks for the post by davem. That's really quite a gem.

The only thing I have to add to this line of inquiry is the fact that some of the creatures that used these kinds of magic are the kinds that would have the natural affinity with the material they're using. For instance, one never sees a dwarf using anything like magic on wood or trees. Dwarves, naturally enough, are able to "convince" stone to obey them; which only makes sense considering the circumstances surrounding the awakening of the Fathers and that their creator was Aule. Likewise the Ents have the affinity for trees, an obvious choice for those created at the request of Yavanna.

[Neithan]

O.K., this is kinda rushed but if I don't do this now then it will never get done.

As stated before several times (by me, Fordim, and Saucepan Man) magic is a word that is used to describe things which we do not understand. In this post I will be using it to refer to anything that the hobbits would describe as "magical".

Let's start with the power of the Ainur. The Ainur were spiritual in nature. That is, they were not incarnates. When we, as incarnates, want to effect the physical world in some way, moving an object for example, we use our physical strength to pick it up and put it somewhere else. The more physical strength we have, the more we can lift/move. The Ainur, when not clothed, have no physical form in which to interact with their environment, so their spirits have the ability to interact directly without the assistance of a body, this is what is referred to as their magic. Just as we use technology in conjunction with our physical strength to achieve great things, so could they use their knowledge with their inner strength to do things.
So now that we have the basics we can talk about the different forms and uses of the Ainur's magic. As the quote provided by Saucepan Man says, the magic that I have described above can be divided into two catagories, magia (physical) and goeteia (illusionary), or if you prefer the "powers of mind and hand" that the Wizards had. An example of magia would be the conjuring of fire, and example of goeteia would be the disguises of Luthien and Felegund in the story of Beren and Luthien. The quote gives a good account of the two types so I will not go further here.
There is also a third type of magic. This kind has no effect on the physical world. It is a mental power. I believe that Osanwe-Kenta describes the ability to look into another's mind and sometimes even change what is there. This can be blocked however by closing one's mind. Nothing can penetrate a closed mind. Incarnates find it more difficult to use this ability because the body dims the thoughts of others. Communication between the minds of two incarnates is very difficult but can be aided by affinity, urgency, or authority.

There is also the role of music and the "word of command". Here is a quote from FotR when Gandalf fights the Balrog for control of the door,
Gimli took his arm & helped him down to a seat on the step. 'What happened away up there at the door?' he asked. 'Did you meet the beaterof drums?'
'I do not know,' answered Gandalf. 'But I found myself faced by something that I have not met before.I could think of nothing to do but to try & put a shutting spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly takes time, & even then the door can be broken by strength...
Then something came into the chamber- I felt it through the door, & the orcs themselves were afraid & fell silent.It laid hold of the iron ring, & then it percieved me & my spell.
What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge.The counter spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control & began to open.I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door broke in pieces.'

When Gandalf speaks of "spells" and says that he knows many of them, what I think he means is that he knows many ways in which to use his power to gain the desired effect. Just as we do with technology, for example if we wanted to contact someone we have regular phones, cell phones, email, text messaging, and other ways in which to do so.
Now we come to the "word of command". When an Ainu uses his/her magic, presumably only thoughts are required. So they are channeling their power through their thoughts, words help focus thoughts hence it is sometimes easier to work out a problem if you are speaking your thoughts out loud or writing them down. The word of command works in much the same way, the casters thoughts become more focused and so their magic gets an extra boost. Music is the next level, it brings you to a higher plain of thought and also gives you not only words but also purposeful rythm to focus your thoughts.

So what about the Wizards' staff? Well this is a more difficult question and I have to resort to wild speculation in order to explain it.
This is what we know about the staffs:

1) That the Wizards seemed to use them when casting spells.

2) That Saruman seemed to lose a part of his power when his staff was broken.

3) That Gandalf used magic against the Balrog after his staff was broken.

Well, my first thought was that the staffs could just be for show, to give people "something else that would seem to explain" their powers, like Gandalf did with the smoke when Bilbo disappeared at his party. But this doesn't explain how Saruman lost his powers when his staff was broken. It could be that the staff breaking was only a cover for what happened under the surface. But why would Saruman keep up the act of using a staff after becoming a traitor, and I don't think that there is any precedent for one Maiar taking away another's power. I think it more likely that, since the Istari are said to be going to Middle Earth "with the consent of Eru" then Eru tied these staffs to their powers. Gandalf could still use quite a bit of his magic without a staff because as they became more corrupt the staffs became more bound to them. So Gandalf could do more without his staff. Another explanation could be that Eru intervened and allowed Gandalf to use magic. All of this is far-fetched but it is the best explanation that I could come up with. You can criticise the theory all you want but until someone comes up with a better theory that takes into account all of the evidence I am sticking by it.

So that about covers the Ainur, time to move on to Elves. First I must explain that the powers mentioned above do not apply only to the Ainur. They can be learned by other races. Incarnates find it more difficult to perform this kind of magic because their spirits are bound to their bodies and also because they have much less potent spirits (presumably Ainur who become incarnated find it somewhat more difficult to perform magic "around" the body as well). The High Elves were tutored by the Valar and so were much more learned than other types, this combined with the fact that those who saw the light of the Trees had some small portion of the power of the Ainur within them, made them much more adept at this type of magic than other races. The Sindarin were the next in line. They did not have the power of those who had beheld the light of the Trees, but they did have Melian to teach them. They learned many things from her and their "magic" was that they could use this knowledge, mainly to create wonderful items (something that the High Elves could also do), but they could also use the "Ainur magic" to a small extent. Last there came the Silvan Elves. These had an amazing knowledge of the woodlands of Middle Earth that came from the long ages that they lived there. They used this knowledge to create many things.

Men also could learn to do these things though their spirits were weaker and their knowledge was limited by their shorter lifespans.

Dwarves, like I said before, used mainly their knowledge and technology to do the things that they did. They may also have had some spiritual ability mixed with it.

A note on things like miruvor and lembas, they were basically created by using herbs or whatever that had medicinal properties there need not have been any "spellwork" involved.

Note: I organized this post by race which may be misleading, there is no reason that one race could not learn the magic that is primarily used by another.

PS- I avioded using any "technical" terms so that anyone would be able to understand what I am saying. Also I summerized from Osanwe-Kenta because I didn't want to make this post longer by stuffing it full of quotes.

PPS- Originally posted by Fingolfin II
I think the bit about Hobbits that SpM was referring to was somewhere in the start of The Hobbit.
We were both right, I just checked out The Hobbit and it basically says the same thing that was in the Prologue to LotR.

[Michael Wilhelmson]

It's also entirely possible that "magic" refers to two different things. The Lorien elves used advanced camoflauge, extremely nutrional food, and other types of technology Tolkien could have easily seen or even used in the Great War. What the Fellowship saw as magic, could easily have been a form of modern invention, like the Dwarves, or the Numenoreans.
Examples include:

Orthanc- Unbreakable Numenorean stone
Mythryl- invincible rings
Blasting-Fire- All too well described by Peter Jackson's movies
Fireworks


Real "magic" probably refers to what we consider to be magical. That is, the powers of the Eldar in the old days and the Valar, both in Creation and Middle-Earth

Wizardry- Used by both wizards and elf-lords
Rings
Alien life to ME- Mallorns, the white tree
"Genetic" Engineering- Orcs, Trolls, Fel Beasts, Uruks, Wargs
Phial of Galadriel
Undeath- Natural (Oathbreakers, ghosts) or artifical (Nazgul, wraiths)
Elf-ships

[Gurthang]

Originally posted by Neithan

So what about the Wizards' staff? Well this is a more difficult question and I have to resort to wild speculation in order to explain it.

I've been in a discussion about Gandalf's staff before. If you want to read it, it is this thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=494).

My thoughts on the wizard's staves is that they are merely tools. In themselves, they are really nothing special. But in the hand of a master (being a wizard), they can be used to more effectively administer magic. So if the staff is broken, it doesn't make the wizard less powerful, it just lessens his ability to transfer his power to the physical.

Originally posted by Neithan

Gandalf used magic against the Balrog after his staff was broken.

He still had the Ring of Fire. He could have used that in much the same way that he was using his staff. It gave him a way to turn his power into 'magic'.

Now, one thing that I think has been overlooked: Dragon magic. It is known that Dragons can cast spells with their eyes, simply by looking at a person and enchanting them. But where does that ability fall in with the other forms of magic that Neithan listed above?

The spell casting ability of Dragons is very unique, in that the casting is very physical (the Dragon has to actually look to enchant), but the effect is closer to an illusionary effect, meaning it effects the victim's minds. This is very strange. It seems completely backwards. With elves, wizards, and men, the casting is spiritual, and the result is physical. With Dragons, the casting bound to the physical, but the results are on a spiritual/mental level.

This creates a dilemma in the magic theory that we have created. I'd personally have to put Dragon magic in its own category. It seems closer to the 'true magic' that we think of than any of the other examples.

[Lyta_Underhill]

I ask forgiveness in advance, as I know this post wanders all over the place...
Tolkien, obviously, knew very well what a ‘spel’ was: a discourse or narrative told by someone. In the case of the magical spells “cast” by his characters, then, they are not doing anything ‘un’ or even ‘supernatural’ they are just telling particular kinds of stories or narratives.
I like your treatment of the word "spell" here, Fordim. It reminds me of the times I spent listening to my husband deliver lectures to students. He convinced them to enjoy learning, and many of his students were aghast after the fact that medieval literature could be so interesting and even relevant! In this way, he is a magician, since your average college freshman might not utter the terms "Freshman Composition" and "fun" in the same breath.
Just as the ‘magic’ that lies behind the Lorien cloaks or the One Ring are really just forms of ‘technology’ that we don’t understand, so too are the spells cast really just forms (or even dialects) of language that we don’t know. In effect, when Gandalf casts his spell on the door he is speaking a ‘stone-language’ and ‘convincing’ the door to remain shut. Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?" in reference to the palantir? It makes me wonder what kind of convincing the seeing stones are doing. Obviously they are touching the mind of the user himself, and ones such as Saruman and Denethor, who did not possess the deep art, fall prey to the dangers of "magic" within the Stone itself. And what of Sauron's seeming "mastery" of the Stone? I'd say it is nothing more than an amplification and transmission of his basic nature, and all he does through the Stone is in keeping with the blindness and malice of his black soul. One wonders what "spel" was possessed and used by Fëanor when he created the stones; Gandalf himself wonders at the possibility of using the stone to look back at the West and see Fëanor at work. He wonders at the initial nature of the stone and not at how it might be used for his own benefit, as do Saruman and Denethor. And the fact that Aragorn has a rightful claim to its use is interesting as well, as it must tie in to the "spel" laid upon the Stones when they were gifted to Elendil. Art deeper than we ourselves possess, indeed!
Neithan: But this doesn't explain how Saruman lost his powers when his staff was broken. It could be that the staff breaking was only a cover for what happened under the surface. But why would Saruman keep up the act of using a staff after becoming a traitor, and I don't think that there is any precedent for one Maiar taking away another's power. It is my conjecture that Gandalf spoke matter of factly when he says "Your staff is broken." The actual breaking simply reflects the state in which Saruman already finds himself. Saruman might have been maintaining an illusion with his voice and appearance for the benefit of Theoden and the assembled group, but Gandalf simply speaks a truth that uncovers a veil thrown rather feebly by Saruman, and the staff, which was, in fact, already broken, is now obviously broken to all who look upon it. Perhaps also, the staff is what we might call a "convincer." If the fearsome nature of a wizard brandishing his staff and uttering a "spel" is not convincing enough, he can use it to knock the unbeliever over the head! :D

Thanks also for the link to davem's illuminating post, Fordim!
from davem's post on the other thread: This is interesting, as it seems to show two kinds of magic at work - spell-casting, & the word of Command. It seems that casting spells is easier than speaking a word of Command. It appears the latter is reserved for extreme circumstances. Somehow this distinction makes perfect sense in many realms. It would, for instance, take a whole lot more energy to force a chemical reaction that was not thermodynamically favorable than it would be to bring one about that was possible and only needed a bit of a push to reach its proper delta S I think the term is (thermodynamics class was sometime in the 1980's...showing my age and creaky brain here...). Anyway, my point is that since nature and reality is large and tends toward one thing, the attempt to wrench it away from its natural state and turn it another way must be taxing indeed and carry with it many unforeseen and dire consequences. In yet another flight off the deep end, I have heard Wiccans tell of curses cast in order to bring an evil fate on another person. Such spells were said to rebound ten times upon the caster if they were not justified. I'd say this fate befell Sauron not only in the drowning of Numenor, but for once and all when his whole "Ring strategy" backfired spectacularly.

It all seems to tie in to being "with Nature" or "against Nature." I hope I've actually said something useful in this post, as it has been all over the place and for that, I apologize.

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?" in reference to the palantir? It makes me wonder what kind of convincing the seeing stones are doing. Obviously they are touching the mind of the user himself, and ones such as Saruman and Denethor, who did not possess the deep art, fall prey to the dangers of "magic" within the Stone itself.

Perhaps the 'art' to which Gandalf refers isncludes Osanwe (or should that be 'sanwe'?). Maybe the stones amplify the individual's innate ability to communicate by thought, but therein lies the danger of them - simply, by amplifying that ability they make the individual more vulnerable to a more powerful mind. The individual using a stone is 'stretching' himself, & in doing so making himself more open to anyone at the other end. Perhaps it is necessary to withold ones 'unwill' to a greater extent when using these 'amplifiers'?

Another question which occurs is whether such use would strengthen or actually weaken the individual's innate capacity for thought communication if used regularly. Maybe the use of such artificial means of communication caused the innate ability to atrophy, & perhaps this also lead to a weakening of the capacity for 'unwill'?

One could extend the idea - was the use of 'unnatural' magic (ie magic which has to be learned & mastered, rather than 'magical' abilities the individual is born with) equally 'weakening' for the individual. I'm thinking specifically of the Elves' use of their Rings - did they weaken their natural 'skills' by using these artificial means to power? At the very least one could say that such 'short cuts' made for 'long delays'.

I would conjecture that Gandalf is warning against the dangers of dependence on technology, on the 'Machine'. Easy access to power is seductive but eventually it corrupts - by weakening the individual if not by 'corrupting' them. The danger of any 'power' which is not in born is simply that - if its not innate then the ability to control it isn't innate either....

[Neithan]

Wasn't it Gandalf who said that it was dangerous to use an object whose art is "deeper than that which we possess ourselves?"
I had a somewhat simpler interpretation, Gandalf could be saying that if you don't know how it works then don't try to use it, good advice if you ask me.

As to "Dragon magic", I think that when Turin was "hypnotized" by the Dragon it was using "mind magic" (sanwe) which is one of the types I described.

The reason I didn't think that the staffs were merely tools, other than the fact that Saruman seemed to lose power when it was broken, was that the Ainur did not normally seem to need them. There is no mention of the Valar or Maiar using them other than the Istari. Also the Wizards seemed attached to one staff, Gandalf got a new one but that was after he came back as Gandalf the White so it only makes sense that he would get a new one. If they were just useful tools then Saruman probably would have gotten a new one as well. If someone can give a theory, other than my (seemingly far-fetched) one, that explains all of these things, then I would be more than happy to change my views.

[Lyta_Underhill]

Maybe the use of such artificial means of communication caused the innate ability to atrophy, & perhaps this also lead to a weakening of the capacity for 'unwill'? Resulting in the effect of opening the mind so much that the brains fall out...I think this is a state of mind I've been familiar with for most of my life. I have not read the HoME series with references to Osanwe, but your explanation seems logical, davem. One would have to open one's mind to focus on the "farther and farther away" as Saruman did, until his gaze fell upon Mordor, "and then he was caught."
Perhaps a good example of the difference in how the experienced and inexperienced view the "magic" of Osanwe could be related in the two instances:
Gandalf: "The Ring has now passed beyond my help, or the help of any of the Company that set out from Rivendell. Very nearly it was revealed to the Enemy, but it escaped. I had some part in that: for I sat in a high place, and I strove with the Dark Tower, and the Shadow passed."

Frodo : He heard himself crying out: Never, never! Or was it: Verily I come, I come to you? He could not tell. Then as a flash from some other point of power there came to his mind another thought: Take it off! Take it off! Fool, take it off! Take off the Ring!
The two powers strove in him. For a moment, perfectly balanced between their piercing points, he writhed, tormented. Suddenly he was aware of himself again. Frodo, neither the Voice nor the Eye: free to choose, and with one remaining instant in which to do so. He took the Ring off his finger. He was kneeling in clear sunlight before the high seat. A black shadow seemed to pass like an arm above him; it missed Amon Hen and groped out west, and faded. Then all the sky was clean and blue and birds sang in every tree.

In this same engagement with the Dark Lord, Gandalf relates his struggle and his direct action against Sauron, whereas Frodo seems to lose all awareness of himself and only comes back to it when he heeds the thought "Fool, take it off!"
Certainly without the help of the experienced Gandalf, Frodo might have been lost in this struggle--this art beyond his ken.
I'm thinking specifically of the Elves' use of their Rings - did they weaken their natural 'skills' by using these artificial means to power? At the very least one could say that such 'short cuts' made for 'long delays'.
It is interesting that these "short cuts" are what modern, "civilized" society appears to be all about. Gandalf did well to warn against the dangers of mechanisation, perhaps both in thought and in the material world. I mean, why leave Isengard if you can simply use the palantir and gaze where you will? Why engage in a long and hopeless battle with Mordor, when you can take the Ring and gain instant victory? It is a short cut of thought, a lazy way out of a situation, but only in the imagination. In reality, it would indeed make for more than just a long delay. I'm sure Boromir had no idea of just how he would have used the Ring, only that it was mighty and therefore must be obtained for Gondor. I can't help but wonder what Boromir would have done if the One Ring was a nuclear weapon...*snerk*

It has taken me way too long to post this (I think I've had this screen up for over an hour...), so I'll leave off. Better to leave what thoughts remain to simmer in the stew for awhile! (This is also due to the fact that I got pulled into reading the "Rings of Power and Osanwe-Kenta" thread...if only there were more time in the world!)

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. Speaking of "innate" as you did at the end of your post, davem, it is interesting to think of this in terms of the Ring's total lack of effect on Tom Bombadil. I tend to think he is the embodiment of "innate," as in "of nature." Thus Sauron's "art" is totally inconsequential when it comes up against the greater force of nature itself...just one of the stewing thoughts...bye now!

[Formendacil]

Here's a thought I had concerning the staffs of Gandalf and Saruman (and the other wizards).

Personally, I don't think that staffs were necessary to the working of Gandalf's (or any wizard's) magic. To me, this is proven by Gandalf's action against the Balrog, after the staff was broken. The staff might have been a useful tool to help disguise the user's power from ordinary men, and maybe it actually was some help in focussing the power. Who knows?

My idea is that the main purpose for the staff was as a symbol of each's wizard's commission as one of the Istari. Something like a rod of office (such as the stewards carried). The rod doesn't contain the steward's authority, it merely acts as a symbol of it. Thus, if a wizard loses his staff (or breaks it, whatever), it is sufficient to simply acquire a new one.

However, it is a very different case when Gandalf divests Saruman of his staff, and breaks it. Gandalf has been sent back as the new leader of the Istari. He is now Saruman's superior. Just as ceremonially taking back of the rod from Faramir divested him of his power as steward, so too did Gandalf's taking of Saruman's staff rob him of his power as one of the Istari.

Anyways, that's the thought I had. Take it or leave it as you see fit.

[Neithan]

I have just figured it out. Saruman was in the beginning already weaker than Gandalf, but he showed forth more power whereas Gandalf was more modest. Saruman had spent much of his strength in creating the Uruk Hai when he had little to spare. Therefore he was already greatly weakened when he had his confrontation with Gandalf. Whatever role the staff played; whether it was only a tool or if Saruman had put some of his power into it; Saruman had become all but useless without it because of his weakened state. I am assuming that it was not simple to obtain a replacement staff, probably the wizard had to expend some power, which Saruman no longer had. Wow, the answer has been staring me in the face and I didn't see it till now.

This being said, there is more to discuss here than staves. What about the other points I made? Do you agree? Does anyone have anything to add?

[Nukapei]

Great theory, but everyone keeps forgetting, Sauron created the Uruk-hai, not Saruman!

[Neithan]

Whatever, the point is that Saruman's power had been dissipated into his servants, regardless of who invented them.

[Mithalwen]

bump!

[aiea]

Quote:
I am afraid I have been far too casual about 'magic' and especially the use of the word; though Galadriel and other show by the criticism of the 'mortal' use of the word, that the thought about it is not altogether casual. But it is a v. large question, and difficult; and a story which, as you so rightly say, is largely about motives (choice, temptations etc.) and the intentions for using whatever is found in the world, could hardly be burdened with a psuedo-philosophic disquisition! I do not intend to involve myself in any debate whether 'magic' in any sense is real or really possible in the world. But I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia. Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy.' Well enough, but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives. The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operations are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate. Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life.'

Both sides live mainly by 'ordinary' means. The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' - with destructive and evil effects - because 'magicians,' who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so (do do so).
But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological: the tyrant lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them.

Letter #155 (draft letter to Naomi Mitchison)


Traditionally, I believe, the terms magia and goeteia are used to distinguish between "Angelic magic" on the one hand and "Demonic magic" on the other. It appears from this passage, however, that Tolkien is using them to distinguish between that magic which affects the world physically, and that which does not but which is merely illusionary.
I don't think you missed the most important part :cool:
The major difference it is
Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives-
and

The basic motive for magia is immediacy---reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect.

And then there is the contradiction on se because:
a magia, producing real results --- for specific beneficent purposes.

But who decide what is beneficent ?
"Own power" doesn't mean automatically evil... it is more dangerous when people believe they yet know what is beneficent for others...
So magia it is obtain in the most effective way a desired result... And it has to do with time.
I f i wish fruits i can force the tree results with some kind of magic fertilizer , hormones and my aim could be a very beneficial for others too (there is hungry people).
For other fruit eaters not for the tree !
And this fruit shall loose some natural magic force that is its "consonance" ,Harmony with the Whole.
But the real consonance with eternity with the whole is to do nothing !
The first magic was cast with the command word "EA"and it caused clash between forces,but it has inside the Will of Iluvatar that is Light, Good.,Love..
Every time one tries to do something one could to do with his personal,individual, exclusive way the will of Iluvatar.
The bigger the purpose the bigger the magic to made it effective. But Good and Evil are very dangerous labels.

The magic knowledge to did the 3 elven rings it is the same that did the One.
To preserve is a way to rule.
The little prince put the rose,"its "rose under a crystal bell to preserve it from winds and worms, but she asked to take off it because she shall die without rain...
But sparingly, for a short term it was a right magic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mirror of Galadriel and Palantirs.
You don't know what they show you.
It is all true, in the field of possibility.
But you have a strong Faith and Hope and Mission to look at it.
Denethor(no hope) and Saruman (no Faith) have seen that all the tentative to block Sauron militar forces shall be vain.
So to ally with him to try to preserve (Order (other 2 term than now i not remember) the new world or fall in desperation it is a "True" vision.
To hurry up to help Home is the right decision for Sam Gamgee if he not see all the context.
Revelation is always a shock to whom we seldom are ready!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 7 rings worked very alike the 3. It shorten the the idea or desire and the result or effect. But for a man preserve himself means become a wraith. And to exercise power means be subject to a Real power.
The One (ring)is the imperfect image of the One (Eru)...
How a man could imagine Absolute Power without surrender to him ? So he needs
a surrogate, an Idol. And that works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The wizard staff
A symbol of the forces that they mastered in themselves:but a material symbol so them could use that kind of energies) believe that they had 5 different stones on them)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There were not just the 20 rings,but many lesser rings.
Gandalf believed Bilbo ring for a minor one . These could give invisibility so them always worked with Light...

[blantyr]

Interesting thread.

There seems to be a working definition of the word ‘magic’ here, meaning something that is not understood. I feel a need to distinguish between something that can be explained by ordinary skills and physics and something where the mind through an act of will suspends the normal rules of physics. ‘Spell craft’ might not be the ideal choice of wording, but for sake of clarity I’ll use it rather than argue about the definition of ‘magic.’

Now, a good deal of what goes on in Tolkien’s fiction might well be explained by physics and skill without the need to say some sort of spell craft or spell craftsmanship is present. Lembas might be nutritious, tasteful and long lasting due to ingredients and recipe. The elven boats given the Fellowship might just be well ballasted with well designed hull curves and solid construction. The cloaks might just be carefully woven and dyed just the right color. When Gandalf lit the fire in the mountain pass above Moria, he might have had a little lighting fluid and a piece of flint at the bottom of his staff. When Gandalf rescued Faramir on the Pelennor Fields, he might have been using a laser pistol that he carries for special occasions. A lot of stuff might be attributed to physics and technology rather than spell craft.

My personal choice in reading Tolkien is to embrace the spell craft. I think we can agree that the laser pistol conjecture is absurd? I like that the spell craft and craftsmanship of Middle Earth is generally subtle, that it might not be noticed if you aren’t looking, that even if you are looking it might not be certain that it is there. Still, when reading the books, when Gandalf says ‘You shall not pass!’ or Aragorn speaks a prophecy, the hair on the back of one’s neck ought to tickle a bit. I for one wouldn’t find it as much fun to read the books assuming no sort of spell craft is present.

At the same time, I think Saruman knew how to make and use gunpowder. Especially as he was not present at Helm’s Deep, I’d think that the explosions were physics rather than spell craft. Still, I’m not sure. It is quite possible that we might never be sure. I can applaud Tolkien’s ability to be ambiguous, to make one wonder, or to allow each reader to jump to the conclusion he is most comfortable with. This might be said to be a good thing. At the same time, it makes it unlikely that this thread and similar threads are likely to come to a firm rigid conclusion with all questions answered.

I might also distinguish between a need to have firm rules and well understood definitions of spell craft in a role playing game while it is quite possible to leave things ambiguous in a novel. I’m currently involved in a role playing game with reasonably well defined rules regarding spells. The author of said rules and the game master running our game had to provide answers to a lot of the questions raised in this thread. Still, I doubt very much that they could defend all of their answers in an adversarial debate. It seems appropriate, if one is to use spell craft in a role playing game, that players understand what they can and cannot do with their spells. Rigid and fixed rules seem advisable, though the dice often add a degree of uncertainty.

For an author of fiction, especially when one is portraying subtle Tolkienesque spell craft, rigid fixed predictable rules might make things too mechanical, lessen the sense of wonder, or distract the reader into the mechanics of the spell rather than the characters or the story. An author can be more ambiguous than a game master. He doesn’t have to prove he has dotted each I and crossed each T. Still, an author has to be consistent enough not to turn off the reader. One must maintain suspension of disbelief.

I might come back and say I agree with this person’s spin, and can quibble with that person’s. Lots of interesting observations and conjectures in this thread.

[Morthoron]

My personal choice in reading Tolkien is to embrace the spell craft. I think we can agree that the laser pistol conjecture is absurd? I like that the spell craft and craftsmanship of Middle Earth is generally subtle, that it might not be noticed if you aren’t looking, that even if you are looking it might not be certain that it is there. Still, when reading the books, when Gandalf says ‘You shall not pass!’ or Aragorn speaks a prophecy, the hair on the back of one’s neck ought to tickle a bit. I for one wouldn’t find it as much fun to read the books assuming no sort of spell craft is present....

I might also distinguish between a need to have firm rules and well understood definitions of spell craft in a role playing game while it is quite possible to leave things ambiguous in a novel. I’m currently involved in a role playing game with reasonably well defined rules regarding spells. The author of said rules and the game master running our game had to provide answers to a lot of the questions raised in this thread. Still, I doubt very much that they could defend all of their answers in an adversarial debate. It seems appropriate, if one is to use spell craft in a role playing game, that players understand what they can and cannot do with their spells. Rigid and fixed rules seem advisable, though the dice often add a degree of uncertainty.

For an author of fiction, especially when one is portraying subtle Tolkienesque spell craft, rigid fixed predictable rules might make things too mechanical, lessen the sense of wonder, or distract the reader into the mechanics of the spell rather than the characters or the story. An author can be more ambiguous than a game master. He doesn’t have to prove he has dotted each I and crossed each T. Still, an author has to be consistent enough not to turn off the reader. One must maintain suspension of disbelief.

I would be wary of using the term "spell craft" in a Tolkienic sense, because the majority of what goes for "magic" in Middle-earth is based on inherent ability, and not on spells. This is the reason Galadriel was so amused at Sam's gushing over the word "magic", and why Gandalf makes the snide comment to Bilbo regarding "cheap parlor tricks". In Middle-earth, either you have sub-creative ability or you don't - which is why Tolkien is adamant when referring to Hobbits as having no magic.

This has always been the reason I have cordially despised Middle-earth based games. The amount of levelling required to even out different races in regards to inherent abilities (or lack thereof) renders the games unbelievable from a canonic sense, and the ultimately rare imbued objects are suddenly as common as copper pennies.

[Kuruharan]

This has always been the reason I have cordially despised Middle-earth based games. The amount of levelling required to even out different races in regards to inherent abilities (or lack thereof) renders the games unbelievable from a canonic sense, and the ultimately rare imbued objects are suddenly as common as copper pennies.

Sadly I completely agree with this. The best way to deal with that problem would be to not include "magic" in a Middle earth game at all. Elven magic, for example, was not really of a combative nature anyway.

As blantyr said, magic in Middle earth was almost always subtle.

It was so subtle that those lacking in subcreative ability would frequently go without realizing it and when they did see it they completely misunderstood it.

[Aiwendil]

Especially as he was not present at Helm’s Deep, I’d think that the explosions were physics rather than spell craft.

Can you really draw a distinction, sharp or otherwise, between the two? It seems to me that, in a world where magic exists, magic is physics. That is, the physics of such a world, which must be very different from that of ours, includes the magic.

I might also distinguish between a need to have firm rules and well understood definitions of spell craft in a role playing game while it is quite possible to leave things ambiguous in a novel.

I don't know if I would say that Tolkien's magic does not have firm rules. It seems to me, rather, that the difference between RPG magic and Tolkien's magic is (besides the generally less subtle nature of the former) is that the rules of magic in an RPG are, by necessity, explicit, whereas the rules of magic in a literary world like Middle-earth can remain as vaguely defined as the author likes. That doesn't mean that magic doesn't follow definite rules in Middle-earth; it just means that we don't know them.

This has always been the reason I have cordially despised Middle-earth based games. The amount of levelling required to even out different races in regards to inherent abilities (or lack thereof) renders the games unbelievable from a canonic sense, and the ultimately rare imbued objects are suddenly as common as copper pennies.

I agree with you for the most part, but I don't think a Middle-earth based game must necessarily go to those non-canonical extremes. I ran a Middle-earth game once using modified Dungeons and Dragons rules and, while I wouldn't say it was completely succesful, I do think I managed to avoid un-Tolkienian excesses of magic.

[Galadriel55]

This has always been the reason I have cordially despised Middle-earth based games. The amount of levelling required to even out different races in regards to inherent abilities (or lack thereof) renders the games unbelievable from a canonic sense, and the ultimately rare imbued objects are suddenly as common as copper pennies.

Sadly I completely agree with this. The best way to deal with that problem would be to not include "magic" in a Middle earth game at all. Elven magic, for example, was not really of a combative nature anyway.

This is why I like the RP section on the Downs - we stay canonical.

It was so subtle that those lacking in subcreative ability would infrequently go without realizing it and when they did see it they completely misunderstood it.

Yup, like Boromir in Lothlorien.

[blantyr]

I would be wary of using the term "spell craft" in a Tolkienic sense, because the majority of what goes for "magic" in Middle-earth is based on inherent ability, and not on spells. This is the reason Galadriel was so amused at Sam's gushing over the word "magic", and why Gandalf makes the snide comment to Bilbo regarding "cheap parlor tricks". In Middle-earth, either you have sub-creative ability or you don't - which is why Tolkien is adamant when referring to Hobbits as having no magic.

This has always been the reason I have cordially despised Middle-earth based games. The amount of leveling required to even out different races in regards to inherent abilities (or lack thereof) renders the games unbelievable from a canonic sense, and the ultimately rare imbued objects are suddenly as common as copper pennies.

I'm open to other words or phrases than "spell craft". I'm just using it on this thread as 'magic' has been defined as something that one doesn't understand. It does seem possible to quibble your opinion on spells. I'll just repeat Neithan's quote from The Fellowship of the Ring...

Gimli took his arm & helped him down to a seat on the step. 'What happened away up there at the door?' he asked. 'Did you meet the beater of drums?'

'I do not know,' answered Gandalf. 'But I found myself faced by something that I have not met before.I could think of nothing to do but to try & put a shutting spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly takes time, & even then the door can be broken by strength...

Then something came into the chamber- I felt it through the door, & the orcs themselves were afraid & fell silent.It laid hold of the iron ring, & then it perceived me & my spell.

What it was I cannot guess, but I have never felt such a challenge.The counter spell was terrible. It nearly broke me. For an instant the door left my control & began to open.I had to speak a word of Command. That proved too great a strain. The door broke in pieces.'

I am dubious about taking one quote out of this book or that and saying that quote settles an issue. There are too many quotes that can support too many opinions. Still, it seem possible to say that Gandalf uses spell craft. Of course, Gandalf isn't typical. While in general the magic of Middle Earth is subtle to the point that one might not notice it or be able to prove it, Gandalf is one of a few beings who can be rather overt and blatant on occasion.

In the game I'm currently playing, elves practice 'the Art' as opposed to 'sorcery' which is practiced by others. Elves have an intuitive and almost casual attitude towards the Art, while humans need to study lore or receive instruction to learn spells. I'm a bit dubious about this. In the books I haven't seen humans studying lore or apprenticing to more experienced individuals to learn spells.

What is more important in a role playing environment is that the players buy into what the author of the rules said, as modified by the game master. Some players will have very specific ideas on how Middle Earth spell craft works, and will not enjoy a game inconsistent with their ideas. I think Tolkien was subtle and mysterious enough about his magic that there is all sorts of room for varying opinion. If one cannot let go of one's own ideas, if one must have it just so to have fun, one isn't going to have fun. I am reasonably content with how the game I'm in has played to date.

The problems mentioned above are real, but not in my experience unsurmountable. In our rule system, various races do get extra skills and abilities. If one comes from Rohan, one gets bonuses with various horse related skills. If one is an elf, one gets more bonuses than any other race. On the other hand, the two players running elves in our game tried to play well rounded woods crafty elves. One has only so many points available to buy skills. By the time one buys tracking, climb (trees), acrobatics (tightrope walking) and many other exotic seldom used abilities one might expect of elves, one hasn't a lot of points left to by combat skills. The two over powered characters in our game are a dwarf and a hobbit. The players put every possible point into combat skills, and thus dominate fight scenes. This is a problem, but is due to the character creation system, not the nature of Tolkien's world.

The way 'the Art' of the elves works in our game, one also doesn't get much of an advantage in dominating others. While Goldie might boost healing or subdue somewhat the corrupting influence of The Enemy, she isn't throwing lightning bolts or anything at all of that nature. She preserves. She does not dominate.

Also, our game master is being very stingy with spell crafted items and cash. Bilbo's fellowship, after defeating some trolls, picked up Glamdring, Orcrist, and Sting. Frodo's group, after meeting a wight on the Barrow Downs, had enhanced weapons all around. Both had liberal amounts of gold for the taking. Our game master is going non-canon. Rare imbued objects and piles of gold are far more rare than book. Heck, when we meet ruffians coming up the Greenway, they often wield clubs rather than swords. The game master doesn't want us getting rich selling poor quality rusty swords taken off ruffians. (There is a glut on the market of rusty swords in our version of Bree.)

A lot of players more interested in glory, wealth and combat than duplicating the feel of Middle Earth wouldn't want to play in our game. It might be very hard to get together a group of players that interpret and respect Tolkien in a similar enough way to have fun. Our game system is also designed specifically for Middle Earth. We're not trying to turn GURPS into MERPS with a few edits.

Anyway, I've been having fun for three years. Middle Earth is by no means the easiest environment to role play. One needs to find devoted fans willing to buy into the rule creator's and game master's interpretation. It is possible. I'm not sure I'd recommend that everyone try it, but I don't think one should despise honest efforts.

[Morthoron]

I'm open to other words or phrases than "spell craft". I'm just using it on this thread as 'magic' has been defined as something that one doesn't understand. It does seem possible to quibble your opinion on spells. I'll just repeat Neithan's quote from The Fellowship of the Ring...

I am dubious about taking one quote out of this book or that and saying that quote settles an issue. There are too many quotes that can support too many opinions. Still, it seem possible to say that Gandalf uses spell craft. Of course, Gandalf isn't typical. While in general the magic of Middle Earth is subtle to the point that one might not notice it or be able to prove it, Gandalf is one of a few beings who can be rather overt and blatant on occasion.

In the game I'm currently playing, elves practice 'the Art' as opposed to 'sorcery' which is practiced by others. Elves have an intuitive and almost casual attitude towards the Art, while humans need to study lore or receive instruction to learn spells. I'm a bit dubious about this. In the books I haven't seen humans studying lore or apprenticing to more experienced individuals to learn spells.

When referring to "spell craft" I was referring to the efficacy of spells administered by races that are, according to Tolkien, not magic or lacking in sub-creative powers. In the description you provided, Gandalf, a Maia and a member of the Istari, is matching force with a Balrog, another Maia. Inherently, they have such power, as they are of the Ainur; however, this shutting spell is not something that could be taught to a Hobbit, for instance.

In regards to Elves, I would suggest that the subcreative arts are hierarchical, and those most blessed are those Elves who have seen the light of Aman (such as the Noldor). In some cases, the Eldar, or at least those born in Cuiviénen (like Eöl) also exhibit a propensity for subcreaction. This does not necessarily extend to all Elves, or at least the likelihood is that they have considerably less abilities than the Noldor.

In regards to humans, I would say that the Numenoreans, and the line of kings in particular (down to the Dunedain kings such as Aragorn) have exhibited such innate power, particularly in healing and levelling curses, and this may be why Tolkien referred to the Mouth of Sauron as a Black Numenorean, even though that line had been expended several centuries previous to the War of the Ring. Men for the most part, do not exhibit magical propensities.

Dwarves have seeming lost whatever subcreative power they had prior to the War of the Ring (as lamented by both Thorin and Gimli in separate instances).

[blantyr]

In regards to Elves, I would suggest that the subcreative arts are hierarchical...

All of the above is reasonable.

The author of our rules suggests that orcs and wild men might have shaman. He suggests there might be secret societies in the south and east around Umbar that teach some poor and corrupt variation of wizardry, that the Black Numenarian tradition might not have entirely died out. I won't assert that such allegations are canon. Our game master hasn't used spell casters among the enemy yet, and I won't object if he never does.

[blantyr]

Can you really draw a distinction, sharp or otherwise, between the two? (Spell craft and physics.) It seems to me that, in a world where magic exists, magic is physics. That is, the physics of such a world, which must be very different from that of ours, includes the magic.

The above is a plausible definition of 'physics.' If you were to insist upon it, I might have to define a phrase such as 'mundane physics' so that I can legitimately discuss what is and what is not mag... spell craft. I really prefer to avoid Humpty Dumpy redefinitions of words (http://www.wordspy.com/words/HumptyDumptylanguage.asp), or extended discussions of what a word should properly mean. Thus, if someone questions my use of a word, I'll use a phrase in place of the word to make it clearer what I intend to say. Thus, I'm using 'spell craft' in instead of 'magic' to avoid an unusual definition of 'magic', only to have someone challenge my use of the term 'spell craft.'

I'd prefer not to get carried away with this sort of thing.

I don't know if I would say that Tolkien's magic does not have firm rules. It seems to me, rather, that the difference between RPG magic and Tolkien's magic is (besides the generally less subtle nature of the former) is that the rules of magic in an RPG are, by necessity, explicit, whereas the rules of magic in a literary world like Middle-earth can remain as vaguely defined as the author likes. That doesn't mean that magic doesn't follow definite rules in Middle-earth; it just means that we don't know them.

I'd agree with the above. I was attempting to make this point. I'd tend to believe Tolkien had a pretty good idea of how things worked, but didn't let the fetters of consistency get too much in the way of telling a good story. Thus, I can read a Gandalf quote where he talks about spells while still respecting opinions that Middle Earth 'magic' often might not be spell based.

[blantyr]

Sadly I completely agree with this. The best way to deal with that problem would be to not include "magic" in a Middle earth game at all. Elven magic, for example, was not really of a combative nature anyway.

As blantyr said, magic in Middle earth was almost always subtle.

It was so subtle that those lacking in subcreative ability would frequently go without realizing it and when they did see it they completely misunderstood it.

This is why I like the RP section on the Downs - we stay canonical..

There is a difference between magic being subtle and magic being nonexistent. In an open gaming format such as the Barrow-Downs inn games, I can entirely understand and agree with a decision to play Tolkien without magic. At the same time, it seems plausible to argue that Tolkien without magic isn't Tolkien. An elf without the Art isn't really an elf. Such certainly wouldn't be canonical Tolkien.

Before bringing Goldie to the Golden Perch, I sat back and tried to remember a single instance of her using spell craft in an inn in her original game. I couldn't think of one. I then tried to think of how she might plausibly want to use spell craft in a mixed race inn that the mortals might conceivably notice. I convinced myself, almost, that a lack of magic didn't truly didn't matter. Almost.

With all due reflection, playing Goldie without magic wouldn't be as bad as playing Goldie without fully opaque clothing. Both seem wrong at a basic and fundamental level, even if no one is likely to notice. And yet, given a healthy disagreement here on what 'canonical' Tolkien magic might be like, it might be for the best that no one should try to role play out the varied honest and deeply held ideas.

[Pitchwife]

The author of our rules suggests that orcs and wild men might have shaman. He suggests there might be secret societies in the south and east around Umbar that teach some poor and corrupt variation of wizardry, that the Black Numenarian tradition might not have entirely died out. I won't assert that such allegations are canon. Our game master hasn't used spell casters among the enemy yet, and I won't object if he never does.
Adding to that Tolkien's speculation that the Blue Wizards may have failed and become "founders or beginners of secret cults and 'magic' traditions" (quoted in Note 3 to The Istari in UT), and bearing in mind that Men, as Morth has noted, seem to exhibit little or no innate magical abilities, it seems plausible to me that the only Men to use spellcraft (meaning magic based on learnable and teachable spells) would be those influenced by the Shadow or misled by other fallen Maiar - i.e. 'the enemy'.

There is a difference between magic being subtle and magic being nonexistent. In an open gaming format such as the Barrow-Downs inn games, I can entirely understand and agree with a decision to play Tolkien without magic. At the same time, it seems plausible to argue that Tolkien without magic isn't Tolkien. An elf without the Art isn't really an elf. Such certainly wouldn't be canonical Tolkien.
D'accord, but as you note yourself, it's difficult to think of a situation where magic might be plausibly used in an inn setting. You could heal a cook's burnt fingers, or sing a song to appease two brawling drunkards, but both situations can be dealt with just as easily without resorting to magic.
But the inns aren't the whole of BD role-playing. There have been and will be games where magic can play a part.

With all due reflection, playing Goldie without magic wouldn't be as bad as playing Goldie without fully opaque clothing.
*points to your avatar:p*

[Morthoron]

Adding to that Tolkien's speculation that the Blue Wizards may have failed and become "founders or beginners of secret cults and 'magic' traditions" (quoted in Note 3 to The Istari in UT), and bearing in mind that Men, as Morth has noted, seem to exhibit little or no innate magical abilities, it seems plausible to me that the only Men to use spellcraft (meaning magic based on learnable and teachable spells) would be those influenced by the Shadow or misled by other fallen Maiar - i.e. 'the enemy'.

That may well be true, Pitch, but a "magic tradition", like skaldic or shamanistic rituals, does not necessarily mean actual magic has been performed. The evil eye, curses, love philters, voodoo and putting a hex on the neighbor's cow are all part of real-world superstition. And none amount to a hill of beans.

I am reminded of the part in The Hobbit where the Dwarves and Bilbo bury their ill-gotten gold and the Dwarves put all sorts of spells on their hidden treasure. Was it effective or merely mumbo-jumbo from members of a race who had lost whatever subcreative power they had sometime after Narvi crafted the doors of Moria.

[Galadriel55]

Blantyr - Yes, you're right that Tolkien without magic isn't Tolkien, and Elves aren't Elves. However, I'd say that most of the time their magic just radiates from them without them preforming anything. For example, Gildor didn't do anything noticably magical, but the Hobbits felt it.

Sometimes their magic is more evident to a reader (like flooding the Bruinen or Galadriel's mirror. Or even Legolas' ability to sleep on the run). But the day-to-day magic is, as as said before, subtle. You don't necessarily notice it, but it's there.

And talking about RPing in an inn, to emphasize the magic, other characters have to react to it. Like Al reacted to Elin - even though she is only a woman of Gondor (but they are also noted to have this radiating something).

[Nerwen]

Pitch and Morth– I'm actually going to have to agree with he of the naked avatar here:
I am dubious about taking one quote out of this book or that and saying that quote settles an issue. There are too many quotes that can support too many opinions.
In other words, beware the Tolkien Trap, hmmn?;)

blantyr, your skill at introducing the subject of "Ambarquenta" and your character Goldie into any given thread is truly a wonder to behold. However, I cannot help thinking that it would be much simpler and less confusing to everyone else if you were to make a specific "Ambarquenta" thread and just discuss the game there.

How about it?:)

[Eönwë]

In regards to non-Elvish humans having a lack of "innate power" or ability, I feel obligated to bring up the Drúedain.

In response to the actual discussion, I'd say 'magic' in Middle-Earth is more of a combination of innate power and skill/fulfilment of the innate ability.

As an example, the Noldor seem to have an innate propensity towards crafting and creating objects of beauty. However, under the tutelage of Aulë, Fëanor can create the Silmarils, and as such is counted as the greatest craftsman of all time. He is naturally high in the hierarchy of the Noldor, which generally seems to suggest more innate ability (whether it is this that makes them the rulers or the other way around I'm not sure), it is only under the skill and experience of the Valar that Fëanor reach the pinnacle of Elvish craftsmanship. And so I'd say that you need both the natural born ability as well as the learning of the craft to create 'magic' of some sort. Celembrimbor was skilled, but it was only with the knowledge that Sauron gave him that he could create the rings of power. It's not that he wasn't capable of it, it's just that he didn't know how.

Of course, if you look at the Teleri, it's clearer- those that went closer to the West are more influenced by the Valar, and so have greater ability. And sometimes it seems that it is not even knowledge, but just the "light of the two trees" and being among the Valinorean Ainur that increases the 'magical abilities' of the character, and I suppose this just counts as a 'positive side effect' of being in or nearer to Valinor. However, I'd suggest that it follows the same principles, and that a human who goes to Valinor will never be as 'magical' as an Elf who goes to Valinor, just because of their nature- the Elves are tied to Arda, and so can manipulate it and are more 'in-tune' with it, while the humans are more distant, and so rely on their own ingenuity. And often this involves being at discord with nature, for example factories/industry, which mirrors the similar attributes of the schemes of the great discordants, Melkor and all those who followed him (even indirectly, like Saruman). And I think this is what separates it from 'magic'. Magic is more the manipulation of nature in accordance with nature and the Music, while technology is the manipulation of nature while going against its natural state.

I'd say that for the Valar and Maiar, their power is almost totally innate, as they created Eä, and so understand it at the fundamental level. This also means, however, that they can go against it at this level, as in the case of Melkor. Elves are quite in touch with the earth, but obviously, they are still not truly eternal like the Ainur (they get born etc.), and so naturally have to grow up, and don't just have their full 'magical' capability from birth. And going to Valinor helps. Humankind doesn't generally have that much natural power other than the "ordinary everyday sort" (what he says about Hobbits, which count as a type of human). Obviously, they have the Gift, and so can die and are possibly able to have more free will, but I don't know if that counts as magic. Or maybe that's actually what means that they have less magic, as they are less connected to the world (as I mentioned in the previous paragraph). And remember, Denethor doesn't have much Elf in him at all, but he can still control the Palantír. And as SpM said, the Shire has its own sort of peaceful, good magic, and its inhabitants are quite close to nature.

So, in summary, you need to have the innate ability to perform magic (which everyone in Middle-Earth seems to have to certain extent, and with a certain style), but you also need to learn (either through being taught or by yourself, the hard way) how to use it to its full potential. It also related to how close you are to nature, which could explain why someone like Tom Bombadil (who is very linked to nature), is so powerful.

[Pitchwife]

That may well be true, Pitch, but a "magic tradition", like skaldic or shamanistic rituals, does not necessarily mean actual magic has been performed. The evil eye, curses, love philters, voodoo and putting a hex on the neighbor's cow are all part of real-world superstition. And none amount to a hill of beans.
OK, that's a point, but in a world populated by elves, dragons, walking trees and other beings and powers disbelieved in by the likes of Ted Sandyman, there's not that much I'd readily shrug off as superstition.

Sometimes their magic is more evident to a reader (like flooding the Bruinen or Galadriel's mirror. Or even Legolas' ability to sleep on the run). But the day-to-day magic is, as as said before, subtle. You don't necessarily notice it, but it's there.
Unless I completely misunderstood him, isn't that just what blantyr himself has been saying for a while?

blantyr, your skill at introducing the subject of "Ambarquenta" and your character Goldie into any given thread is truly a wonder to behold.
Quoted for truth. I appreciate your personal angle, blantyr, and I think it can shed an interesting light on some topics, but having Goldie all over the place all the time might become a little tedious after a while.

Eönwë - shame on me, I quite forgot the Drúedain! Their art of creating watchstones seems to combine all three of the factors you've named - innate power, craft and closeness to nature. That's a very nice 3D coordinate system in which to locate the various kinds of magic practiced by the peoples of Middle-earth.

[blantyr]

Blantyr - Yes, you're right that Tolkien without magic isn't Tolkien, and Elves aren't Elves. However, I'd say that most of the time their magic just radiates from them without them preforming anything. For example, Gildor didn't do anything noticeably magical, but the Hobbits felt it.

Sometimes their magic is more evident to a reader (like flooding the Bruinen or Galadriel's mirror. Or even Legolas' ability to sleep on the run). But the day-to-day magic is, as as said before, subtle. You don't necessarily notice it, but it's there.

And talking about RPing in an inn, to emphasize the magic, other characters have to react to it. Like Al reacted to Elin - even though she is only a woman of Gondor (but they are also noted to have this radiating something).

Unless I completely misunderstood him, isn't that just what blantyr himself has been saying for a while?

Just so. I do believe there is a great deal of quiet magic which will pass for the most part unnoticed. Then again, not all of it is subtle. The flooding of the Bruinen and Gladriel's mirror aren't really subtle, I think. One knows something is going on.

Such overt magic and the folk that can wield would be rare? Galadriel, Gandalf, the other Istari, Eldrond, Sauron, the Nazgul, barrow wights, Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel… There are a relatively small number of folk that might be fairly blatant in doing things fairly overt. There are likely others that didn't appear in the books, but not a lot. Morthoron suggested a hierarchy of those with more magic than others. I'm entirely with him there.

And talking about RPing in an inn, to emphasize the magic, other characters have to react to it. Like Al reacted to Elin - even though she is only a woman of Gondor (but they are also noted to have this radiating something).

I might quibble this. I can well believe that a Gondorian woman with fairly pure Numenarian blood might well have gifts. They would have a place in Morthoron's hierarchy of those who might use Art. I am less sure that all Gondorian women should radiate sufficient power that a hobbit should pick up on it. I can well believe that if someone uses magic, another person nearby that can use magic might well notice. I would be doubtful that someone who uses no magic can sense someone who isn't currently using magic.

I could well believe the Elin has spent enough time at various southern courts to walk with an elegant posture and speak with a refined accent, if that is her defined background. Al might easily notice this and respond. Still, Aragorn would have at least as strong gifts such as prophecy and healing as Elin, and he can pass unnoticed. Not everyone picks up that Aragorn has gifts.

But I don't know any of the above is canon. I'm open to quotes and counter examples.

Speaking for myself, I don't know that magic has to be noticed in a role playing game. Quite the contrary. In most Middle Earth RPGs the player characters will not be in the same class as Gandalf or the Nazgul. Anything players would be doing would be subtle, might well not be noticed unless one is knowledgable and looking for it.

For example, should there be a brawl at an inn, should the brawlers be injured, a nameless elven minstrel might afterwards quietly sing a song to Este. If one didn't understand the Sindarin lyrics, and didn't know that Este has an aspect of healing, they might give all the credit for rapid recovery to the hobbit healer who comes in with aloe and bandages. As it would be impossible for such a minstrel to prove she deserves any credit for the healing, it might be prudent and wise not to claim any credit.

In my off line game, one of the games within the game is to practice magic without any of the other players noticing. As my character is the closest we have to a magic user, no one other than myself and the game master has paid much attention to the magic rules. Thus, we do quiet little stuff, entirely within the rules, and nobody else might notice or comment on it. This is certainly not be the only way to role play Tolkien magic, but doing it that way keeps me amused and no one gets jealous of the magic using elf.

OK, that's a point, but in a world populated by elves, dragons, walking trees and other beings and powers disbelieved in by the likes of Ted Sandyman, there's not that much I'd readily shrug off as superstition.

I tend to agree. Again, I like Morthoron's hierarchy of who might use Art and how much power individuals might have. It is not clear to me that there aren't weaker individuals lower on Morthoron's hierarchy doing very small stuff. However, you don't see examples of shaman or wise women using minor spells in the books. It might be plausible to say if one doesn't have at least X amount of Numenarian or elven blood, that there should be no magic use.

I for one would prefer a softer border with more weak mages causing small effects, but this is personal taste not canon.

Quoted for truth. I appreciate your personal angle, blantyr, and I think it can shed an interesting light on some topics, but having Goldie all over the place all the time might become a little tedious after a while.

Acknowledged. I'll try to back off of it some, but sometimes it illustrates the point under discussion.

[Galadriel55]

Unless I completely misunderstood him, isn't that just what blantyr himself has been saying for a while?

Yes, but the way I understood blantyr's posts is that Elves, Numenorians, etc have to do something in order to radiate subtle magic. They don't. It just happens that way.

Not everyone picks up that Aragorn has gifts.

Which is because they don't look for these gifts. They might still sense them, but not understand what they are feeling. It's true, however, that Aragorn often chooses to hide his gifts (mark the words - chooses to hide, not chooses to display; they are there all the time).

Other characters who are not as high as Aragorn also have a similar effect on people. The first one tht comes to mind is Faramir. Imrahil brought cheer to warriors during the siege of Gondor, - well, he has Elvish blood in him, but he's not an Elf. Eowyn gave courage to Merry, but that strength was only revealed in action.

I tend to pay special attention to looks. When people look at each other's faces, there always seems to be something happening. There are too many instances to describe all of them, but here are some notable ones:

-Melian: with her gaze she does wonders. She communicates more with her eyes than with her mouth. Examples: gave confidence to Beren and "awoke" Hurin/told him the truth.

-Arwen looked at Frodo as he and Bilbo left the room, a moment that Frodo remembered for the rest of his life.

-Aragorn: when he looked up, the Breelanders would stop taunting him and the hobbits. There are other instances throughout LOTR.

-Gandalf vs Denethor "duel"

-Faramir: I don't know where to begin. Multiple times with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum (note: Pippin and Sam feel 'something' about him). Heals Eowyn from her darkness and, well, opens her eyes.

-Eowyn:

...One looked up glancing keenly at the hobbit. A young man, Merry thought as he returned the glance, less in height and grith than most. He caught the glint of clear gray eyes; and then he shivered, for it came suddenly to him that it was the face of one without hope who goes in search of death

(Eowyn is already dressed as Dernhelm)

And also what I already mentioned - how she gave Merry the courage to stab the WIKI without knowing it.


Even hobbits have this. There's "something Elvish" about Frodo.


All in all, I think that glances are one way to express magic.

[Nerwen]

I tend to agree. Again, I like Morthoron's hierarchy of who might use Art and how much power individuals might have. It is not clear to me that there aren't weaker individuals lower on Morthoron's hierarchy doing very small stuff. However, you don't see examples of shaman or wise women using minor spells in the books. It might be plausible to say if one doesn't have at least X amount of Numenarian or elven blood, that there should be no magic use.
As Eönwë points out, there's also the Drúedain. (btw, it's "Númenórean", not "Numenarian".)

Originally Posted by Pitchwife
Unless I completely misunderstood him, isn't that just what blantyr himself has been saying for a while?
Yes, but the way I understood blantyr's posts is that Elves, Numenorians, etc have to do something in order to radiate subtle magic. They don't. It just happens that way.

A good point– of course in the examples you give it's ambiguous– intentionally, I think– whether you're seeing merely a strong will, or a power in action. But you're right that it's rare that Tolkien's Elves (or Númenóreans) cast spells, as such. In contrast, blantyr's Elf-character's use of "subtle magic", it seems, requires her to be casting spells all the time, just unobtrusively:
should the brawlers be injured, a nameless elven minstrel might afterwards quietly sing a song to Este. If one didn't understand the Sindarin lyrics, and didn't know that Este has an aspect of healing, they might give all the credit for rapid recovery to the hobbit healer who comes in with aloe and bandages.

On that note– blantyr, both from your own description and from the sample rules and character sheets I've looked at, it's pretty clear that the makers of "Ambarquenta" have had to do a good deal of tweaking, codifying things that were probably never meant to be codified, and making up details out of whole cloth. I'm not saying they're not trying to be as faithful to the original as they could be and still keep the game playable– it's just that a roleplaying system and a novel simply don't operate the same way. For this reason I remain puzzled as to why you apparently believe you can work backwards and apply the rules of AQ to its source.

That said, it sounds like a perfectly good game and one that no doubt would interest many of us here. Again, why don't you just make a thread about it?

[blantyr]

Yes, but the way I understood blantyr's posts is that Elves, Numenorians, etc have to do something in order to radiate subtle magic. They don't. It just happens that way.

Which is because they don't look for these gifts. They might still sense them, but not understand what they are feeling. It's true, however, that Aragorn often chooses to hide his gifts (mark the words - chooses to hide, not chooses to display; they are there all the time).

Other characters who are not as high as Aragorn also have a similar effect on people. The first one tht comes to mind is Faramir. Imrahil brought cheer to warriors during the siege of Gondor, - well, he has Elvish blood in him, but he's not an Elf. Eowyn gave courage to Merry, but that strength was only revealed in action.

I tend to pay special attention to looks. When people look at each other's faces, there always seems to be something happening. There are too many instances to describe all of them, but here are some notable ones:

-Melian: with her gaze she does wonders. She communicates more with her eyes than with her mouth. Examples: gave confidence to Beren and "awoke" Hurin/told him the truth.

-Arwen looked at Frodo as he and Bilbo left the room, a moment that Frodo remembered for the rest of his life.

-Aragorn: when he looked up, the Breelanders would stop taunting him and the hobbits. There are other instances throughout LOTR.

-Gandalf vs Denethor "duel"

-Faramir: I don't know where to begin. Multiple times with Frodo, Sam, and Gollum (note: Pippin and Sam feel 'something' about him). Heals Eowyn from her darkness and, well, opens her eyes.

-Eowyn:

(Eowyn is already dressed as Dernhelm)

And also what I already mentioned - how she gave Merry the courage to stab the WIKI without knowing it.

Even hobbits have this. There's "something Elvish" about Frodo.

All in all, I think that glances are one way to express magic.

To me, this is all characterization. Tolkien created some strong characters that can convey personality and feelings to others. There is no need to assume any sort of occult force is in play. Words, facial expression and posture is sufficient. Scenes and characterization such as this can and do take place in stories outside of the fantasy genera in settings where there is no pretense of magic.

[blantyr]

A good point– of course in the examples you give it's ambiguous– intentionally, I think– whether you're seeing merely a strong will, or a power in action. But you're right that it's rare that Tolkien's Elves (or Númenóreans) cast spells, as such. In contrast, blantyr's Elf-character's use of "subtle magic", it seems, requires her to be casting spells all the time, just unobtrusively:

"All the time" would be an exaggeration. As I said earlier, I thought long and hard and couldn't think of a single example of her singing with intent in an inn. In a public inn, she sings for the enjoyment of those around her. Outside, in the wild, she is more apt to sing songs devoted to one or another of the Valar, to call protection and growth upon the land.

In the Harry Potter books, if one wants to use magic, one almost always waves a wand and speaks a pseudo latin phrase. I think it safe to say that Harry Potter style magic does involve rote spells. Gandalf sometimes waves his staff when using magic. He sometimes speaks words. (Come back Sauruman!) Tom Bombadil seems always to sing, but the words don't seem rote, formal and fixed. He seems to be ad-libbing. In general, it seems safe to suggest that Tolkien's magic is much more free form and flexible than Rowling's.

And yet, if Gandalf or Bombadil does something, there is often beginning and end. There is generally a brief period where Bombadil is waving his hands and the rain doesn't hit him, or when Gandalf's beam of light drives a Nazgul away. What Gandalf does is different than what Harry does, but not all that much different. The word 'spell' doesn't seem to fit quite as well in Middle Earth as in Hogwart's. I'd be interested if someone were to suggest a different word. Off the top of my head, and even after a look at a thesaurus, I haven't one to propose.

On that note– blantyr, both from your own description and from the sample rules and character sheets I've looked at, it's pretty clear that the makers of "Ambarquenta" have had to do a good deal of tweaking, codifying things that were probably never meant to be codified, and making up details out of whole cloth. I'm not saying they're not trying to be as faithful to the original as they could be and still keep the game playable– it's just that a roleplaying system and a novel simply don't operate the same way. For this reason I remain puzzled as to why you apparently believe you can work backwards and apply the rules of AQ to its source.


I agree with your characterization of AQ.

The source is subtle, ambiguous and sometimes contradictory. The rules are clear and understandable. One might argue that any clear and understandable rule can't possibly accurately portray Tolkien's magic as the magic isn't clear and understandable.

When reading the AQ rules, I'll often think, yes, that rule reflects how Tolkien wrote this scene, that one, and this third one as well, but in this fourth scene it isn't quite right. I'm assuming others contributing here know LotR roughly as well as I, and generally know the First and Second Age writings far better.

I thought to insert clarity into the conversation, even knowing that the clearer one gets, the more likely it is that someone will find an exception that might be held to invalidate the clarity. It seems many do not appreciate this approach. I'm trying to use other approaches when possible.

[Morthoron]

"All the time" would be an exaggeration. As I said earlier, I thought long and hard and couldn't think of a single example of her singing with intent in an inn. In a public inn, she sings for the enjoyment of those around her. Outside, in the wild, she is more apt to sing songs devoted to one or another of the Valar, to call protection and growth upon the land..

Some would question an Elf frequenting an inn in the first place, and an Elvish female even less likely. As far as singing to the Valar, your Elf would have to have some association with Aman (Noldor, or at least Sindarin or a Teleri of Cirdan) to even care about the Valar.

[Puddleglum]

By the time one buys tracking, climb (trees), acrobatics (tightrope walking) and many other exotic seldom used abilities one might expect of elves, one hasn't a lot of points left to by combat skills. The two over powered characters in our game are a dwarf and a hobbit. The players put every possible point into combat skills, and thus dominate fight scenes. This is a problem
I can see a clever GM handling such a "problem" by arranging a scenario where the team is being chased by an overwhelming hoard of Orcs - until they come to a raging river - with only a simple rope bridge (similar to the Fellowship in Lorien). The Elf runs lightly across. The Dwarf & Hobbit, with all their combat power, try, fall off and are "drownded" (as Sam would say).

To the outraged players the Gm simply shrugs "Balance is Good." :p

[edit]Oops, just saw the double meaning in that. Initially, I only meant "balance in skill set"

[Galadriel55]

"All the time" would be an exaggeration. As I said earlier, I thought long and hard and couldn't think of a single example of her singing with intent in an inn. In a public inn, she sings for the enjoyment of those around her. Outside, in the wild, she is more apt to sing songs devoted to one or another of the Valar, to call protection and growth upon the land.

Elves don't need to sing all the time or do anything such to radiate magic all the time. It just radiates from them because they have it, because it's innate - like light comes from the Sun without any particular effort on the Sun's part.

As with the exapmle of Aragorn, sometimes the "magic" is covered. You seem to view it with an allusion of turning on a flashlight every once in a while. I see it differently - covering the light of the flashlight every once in a while.

[blantyr]

Some would question an Elf frequenting an inn in the first place, and an Elvish female even less likely. As far as singing to the Valar, your Elf would have to have some association with Aman (Noldor, or at least Sindarin or a Teleri of Cirdan) to even care about the Valar.

Does anyone recall a female character in the Prancing Pony at Bree? It might be possible to question a female human or even a female hobbit at an inn in the Shire. Middle Earth is quite territorial and segregated. People don't tend to leave the borders of their own realms very much at all, or mix with any but their own kind. The games in the Barrow Downs forums are far less segregated than the books, and Goldie's home game is no different.

Players want to run exotic characters, and many game master relax Tolkien's strict segregation and let people play the character they want where they want.

The characters in my off line game are a hobbit sheep herder of Breeland, a ranger of the north, an elven woodsman of Lindon, a female elven minstrel of Lindon, a knight of Dol Amroth, a human sheriff of Bree, a healer from Bree who trained in the Houses of Healing in Minas Tirith, a dwarf toy maker and warrior, an exiled rider of Rohan, a human merchant from somewhere south of the Shire but northwest of Dunland, and an exiled female rightful heir of a town and estate in Gondor. (Lady Jewel is played by the game master. She's a walking plot hook, an excuse for a major plot line. Don't blame me.) The group met at a mid summer's fair in Bree. They have been helping Breeland and the rangers handle problems resulting from ruffian's coming up the Greenway.

Is it reasonable that such an eclectic group get together? Not really. We were all required to come up with a back story to justify our character's travels. Goldie is a Sindar of the Tower Hills. She learned of the Valar from her love of music driving her to learn all the old songs. She has travelled with wandering companies between Rivendell and the Havens, learning woods craft in the warm months while singing by the fire in the cold. She joined the player character group as she wants to write songs, not just play them. She finds her kin too protective to allow her to live through incidents that will end up needing to be preserved in song.

All of our back stories are similarly plausible, sort of, almost. Collectively? Likely not. I agree with the game master's decision to allow us to generate the characters we want to play, but it admittedly stretches suspension of disbelief. No one dares complain about the other person's character, though. The whole idea of people in Middle Earth going on adventures is just too outlandish. (The hobbit's wife doesn't understand at all. There is a broad understanding that the hobbit gets a first go an any good jewelry we might run across, as otherwise we might lose our best archer.)

It occurs to me that Lake Town or Dale might be good places for mixed groups.

[blantyr]

Elves don't need to sing all the time or do anything such to radiate magic all the time. It just radiates from them because they have it, because it's innate - like light comes from the Sun without any particular effort on the Sun's part.

As with the example of Aragorn, sometimes the "magic" is covered. You seem to view it with an allusion of turning on a flashlight every once in a while. I see it differently - covering the light of the flashlight every once in a while.

Frodo, wearing the ring on Weathertop, was able to see the Nazgûl clearly. At the ford near Rivendell, when he was starting to fade from the Morgul blade wound, he could see Glorfindel as glowing white, and could see the Nazgûl, but Aragorn and the other hobbits could be seen only dimly. When Frodo first wakes at Rivendell, Gandalf conjectures that the Morgul wound might change Frodo, not for ill, but that those with eyes to see could detect that he was more than just a hobbit. He wouldn't glow as bright as Glorfindel, but something would be there to see.

Ambarquenta defines the spell 'sense power.' Sense power will do the above, allow one to sense those who radiate magic. It also allows one to sense enchanted items or spells in progress. By the AQ character generation rules, any elf inclined to learn could sense power, but very very few dwarves, hobbits or ordinary men could do so. I could see a moderately strict game master saying no hobbit or dwarf could learn spells, including sense power.

I am not claiming AQ as a canon source, but I think they got sense power more or less right. Details could certainly be debated. I am not at all certain that it should be all that easy for an elf to learn to sense power, for example.

Anyway, should Frodo put on the Ring and thus gain the ability to sense power, Glorfindel's power would be obvious, while Aragorn's would not be. Take off the Ring, Frodo would no longer be able to sense their magic power, but could sense their inherent nobility. Glorfindel might still beat out Aragorn somewhat, but not nearly by so much. Aragorn might often subdue his true nobility of spirit, but even so Aragorn might look foul but feel fair to the astute observer. Frodo was a pretty good judge of character, picked up a trace of Aragorn's nobility, but that might well be good old hobbit common sense rather than any occult ability. Sam was still dubious.

In short, I would agree that certain people radiate magical power. I would question whether a typical hobbit, dwarf or human would be able to sense it. Also, while those with magical power will often have some form of noble spirit, the link between nobility and occult power is not a fixed lock. There are many with strong honorable characters who can't use spells.

[Galadriel55]

I don't understand a few things here:

a) Goldie was created for the AQ, that doesn't exactly agree with the Downs. Why are you trying to mix the two?

b) I understand that you talk about Goldie to give a personal example. But AQ? It's one thing to discuss "Magic in ME" and another to talk about "Magic in AQ". In this thread we aren't trying to decide what is the best set of rules regarding magic and canonicity in a RPG.

c) Your point with the whole Goldie thing?


You say that "people want to run exotic characters". Maybe you do, but I personally don't. Plus, how is that relevant?

You are trying to say that a Tolkien RPG would be boring without specific/purposeful/whatever magic in it. But then (IMO) it wouldn't exactly be Tolkien. He didn't create characters like spiderman or the like (meaning that you could have inner abilities on the same scale). If he would have, I'd have only half as much respect for him and his works.

Tolkien's works are filled with magic, but it's not "spiderman magic". You yourself said that it is sbtle - but it's subtler than that. You state that one has to do something to be magical (sing, make something, etc), but he doesn't. One could be magical all the time, without singing.

EDIT: xed with your last post

[Galadriel55]

By the AQ character generation rules, any elf inclined to learn could sense power, but very very few dwarves, hobbits or ordinary men could do so. I could see a moderately strict game master saying no hobbit or dwarf could learn spells, including sense power.

How is "sensing power" a spell? And I doubt that Elves learned that many spells - they learned crafts, nature, they became more skilled at things, but not spells.


Anyway, should Frodo put on the Ring and thus gain the ability to sense power,

But does the Ring give the ability to sense power? :smokin:


There are many with strong honorable characters who can't use spells.

I don't recall too many that do. There are hardly any instances when actual spells are used - the only ones I remember are Gandalf lighting the fire on Caradhras and when wolves attacked them before Moria.

There is also "mellon", but anyone who knew how to say the word could open the Gates with it. It's not a special ability.


Take off the Ring, Frodo would no longer be able to sense their magic power, but could sense their inherent nobility.

The two are often connected. You might also have noticed that Aragorn was the one with the healing powers, and not Glorfindel. The latter also had some skill in that area, true. But still, Aragorn's hands do wonders with athelas; magic.

Glorfindel faced the Nazgul. Aragorn did that, and in addition he looked in the Palantir. That's not really magic, it's willpower. But it is still magical.


In short, I would agree that certain people radiate magical power.

I'd say that all people do, except that some do more or clearer than others.

I would question whether a typical hobbit, dwarf or human would be able to sense it.

If it's "bright" enough. As an example, reread the little chat Frodo had with Sam about magic and Elves in Lothlorien.

Also, while those with magical power will often have some form of noble spirit, the link between nobility and occult power is not a fixed lock.

No, but such power is often passed on by lineage, as is noble spirit. Not always, but often.

[blantyr]

How is "sensing power" a spell? And I doubt that Elves learned that many spells - they learned crafts, nature, they became more skilled at things, but not spells.

As I said a few posts up, 'spell' is a much better word to use in Harry Potter's subcreation, a much poorer word to use in Frodo's. I am very much open to a different word. However, that you do not like the word 'spell' doesn't imply Tom Bombadil can't keep himself dry by waving his arms, or that Gandalf can't repel Nazgul by shooting beams of light from his hand.

When the Fellowship was in Lorien, Galadriel looks into the eyes of each of the Fellowship in turn, and learns something of their motives and intent. AQ has labeled this ability a 'spell'. That you do not like the word 'spell' does not imply that the scene isn't in the book.

Similarly, after the wedding of Eowyn and Faramir, as the Rivendell party and the Lorien parties are about to each go their own way, Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and others looked into each others eyes and communicated directly mind to mind. AQ defines this ability as a spell as well.

Again, I'm open to using a different word for such abilities should you care to nominate one. 'Spell' isn't an ideal choice. However, 'crafts', 'nature', and 'skill' do not seem to be appropriate words either.

I would agree that most elves don't learn very many... whatever you want to call them. In Goldie's off line game, she currently knows four.

But does the Ring give the ability to sense power? :smokin:

If I remember Gandalf's description correctly, it allows one to step into a world of spirits. You can see them. They can see you. A Morgul knife does this too. When one is in this world of spirits, Glorfindel radiates magic in much the way you describe, while others in the living realm are much less visible.

Thinking of a counter example, Frodo briefly wears the Ring in the presence of Tom Bombadil. There is no mention of Tom's appearance changing, or of Sam, Merry and Pippin's appearance changing. Tom is clearly very powerful. Does Tom not radiate a magical aura? Is his magic different from Glofindel's? Does the Ring have no power or hold over Tom? Was Tolkien more interested in telling a good tale than keeping his magic system 100% consistent? I don't know. I don't know that anyone knows for certain. If we really wanted to, we could string out such questions indefinitely.

I don't recall too many that do. There are hardly any instances when actual spells are used - the only ones I remember are Gandalf lighting the fire on Caradhras and when wolves attacked them before Moria.

See above.

There is also "mellon", but anyone who knew how to say the word could open the Gates with it. It's not a special ability.

Agreed. The power would be in the gate, not the speaker. Similarly, one doesn't have to know magic to stab someone with Sting.

The two are often connected. You might also have noticed that Aragorn was the one with the healing powers, and not Glorfindel. The latter also had some skill in that area, true. But still, Aragorn's hands do wonders with athelas; magic.

I agree Aragorn has (insert some word or another here) regarding healing and also prophecy. As I don't want anyone to try to hurt me, I shall not write an essay on the difference between a talent and a spell. :Merisu: Must resist. Got to resist! Arrrgh! (Pant pant pant.) Sorry. I just can't do it! One is born with talents, but can potentially learn new spells.

Glorfindel faced the Nazgul. Aragorn did that, and in addition he looked in the Palantir. That's not really magic, it's willpower. But it is still magical.

Agreed. Like the gate at Moria, or a hobbit wielding Sting, the magic is in the Palantír, not the person looking into it. Still, Aragorn had enough willpower to mind wrestle with Sauron, which is pretty darn impressive.

I'd say that all people do, except that some do more or clearer than others.

You might be right. Going back to the ford at Rivendell, with Frodo fading from the Morgul wound, he could see Glorfindel clearly while Aragorn, Sam, Merry and Pippin were much less easy to see. Perhaps the ability of wraiths to see those in the land of the living corresponds to the strength of their magical aura?

No, but such power is often passed on by lineage, as is noble spirit. Not always, but often.

Agreed.

[Galadriel55]

When the Fellowship was in Lorien, Galadriel looks into the eyes of each of the Fellowship in turn, and learns something of their motives and intent. AQ has labeled this ability a 'spell'. That you do not like the word 'spell' does not imply that the scene isn't in the book.

Well, perhaps it was meant as a different meaning of "spell" - not an incantation, but as in "a spell of rain" or something like that. But I still don't like the word - it sound like the person has to force it, and that it's temporary. I don't want to press this matter further, because I've said all that I have to say about it.

Similarly, after the wedding of Eowyn and Faramir, as the Rivendell party and the Lorien parties are about to each go their own way, Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and others looked into each others eyes and communicated directly mind to mind. AQ defines this ability as a spell as well.

The people you list are high Elves and a Maia. They have these innate abilities.



If I remember Gandalf's description correctly, it allows one to step into a world of spirits. You can see them. They can see you. A Morgul knife does this too. When one is in this world of spirits, Glorfindel radiates magic in much the way you describe, while others in the living realm are much less visible.

You step into a realm of wraiths, not of magic. Glorfindel was clearly seen because he was born in Aman - he's one of the special cases.

Thinking of a counter example, Frodo briefly wears the Ring in the presence of Tom Bombadil. There is no mention of Tom's appearance changing, or of Sam, Merry and Pippin's appearance changing. Tom is clearly very powerful. Does Tom not radiate a magical aura?

Sure he does. Part of his magic and power is that the evilness of the Ring has less strength in hs realm.

Moreover, do you remember how Frodo, and then he other hobbits started singing in imitation of Tom shortly after coming into his house? That is what I'd call the effects of his magical presence/radiance.

Is his magic different from Glofindel's?

Quite. His strength lies in happiness.

Does the Ring have no power or hold over Tom?[/qote]

Evidently no, seeing as he doesn't become invisible when he puts it on.

Arguably, you could say that it would tempt him, if he could possibly be tempted with anything. However, he's one truly happy and carefree person; he doesn't need or want anything else. He has all that he wants. He's hopelessly uncorruptable.

Plus, he's an enigma that was meant to be left as such. If you put too many details about someone he stops being an enigma.

But that's an entirely different thing altogether.

[quote]Was Tolkien more interested in telling a good tale than keeping his magic system 100% consistent? I don't know. I don't know that anyone knows for certain. If we really wanted to, we could string out such questions indefinitely.

100% consistent? I think it is. It's his book, and unlike Rowling he didn't put any specific limitations on "what could be done with magic". There is different magic.

[Nerwen]

As I said a few posts up, 'spell' is a much better word to use in Harry Potter's subcreation, a much poorer word to use in Frodo's. I am very much open to a different word. However, that you do not like the word 'spell' doesn't imply Tom Bombadil can't keep himself dry by waving his arms, or that Gandalf can't repel Nazgul by shooting beams of light from his hand.

When the Fellowship was in Lorien, Galadriel looks into the eyes of each of the Fellowship in turn, and learns something of their motives and intent. AQ has labeled this ability a 'spell'. That you do not like the word 'spell' does not imply that the scene isn't in the book.

Similarly, after the wedding of Eowyn and Faramir, as the Rivendell party and the Lorien parties are about to each go their own way, Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond and others looked into each others eyes and communicated directly mind to mind. AQ defines this ability as a spell as well.

Again, I'm open to using a different word for such abilities should you care to nominate one. 'Spell' isn't an ideal choice. However, 'crafts', 'nature', and 'skill' do not seem to be appropriate words either.

Well, that one's basically mental telepathy (Tolkien did actually lay down rules for how it worked, though the essay in question was unknown until a few years ago). And note that this, and the ability to sense another's power, were already cited by G55 as examples of "subtle magic"!

Now, I can quite understand AQ classing them as "spells" for convenience, and I appreciate that you're just using the word for want of a better. In fact, I believe the only reason anyone is nitpicking about it is that it looks like the word "spell" is causing a bit of a definition-creep in your own mind– as your Elf-character is, apparently habitually, doing something much closer to the traditional definition of "casting a spell": Outside, in the wild, she is more apt to sing songs devoted to one or another of the Valar, to call protection and growth upon the land.
And let's remember, you cited this as something you feel she needs to be doing, becauseTolkien without magic isn't Tolkien. An elf without the Art isn't really an elf.

Now, again, as a practical consideration, that probably about as subtle as you could make magic use in a game of that type– but again I have to ask, how relevant is it?

EDIT:X'd with G55; terminology error.

[blantyr]

Well, that one's basically mental telepathy (Tolkien did actually lay down rules for how it worked, though the essay in question was unknown until a few years ago). And note that this, and the ability to sense another's power, were already cited by G55 as examples of "subtle magic"!

Now, I can quite understand AQ classing them as "spells" for convenience, and I appreciate that you're just using the word for want of a better. In fact, I believe the only reason anyone is nitpicking about it is that it looks like the word "spell" is causing a bit of a definition-creep in your own mind– as your Elf-character is, apparently habitually, doing something much closer to the traditional definition of "casting a spell":

Well, perhaps it was meant as a different meaning of "spell" - not an incantation, but as in "a spell of rain" or something like that. But I still don't like the word - it sound like the person has to force it, and that it's temporary. I don't want to press this matter further, because I've said all that I have to say about it.

The people you list are high Elves and a Maia. They have these innate abilities.

I like the word 'abilities'. This might be used in place of the S word. I shall note that AQ has separate categories for skills, spells, talents and edges. All might be described as abilities. There are reasons an ability might be placed in one category or another, but I won't go into that.

I am going to go into AQ game mechanics more than I like, below, not because they are perfect and canon, but because they provide a clear framework to answer the questions raised above.

If one has three appropriate skill levels, one can use the ability 'sense power,' but one must use both incantations and gestures to make it work. If one has six skill levels, one needs only use incantations or gestures. If one has nine skill levels, one need use neither incantations or gestures. If one has thirteen skill levels, one can use the ability 'at will'. One need not spend time thinking about it, one need not roll dice, and using the ability does not make one tired.

The game master of Goldie's off line game and I are stretching the character advancement system a bit to get her nine skill levels. Neither one of us think elves using the Art for minor subtle things should be performing incantations or waving their arms around. Both of us want use of such abilities to be subtle.

Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel would have at least 13 skill levels in that telepathic ability. They would be using that ability 'at will' or as an 'innate ability.' It seems plausible that lesser beings might use the same ability, but not so easily.

Uglub the Black Corsair of Umbar and dabbler in sorcery might well have very few skill levels. He might have to incant and wave like a Hogwart graduate to do anything.

Gandalf in breaking Saurman's staff used words. Gandalf in lighting the fire in the pass above Moria used a gesture. Gandalf describing to Gimli how he cast a spell to lock the door against the balrog said such things take time. It follows that not everything Gandalf does is 'at will' or is an 'innate ability.' Not everything is effortless, even for him. There ought to be some signs that using some abilities is not trivial, that sometimes he has to work at it.

I also note that Tolkien uses very high level, very powerful characters. Gandalf the wizard, Aragorn heir to kings, Boromir heir to stewards, Legolas son of kings, Thorin head of house... We thus see magic and weapons use at the most potent level. If one is writing fan fiction or creating a role playing environment, unless one is using Tolkien's characters, one often wants to down power things. We have lots of examples about how things work at the most potent level, but nothing about more moderate adventures.

As neither Uglub the Black Corsair or anyone like him has appeared in Tolkien's works, it would be valid to say there are no low level folk that can use only minor magics, and only with a struggle. This might be a valid approach to writing fan fiction close to canon. Take it too far though, and one ends up with Tolkien without magic. The option of extrapolating down from the greater magics into something less seems a valid choice, though it could easily cause purists to itch.

Now, again, as a practical consideration, that probably about as subtle as you could make magic use in a game of that type– but again I have to ask, how relevant is it?

Goldie -- Aerlinn Maltheniel -- perceives the world through other senses. She shapes the world using other tools. She isn't just a pretty girl who will live a long time. Her personality, world view and values have been shaped by her culture and her abilities. In any given scene, the chances of her wanting to use an ability in a way any other character would notice might be near nil. That isn't relevant.

That she is not living in the world that shaped her could be problematic, though. What she would see as important, and what she would do to respond to something she sees as important, might seem entirely off base.

I go a bit nuts with my non-human characters. In a series of Star Trek games, I created and played the Joy Class Androids. They fed six laws of robotics through an Asimov Processor and then into an emotion chip. The Joys could generally pass as human, but they lacked free will and were in some ways highly predictable. Most of the time they would be obedient followers of orders, but every once in a while they would run into a situation where their programming would throw a curve into a plot line. (When the Prime Directive is Priority One, while obeying orders is Priority Three, there can occasionally be a problem.)

Goldie might be like that too in her own way. She might not have an asimov processor, but she will sometimes respond to situations in unexpected ways. As the Joys had problems in games that stepped away from the spirit of Roddenberry, Goldie too might have problems. I'd like to think this could be a feature, but to others it might easily be a bug.

[Galadriel55]

I can see why the RPG classified "abilities" (if you like that word) and strengths and etc. However, in the legendarium, there is no such classification, and the categories blantyr lists are often linked and interrelated. As Nerwen said before, you can't apply the AQ rules to Tolkien.

[Morthoron]

This thread is becoming one long spam advertising an RPG.

[Galadriel55]

I've been thinking (never a good thing! :p) about the difference between modern fantasy epics and Lord of the Rings, and one thing that really stuck out in my mind was their different approaches to magic. Whereas most modern fantasies are so chock-full of magic it's hard to breathe, Tolkien is much more subtle in his magic usage. The only things I could think about that were "magical" were the Rings of Power, and the Istari.

Well, we came up with many occurences of magic.

Then I got to thinking about Lúthien, and the way she used magic in helping Beren steal the Silmaril from Morgoth, including rescuing him from Sauron. Now I am confused. What role does magic play in Middle-earth? Obviously it can be wielded by semi-divine beings (like the Maia, and the Istari), and contained in an object to be wielded by those who control it (like Lúthien and her suit, and Frodo and the Ring), but what else? Is it the object or the person that has the magic?

(Underlining mine)

What role does magic play in Middle-earth? - it's just there. It doesn't come out of the blue to help a certain being accomplish something; it's just, erm, not being used at certain times, if you'll forgive this rough terminology.

Is it the object or the person that has the magic? - I'd say both. However, some objects could be said to be simply advanced technology, things refined by deep knowledge and superb skill of the maker.


The Rings of Power confuse me. They require all three things above: the magic (or should I say inner power/will/abilities?) of the wielder, great skill, and their own magic.

It's late and I need to sleep. Someone help me with this please.

[blantyr]

What role does magic play in Middle-earth? - it's just there. It doesn't come out of the blue to help a certain being accomplish something; it's just, erm, not being used at certain times, if you'll forgive this rough terminology.

Sometimes it doesn't hurt to go to the dictionary.


the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces
mysterious tricks, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment.
a quality that makes something seem removed from everyday life, esp. in a way that gives delight
informal something that has such a quality


I think we are talking about the first definition, though Tolkien's works can create the third and fourth in the reading.

The first definition has to be qualified, though, in that those who wield magic in Middle Earth might not consider it mysterious, and would consider it natural. The above definition 1 was written for mundane reality, where any magic that might exist is mysterious or supernatural. It applies well enough to Earth, more awkwardly to Middle Earth.

There is a trite phrase 'mind over matter' which might be applied. One might say magic is use of the mind to sense or manipulate matter without use of the body's tools of hands, muscle and the like, or to extend the senses beyond normal.

I have great faith in everyone's ability to nitpick the above. For example, by this definition a magnifying glass might extend the senses and thus fit the description of magical. However, that's a start.

Is it the object or the person that has the magic? - I'd say both. However, some objects could be said to be simply advanced technology, things refined by deep knowledge and superb skill of the maker.

We have already mentioned cases where the magic seems clearly in the object... the west gate of Moria and the palantír. Still, even then, an outsider directs and activates the magic, through a word in the case of the gate, or by gazing into the palantír. The phial of Galadriel might be another example of an item with specific purpose that might be triggered by an individual with no special talents or abilities.

In principle, one might then say that much other magic comes from the individual. Maybe so, but...

The Rings of Power confuse me. They require all three things above: the magic (or should I say inner power/will/abilities?) of the wielder, great skill, and their own magic.

Many of the examples of magic are centered on Gandalf. He wields not only a ring, but also a staff. I interpret both Gandalf's ring and staff as very general purpose tools that focus, shape, amplify (or choose another word) the 'inner power/will/abilities' of their wielder. As such, a staff or ring might be considered different from the gate or palantír. Anyone speaking the correct word might open the gate. Even a hobbit could trigger operation of a palantír.

How many examples do we have of magic without an amplifying artifact? Aragorn can heal with athelas. Is the power in Aragorn, in the athelas, or both? Does Aragorn amplify the athelas or does athelas amplify Aragorn?

I can recall Aragorn making three prophecies, that Theoden would return to Edoras, that Gandalf should beware Moria, and that he and Eomer would draw swords together after they parted after Helm's Deep. While Aragorn was carrying Andúril while he made all three prophecies, I have no real reason to think there was any item amplifying his ability to prophecy.

I'd be interested if people could give a few other examples of magic being wielded by individuals with no amplifying devices such as a ring, staff or leaf. I'd like to think magic can be used without such props. Finding examples is a problem, though.

Many of the items mentioned above such as the gate, staffs, rings, phial and palantír were presumably created by someone or other. All such making takes place off stage. The impression I have is that some of the "inner power/will/abilities" of the creator of an item is pushed into the item. Someone might want to say a bit more about that.

I will add that to this point we have been focused primarily on the sort of magic that a wizard or elf lord might wield. There are other things happening. We might think of the oath sworn to Isildur at Erech, and his curse upon the oath breakers. We might ask if Aragorn, whose life was entangled in prophecy, had a fate or destiny that was supported by some form of magic. We might ask if speaking the name of a valar amplifies an oath, or might become something akin to prayer. We might talk of Beorn and other shape shifters. If we've mentioned Aragorn's healing and prophecy, what other people who are not elf lords, wizards or Nazgûl might have other similar abilities? Eowyn in slaying a fell beast also seemingly changed the weather. What is it that brought snow to Caradhras, or covered the land with darkness during the War of the Ring? Should we speak of that flock of crows that might have been looking for the Fellowship as they went south from Rivendell?

There is a good deal magic in the books. We might not want to focus too narrowly.

[Galadriel55]

Many of the examples of magic are centered on Gandalf. He wields not only a ring, but also a staff. I interpret both Gandalf's ring and staff as very general purpose tools that focus, shape, amplify (or choose another word) the 'inner power/will/abilities' of their wielder. As such, a staff or ring might be considered different from the gate or palantír. Anyone speaking the correct word might open the gate. Even a hobbit could trigger operation of a palantír.

Agreed.

How many examples do we have of magic without an amplifying artifact?

Elves communicating telepathically. Making prophecies.

I'm not sure if doing magic through music could fit under this - music is kind of a magnifying artifact.

Many ainur have some magical "special powers" in addition to their power (for example, Vana's gaze makes flower bloom).


A similar question would be about objects that are magical without anyone having to trigger the magic. Silmarilli? They shine all the time. Gondolin swords that glow in the presence of enemies? You need the enemies, true, but the sword doesn't have to be held or anything like that.

Aragorn can heal with athelas. Is the power in Aragorn, in the athelas, or both? Does Aragorn amplify the athelas or does athelas amplify Aragorn?

Athelas doesn't work that way in any other preson's hands. Likewise, Aragorn was only able to heal Faramir with the help of Athelas.

Many of the items mentioned above such as the gate, staffs, rings, phial and palantír were presumably created by someone or other. All such making takes place off stage. The impression I have is that some of the "inner power/will/abilities" of the creator of an item is pushed into the item. Someone might want to say a bit more about that.

What about Amon Hen and Amon Lhaw? Nimrodel (the river)?

However, I absolutely agree with what you said. Melian says about Anglachel, "The heart of the smith still dwells in it" - something that's applicable to many other items.

We might ask if speaking the name of a valar amplifies an oath, or might become something akin to prayer.

I think that names of people and things carry the spirit of those people. When you say a Vala's name, it's as if you bring their presence. Examples:

-Frodo's shout "Elbereth Gilthoniel" scares the Nazgul on Weathertop from immediate actions

-Gondorians avoid naming Sauron and Mordor

-The name "Bombadil" brings courage to Frodo in the Barrow

Eowyn in slaying a fell beast also seemingly changed the weather.

I'd say that the weather changes because of the overall victory, not only Eowyn's over the Wi-Ki. The weather changes according to the events, but the events don't change the weather.

What is it that brought snow to Caradhras, or covered the land with darkness during the War of the Ring?

I can only speculate about the first, but we know the second - Sauron woke up his volcano.

There is a good deal magic in the books. We might not want to focus too narrowly.

I second that.



I'm beginning to doubt my words that ME is filled with magic. The more I think about it, the less magical everything appears. From the perspective of a hobbit, Elves could be magical simply for having long hair. From the perspective of Elves the Valar are magical because of many things, and the ability to create something from nothing... well, the Imperishable Flame. And to the Valar, hobbits might seem magical, because they are able to enjoy the life that they have, which is very simple compared to the other nations/races (or, as Gandalf said, you can learn everything about them in a month, and they'll surprise you in a hundred years). But from every race's perspective, their abilities are not unusual. Elves/Valar/Numenorians/etc could consider the something radiating from them just traces of (high) birth, willpower, inner strength, nobility, toughness, wisdom, possibly some mighty ancestor...

Which means that there really is no magic. And when there is none, but it is felt, it's magical. So the magic is in the inexistence of magic?

:rolleyes: headdesk.

[Nerwen]

Which means that there really is no magic. And when there is none, but it is felt, it's magical. So the magic is in the inexistence of magic?

:rolleyes: headdesk.
No, now you're going too far the other way.

Thinking of all the examples I can–

There's occasional "proper" spell-casting, sometimes with incantations and the works; there's a sort of "techno-magic", or "crafting" magic; there's the ability to influence natural forces; and there's "psychic powers" such as foresight or telepathy. These all could be termed "magic" of sorts. Thing is, they all shade into each other quite a bit, and also into the realm of the mundane, so that much of the time it's not clear exactly what you're seeing (if anything).

And no, I don't think that's just Tolkien being sloppy– it's just that, unlike many modern fantasy authors, he was neither drawing on RPG-ing experience, nor writing with one eye on the fanboy-market.

That sounds a bit catty, I know, but I'm not trying to knock current authors. It's just that people don't write in a vacuum, and authors in the present day have learnt that fans tend to expect them to set out strict rules about who can use what power how many times a day, and rank all magic-users (or whatever) in relation to each other, etc, etc.

[Galadriel55]

Nerwen, I wish my computer would let me rep you. :D

[blantyr]

It might be useful to bring in the concepts of fëa and hröa, roughly 'soul' and 'body'. It might be possible to say that magic is the soul manipulating or sensing the world directly rather than through the body.

Not all souls would be created equal. From the valar to the dúnedain there might be a gradation of souls that can to a greater to lesser extent manipulate the world. Maia can do more than noldor who can do more than sylvan, etc… Perhaps ordinary humans, dwarves, orcs or other creatures have some ability as well, but not all that much.

Thinking of all the examples I can–

There's occasional "proper" spell-casting, sometimes with incantations and the works; there's a sort of "techno-magic", or "crafting" magic; there's the ability to influence natural forces; and there's "psychic powers" such as foresight or telepathy. These all could be termed "magic" of sorts. Thing is, they all shade into each other quite a bit, and also into the realm of the mundane, so that much of the time it's not clear exactly what you're seeing (if anything).

And no, I don't think that's just Tolkien being sloppy– it's just that, unlike many modern fantasy authors, he was neither drawing on RPG-ing experience, nor writing with one eye on the fanboy-market.

I'm not sure Tolkien was all that sloppy. There may be broad patterns. They are just more complicated than some modern writers use.

If rings and staves are general purpose tools, while palantír and Moria's west gate were dedicated to specific tasks, we might distinguish users of magic in the same way. Gandalf has a wide variety of abilities, using "proper spell casting" while Aragorn's healing and prophecy are more narrow and dedicated. Aragorn doesn't use "incantations and the works". I'm not sure I like the phrase 'psychic powers'. That is more a science fiction phrase than fantasy. Still, James Schmitz in one of his Telzey Amberdon books distinguished between the Type One Psi with a wide variety of abilities and the Type Two Psi with one or two narrow abilities. We might have a similar distinction here, that people like Tom Bombadil, Gandalf and Lúthien are far more versatile than Aragorn.

I'm not sure if doing magic through music could fit under this - music is kind of a magnifying artifact.

Music might be considered similar to incantations or gestures, part of "the works," another tool that people like Tom Bombadil or Lúthien use to shape their abilities. The specialist people with narrowly focused abilities would be less likely to use such techniques.

A similar question would be about objects that are magical without anyone having to trigger the magic. Silmarilli? They shine all the time. Gondolin swords that glow in the presence of enemies? You need the enemies, true, but the sword doesn't have to be held or anything like that.

Agreed. Not all crafted items require someone to wield or activate them, though many do…

Athelas doesn't work that way in any other preson's hands. Likewise, Aragorn was only able to heal Faramir with the help of Athelas.

Hmm… It would seem both Aragorn and athelas need each other to work fully?

What about Amon Hen and Amon Lhaw? Nimrodel (the river)?

However, I absolutely agree with what you said. Melian says about Anglachel, "The heart of the smith still dwells in it" - something that's applicable to many other items.

Amon Hen and Amon Lhaw might be considered crafted items. Most enchanted items seem to be made by elves. I have the impression that dwarves in the old days could also project parts of their souls into things of their making. Would the blades the hobbits acquired on the Barrow Downs be made the same way? Might the dúnedain be able to craft artifacts using essentially the same techniques as the elves?

I heard a different tale of Nimrodel. There was an article in Tolkiengateway that claims elves can reject the call of Mandos, that they can choose to become ghosts. If fëa and hröa are parted through death, the fëa can linger where it lived. If putting on the Ring allowed Frodo to see into the realm of spirits, might he have put it on and seen Nimrodel?

I'm not claiming the above conjecture as canon, but it seems to fit.

I think that names of people and things carry the spirit of those people. When you say a Vala's name, it's as if you bring their presence. Examples:

-Frodo's shout "Elbereth Gilthoniel" scares the Nazgul on Weathertop from immediate actions

-Gondorians avoid naming Sauron and Mordor

-The name "Bombadil" brings courage to Frodo in the Barrow

Agreed. I note that the examples you give involve mighty names. I don't know that this sort of naming would work for beings less than Valar or Maia. Still, naming names might bring benefit, might work as something vaguely like prayer.

I'd say that the weather changes because of the overall victory, not only Eowyn's over the Wi-Ki. The weather changes according to the events, but the events don't change the weather.

I can only speculate about the first, but we know the second - Sauron woke up his volcano.

I'm not entirely confident I understand the weather either. In part, it might respond to the will of the mighty. I have imagined the wind from the west that blew back the smoke of Mount Doom prior to the Pelennor battle might have involved a contest of wills between Sauron and the Valar. In part, the weather might act vaguely like the crowd at a sporting event, changing to reflect events going on down below.

The storm at Caradhras? I had another thought, a wild conjecture. The mountain apparently long had a reputation for cruelty. It is as if some malicious spirit dwelled within the mountain. A balrog for instance? I have also thought that Saruman might have wanted the Fellowship to try to pass the Gap of Rohan. I really don't know.

[blantyr]

Dwarves have seeming lost whatever subcreative power they had prior to the War of the Ring (as lamented by both Thorin and Gimli in separate instances).

I have some wild conjecture on this. One reads that some elves at least reincarnate, while humans do not. Is much said of the dwarves? There are legends that the sons of the various Durins were so much like their fathers that each was said to be the father reborn. I would think there would need to be at least two Durin souls for this to work, as one soul cannot dwell within two bodies at the same time.

It is also said that if one enchants an item, a bit of one's soul or heart is left behind in the item. If one combines these two concepts, if one creates enchanted items, dies, and then reincarnates, the reborn smith would have less to give of himself than his prior incarnation once had.

There must have been sources of power in the early days. For example, if one saw the two trees, or perhaps walked the undying lands, one's soul was strengthened. Also, power is to some degree hereditary. The child has power if the parent had power, sometimes, sort of, though it is not said that childbirth diminishes one's own power.

This might be one perspective on how elves and dwarves diminished over time, how the firstborn faded while men came to dominate.

[Nerwen]

I'm not sure I like the phrase 'psychic powers'. That is more a science fiction phrase than fantasy.

Yes, hence the quotation marks.

I heard a different tale of Nimrodel. There was an article in Tolkiengateway that claims elves can reject the call of Mandos, that they can choose to become ghosts. If fëa and hröa are parted through death, the fëa can linger where it lived. If putting on the Ring allowed Frodo to see into the realm of spirits, might he have put it on and seen Nimrodel?


You mean it's simply Nimrodel's ghost hanging round the stream? Perhaps, though I'd appreciate a source for this– I cannot find this "tale" even at the not-exactly-infallible Tolkiengateway. (The thing about Elves rejecting the call of Mandos is all right, though– it's from Tolkien's later writings, published in "Morgoth's Ring".)

But as a general thing– you can try and explain away individual cases, but it seems hard to me to deny that places in Middle-earth can in themselves be "sacred" or "accursed"– often because of things that happened, or people who lived there. This indeed may be related to "crafting magic".

I have some wild conjecture on this. One reads that some elves at least reincarnate, while humans do not. Is much said of the dwarves? There are legends that the sons of the various Durins were so much like their fathers that each was said to be the father reborn.

Descendants, not actual sons– so there's no such problem as you assume.

According to The Silmarillion, the Dwarves believe they get reincarnated. (Elves, on the other hand, believe Dwarves "return to the earth and the stone of which they were made").

Originally Posted by Galadriel55
I think that names of people and things carry the spirit of those people. When you say a Vala's name, it's as if you bring their presence. Examples:

-Frodo's shout "Elbereth Gilthoniel" scares the Nazgul on Weathertop from immediate actions

-Gondorians avoid naming Sauron and Mordor

-The name "Bombadil" brings courage to Frodo in the Barrow
Agreed. I note that the examples you give involve mighty names. I don't know that this sort of naming would work for beings less than Valar or Maia. Still, naming names might bring benefit, might work as something vaguely like prayer.

For any lesser being it's more a matter of conjecture– cf. when Sam "calls" the rope to him by saying Galadriel's name. At least Sam thinks that's what happened; Frodo laughs at him and says it was just a badly-tied knot.

The storm at Caradhras? I had another thought, a wild conjecture. The mountain apparently long had a reputation for cruelty. It is as if some malicious spirit dwelled within the mountain. A balrog for instance? I have also thought that Saruman might have wanted the Fellowship to try to pass the Gap of Rohan. I really don't know.


Hardly a wild conjecture, since your second option's what they went with in the film. But in fact, in the actual book, Caradhras is not associated with any known villain. "His" nature is purposely left mysterious:

"I do call it the wind," said Aragorn. "But that does not make what you say untrue. There are many evil and unfriendly things in the world that have little love for those that go on two legs, and yet are not in league with Sauron, but have purposes of their own. Some have been in this world longer than he."

Aragorn isn't omniscient, true, but I'm pretty sure that here he's being used to convey information to the reader. Note that no alternative is given any support– no-one contradicts him saying, no, it has to be Saruman; no-one greets the appearance of the Balrog with "Caradhras!" instead of "Durin's Bane!" I'm sure there'd be some hint if either of these were meant to be the evil power behind Caradhras.

[Galadriel55]

Barazinbar just seems to have a nature of its own. One special mountain. I always left it as that in my mind. A stone with a personality.

We can't say that anyone in particular "shaped" it and left a trce of their spirit inside, because Caradhrass is said to dislike both Elves and Dwarves, and Men weren't that lucky either. Even a wizard did not pass. And where the strong failed, even the hobbits failed. :p

But why specifically Caradhras? I understand that it was done for the purposes of the story, but why not other mountains as well?

[Nerwen]

Barazinbar just seems to have a nature of its own. One special mountain. I always left it as that in my mind. A stone with a personality.

We can't say that anyone in particular "shaped" it and left a trce of their spirit inside, because Caradhrass is said to dislike both Elves and Dwarves, and Men weren't that lucky either. Even a wizard did not pass. And where the strong failed, even the hobbits failed. :p

But why specifically Caradhras? I understand that it was done for the purposes of the story, but why not other mountains as well?
I said often places seem to derive their special aura from people and past events– but that's not the only reason. Some things are just "there"... and that's all you can really say about them. I always found the mysterious "what is it?" nature of Caradhras to be one of the things that give the world a sense of depth.

It really disappointed me that the film version turned it into just Saruman spell-casting. I suppose they thought the original version would be confusing.

[blantyr]

You mean it's simply Nimrodel's ghost hanging round the stream? Perhaps, though I'd appreciate a source for this– I cannot find this "tale" even at the not-exactly-infallible Tolkiengateway. (The thing about Elves rejecting the call of Mandos is all right, though– it's from Tolkien's later writings, published in "Morgoth's Ring".)

Yep. It may just be Nimrodel's ghost. I tried to find the source on this, but wasn't able to retrace. I remember it as someone's opinion, not as a Tolkien canon reference. I'll try to dig a bit more.

But as a general thing– you can try and explain away individual cases, but it seems hard to me to deny that places in Middle-earth can in themselves be "sacred" or "accursed"– often because of things that happened, or people who lived there. This indeed may be related to "crafting magic".

I'd agree with a place taking on personality or emotion if a people lived there long enough, or an extreme event occurred there. (The Dead Marshes might be an example of the latter. Minas Morgul in the early Fourth Age might be another example of a place taking on the character of its inhabitants.) The process could well be related to crafting magic, where a bit of one's spirit might linger. Caradhras? Maybe something started it long ago, but if so we might never know.

Descendants, not actual sons– so there's no such problem as you assume.

I was thinking of Durin I, Durin II, Durin III, etc... I don't think there could only be one soul for all of the Durins.

For any lesser being it's more a matter of conjecture– cf. when Sam "calls" the rope to him by saying Galadriel's name. At least Sam thinks that's what happened; Frodo laughs at him and says it was just a badly-tied knot.

One might also credit the rope, or the crafts person who made the rope. Don't really know, though.

[Morthoron]

I was thinking of Durin I, Durin II, Durin III, etc... I don't think there could only be one soul for all of the Durins.

They were descendants of Durin the Deathless, but none of the Durins that followed Durin I were direct descendants (ie., sons) of the previous Durin. The appearances of Durins seem to be generational, with six versions popping up from the 1st through 4th Ages.

[Nerwen]

I'd agree with a place taking on personality or emotion if a people lived there long enough, or an extreme event occurred there. (The Dead Marshes might be an example of the latter. Minas Morgul in the early Fourth Age might be another example of a place taking on the character of its inhabitants.) The process could well be related to crafting magic, where a bit of one's spirit might linger. Caradhras? Maybe something started it long ago, but if so we might never know.
Another example would be Hollin, where, according to Legolas, the stones still remember the Elves who once lived there.

You know Caradhras is different, though, because there seems to be a real consciousness and purpose behind it, in a way that doesn't apply to the other examples. So I don't know that we can rule out its being inhabited by an actual evil spirit of some kind. There are quite a lot of beings of unknown origin in Middle-earth.

I was thinking of Durin I, Durin II, Durin III, etc... I don't think there could only be one soul for all of the Durins.
Why not?

EDIT:X'd with Morthoron.

[Puddleglum]

I was thinking of Durin I, Durin II, Durin III, etc... I don't think there could only be one soul for all of the Durins.The Dwarves, at least, believed there was (only one Durin). <quote from Apdx A>Five times an heir ... received the name of Durin. He was indeed held by the Dwarves to BE (Durin) the Deathless that returned; for they have many strange tales and beliefs concerning themselves and their fate in the world.While this is only presented as something the Dwarves "believe", we know Tolkien did allow for Elvish reincarnation, and Dwarvish fate is something we know very little about - so it doesn't seem (to me) all that far fetched that one special Dwarvish Fea might remain within Ea and be reborn (reincarnated) multiple times. Why not?

[Galin]

The Dwarves, at least, believed there was (only one Durin). <quote from Apdx A>While this is only presented as something the Dwarves "believe", we know Tolkien did allow for Elvish reincarnation, and Dwarvish fate is something we know very little about - so it doesn't seem (to me) all that far fetched that one special Dwarvish Fea might remain within Ea and be reborn (reincarnated) multiple times. Why not?

Yes, and Tolkien's (very) late writings point to the fea of Durin returning to an uncorrupted body.

Strange as it might seem: the special connection between a particular fea and its particular hroa looks to have became important to Tolkien: he thus abandoned Elves being reborn (as children) as a form of reincarnation, because they would have 'new' bodies... and JRRT seemingly found an idea to avoid this with the bearded folk as well.

See Last Writings, The Peoples of Middle-Earth, for late thoughts on this notion.

[blantyr]

Another example would be Hollin, where, according to Legolas, the stones still remember the Elves who once lived there.

I'd like to work the other side of this one. Yes, Hollin is an example of a place where the stones have an echo of a people long gone. What might be interesting is that Legolas was able to read this, while to my knowledge no one else could.

Legolas also read Fangorn forest when he Gimli and Aragorn first came there. It was ancient, there were echoes of places far away where the hearts of the trees were black, and I believe he picked up echoes of the entmoot, hints that the forest was about to explode in wrath against Saruman.

The Fangorn example might not be best understood as reading echoes of occupants long gone, but the mood of the current occupants still living. Is he reading the land or is he reading its current people? Is there a major distinction between the two, or might both be an aspect of elven telepathy?

We have touched on elven telepathy before. We had Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond looking mind to mind just before the Rivendell and Lorien parties went their separate ways after Theoden's funeral. We had Galadriel testing the Fellowship. Galadriel also told Frodo that she knew all of Sauron's mind that pertained to the elves. This is impressive given how Saruman and Denethor came to grief through use of the Palantír.

Frodo also asked Galadriel how it was that when he put on the ring he couldn't read the minds of the other ring bearers. Her response was that he had not tried, that he should not try, that he would have to train himself before he could use that power. This sounds right, but how did she know he had not tried? How deep did she go in Frodo's mind? As with Sauron, does she know all of Frodo's mind that pertains to the elves?

In many fantasy books that deal with telepathy, there is an overt theme of the ethics of using the ability. There are things that are done, and things that are not. In Tolkien's works, if there are ethics, they aren't spoken of explicitly. The impression I get is that Galadriel wouldn't share things she learns this way unless it would be vital to her people or the West. However, I'm starting to get the impression that if knowledge is vital, the notion of mental privacy isn't high on her list of ethical principles?

I'd one other thought. When Frodo reaches the base of Mount Doom, he gets 'pushed.' He gets told to go on now, quickly, or it will be too late. I've always sort of assumed that this was Gandalf nudging him on. Now, I'm not so sure. Galadriel? She is the telepath with a mirror to see, while Gandalf is master of fire and light.

I've a few general observations and questions that others might comment on. Galadriel would be better at telepathy than most anyone else, much much better than the average elf? I suspect her ring would enhance her abilities, while her mirror might enhance her range? Still, she sensed a darkness in Fëanor long before either ring or mirror? She would be very good even without external aids?

I don't know that Legolas would be typical. He is son of a king and might be better at reading the land than others. Do others think his ability to read the land might be associated with elven telepathy, or might it be a unique specialized ability like Aragorn's healing and prophecy? Might telepathy be described as reading another's fëa, whether said fëa is linked to a body, a land, or possibly even enchanted items? Any examples of the last?

While Gandalf on occasion will use wizardly techniques such as gestures or words of power, can anyone think of an occasion where such methods have been associated with elven telepathy? I sort of assume Saruman and the other Istari use gestures and words, but this is an assumption. Are there examples of the use of gestures or words of power being used by anyone but Gandalf?

[Galadriel55]

I'd like to work the other side of this one. Yes, Hollin is an example of a place where the stones have an echo of a people long gone. What might be interesting is that Legolas was able to read this, while to my knowledge no one else could.

Legolas was the only Elf in the Fellowship. Elves are closer to nature, so they communicate on an invisible level.

Legolas also read Fangorn forest when he Gimli and Aragorn first came there. It was ancient, there were echoes of places far away where the hearts of the trees were black, and I believe he picked up echoes of the entmoot, hints that the forest was about to explode in wrath against Saruman.

Again, Elves are closer to nature and can read and understand things inside of it much better that men, hobbits, and Dwarves. Other Elves can do it too. Legolas said at the council that Elves found traces of Gollum-"ghost" amongst the talks of the animals, but couldn't follow because they lead to Dol Guldur.

The Fangorn example might not be best understood as reading echoes of occupants long gone, but the mood of the current occupants still living. Is he reading the land or is he reading its current people? Is there a major distinction between the two, or might both be an aspect of elven telepathy?

As I said before, he's just an Elf. He's also closer to this particular type of nature - trees - that some other Eves (like Cirdan's folk) are.

We had Galadriel testing the Fellowship. Galadriel also told Frodo that she knew all of Sauron's mind that pertained to the elves. This is impressive given how Saruman and Denethor came to grief through use of the Palantír.

Galadriel is more powerful than Denethor. She is the last descendant of the Kings of Noldor in ME.

She kind of plays the role of Melian in the 3rd Age. In The Sil it says about Morgoth that his thought often came to Doriath, but there was foiled by Melian (sorry, I don't have my book with me now, I can't give the exact quote). Both are equally impressive - a High Elf beating a Maia, and a Maia beating a Vala.

Frodo also asked Galadriel how it was that when he put on the ring he couldn't read the minds of the other ring bearers. Her response was that he had not tried, that he should not try, that he would have to train himself before he could use that power. This sounds right, but how did she know he had not tried? How deep did she go in Frodo's mind? As with Sauron, does she know all of Frodo's mind that pertains to the elves?

Mt guess is that if Frodo would have tried, the result would have been obvious - either on Nenya or on Frodo.

I've a few general observations and questions that others might comment on. Galadriel would be better at telepathy than most anyone else, much much better than the average elf?

I'd assume so, because she is a High Elf of noble birth.

Still, she sensed a darkness in Fëanor long before either ring or mirror?

Intuition. Closeness with nature. Ability to "tell" one's character (that is not unique to her).

She would be very good even without external aids?

I believe so.

I don't know that Legolas would be typical. He is son of a king and might be better at reading the land than others. Do others think his ability to read the land might be associated with elven telepathy, or might it be a unique specialized ability like Aragorn's healing and prophecy?

Neither. He's just an Elf, and all elves are close to nature. Some may be closer to the Sea, others - to trees, but all feel it much keener than other races.

Are there examples of the use of gestures or words of power being used by anyone but Gandalf?

The WK screams am incantation three times before the Gate of Minas Tirith was broken. Aragorn sings something over the blade on Weathertop (I can't remember - was if Frodo's or the Nazguls?).

[blantyr]

Legolas was the only Elf in the Fellowship. Elves are closer to nature, so they communicate on an invisible level.

Well, that one's basically mental telepathy (Tolkien did actually lay down rules for how it worked, though the essay in question was unknown until a few years ago).

I don't want to disagree with either of the above. I just wonder if one might define mental telepathy as the ability to communicate on an invisible level. As so many of the elves other unusual abilities have aspects of telepathy -- communication from fëa to fëa -- it seems to fit.

In Hollin, Legaolas seemed able to communicate with the rocks. In Fangorn, the forest. In more mundane realities, in order to communicate with something, that something ought to have a fairly advanced brain. In Middle Earth, things without brains can acquire fëa, and you can communicate with them. We have already discussed how a land might absorb something of the personality of the people who lived there, or echo in the aftermath of a strong event. I might suggest that this natural bleed of fëa might be a less structured variation of 'craftsmanship,' the putting of a bit of one's self into an item one builds.

[Morthoron]

I don't want to disagree with either of the above. I just wonder if one might define mental telepathy as the ability to communicate on an invisible level. As so many of the elves other unusual abilities have aspects of telepathy -- communication from fëa to fëa -- it seems to fit.

In Hollin, Legaolas seemed able to communicate with the rocks. In Fangorn, the forest. In more mundane realities, in order to communicate with something, that something ought to have a fairly advanced brain. In Middle Earth, things without brains can acquire fëa, and you can communicate with them. We have already discussed how a land might absorb something of the personality of the people who lived there, or echo in the aftermath of a strong event. I might suggest that this natural bleed of fëa might be a less structured variation of 'craftsmanship,' the putting of a bit of one's self into an item one builds.

What Legolas feels in Eregion and Fangorn is based on heightened acuity and attentuation with nature, it has nothing whatsover to do with telepathy. The Elves, by their very nature have better hearing, better sight, better acclimation to severe weather and a greater sense of the natural world. He was not "communicating" with nature, rather, he was able to gather an impression of the surroundings.

As far as the "telepathy" aspect of the Elves, there is no evidence it goes beyond the Eldar, as only the truly great Elves (along with Gandalf) were conversing in such a manner. Perhaps it didn't go beyond the Ringbearers themselves.

Edit: I had forgotten about the "Ósanwe-kenta or Enquiry into the Communication of Thought", an eight page postscrips by Tolkien written circa 1960 that explains Elven telepathy. Lammas Pengolodh (the alleged writer of the piece) refers to the Eldar as being in far greater control of their hröa than Men, hence the ability to communicate through the mind, and that the strength of will and leadership ("authority") is one of the principle means of strengthening such communication (hence, the ease with which Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf and Celeborn, all Eldar or Maia, and natural leaders, can converse together so). It might be conjectured that an authoritarian such as Galadriel could speak to Frodo in such a manner because the One Ring gave him the strength of will to do so.

I've got to read up on this.

[Galadriel55]

It all depends on how you define "telepathy". Is it literally "communicating on an invisible level", or is it just "having an invisible/subtle (?) connection".

[blantyr]

It all depends on how you define "telepathy". Is it literally "communicating on an invisible level", or is it just "having an invisible/subtle (?) connection".

What Legolas feels in Eregion and Fangorn is based on heightened acuity and attentuation with nature, it has nothing whatsover to do with telepathy. The Elves, by their very nature have better hearing, better sight, better acclimation to severe weather and a greater sense of the natural world. He was not "communicating" with nature, rather, he was able to gather an impression of the surroundings.

As far as the "telepathy" aspect of the Elves, there is no evidence it goes beyond the Eldar, as only the truly great Elves (along with Gandalf) were conversing in such a manner. Perhaps it didn't go beyond the Ringbearers themselves.

Edit: I had forgotten about the "Ósanwe-kenta or Enquiry into the Communication of Thought", an eight page postscrips by Tolkien written circa 1960 that explains Elven telepathy. Lammas Pengolodh (the alleged writer of the piece) refers to the Eldar as being in far greater control of their hröa than Men, hence the ability to communicate through the mind, and that the strength of will and leadership ("authority") is one of the principle means of strengthening such communication (hence, the ease with which Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf and Celeborn, all Eldar or Maia, and natural leaders, can converse together so). It might be conjectured that an authoritarian such as Galadriel could speak to Frodo in such a manner because the One Ring gave him the strength of will to do so.

I've got to read up on this.

I spent a bit of time yesterday feeding Ósanwe-kenta into Google. The full essays don't seem to be on line, so I got snippets and second hand reviews. Apparently range is not important. The strength of the more powerful person is more important than the weaker. Urgency can be important. One's mind is by default open to such communication, but one can close off access and such a closure can overcome any effort by the outsider. All minds are essentially similar in nature, but not in power. Valar, Maia and elves have sufficient power to use it effectively, while others would receive rather than initiate. I get the impression that there is a lot more I haven't been able to access.

But getting back to Legolas, the immediate question is whether he got information from Fangorn and Hollin through the traditional five senses of the hröa, or through Ósanwe-kenta and fëa.

I quite appreciate that the five senses of the elves would be acute beyond that of humans. One can see elves picking up subtle nuance of posture, facial expression voice intonation to pick up emotion and intent. Thing is, this requires an entity with both fëa and hröa to have and display emotion, memory and thought. If in Fangorn Legolas had spotted ents or hurons, he might have read their emotions and intents, but how can one read the facial expression of Hollin's rocks?

I would agree that only the more powerful beings could use Ósanwe-kenta well. Legolas, being the son of a king, could well be more adept at it than your typical elf. To limit Ósanwe-kenta to ring bearers only, though, seems far too great a restriction.

[Morthoron]

To limit Ósanwe-kenta to ring bearers only, though, seems far too great a restriction.

That is why I added the edit to my last post, as it was too restrictive.

[Roy Tmofl]

If I may beat a dead horse.

Can humans use magic without it being devilry or the craft of the enemy? I mean there are virtually no accounts of humans using magic without it being related to evil.

Such as the ring wraiths some of whom were great sorcerers in their time.

Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them. They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions of Sauron. And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thraldom of the ring that they bore and of the domination of the One which was Sauron's. And they became forever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows. The Nazgûl were they, the Ringwraiths, the Úlairi, the Enemy's most terrible servants; darkness went with them, and they cried with the voices of death. — The Silmarillion, "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", 346

Now it seems to me that the ring wraiths when still human used their sorcerery for good "in their day."

I also remember something about the Numenorians being able to speak with animals such as birds and what not. But then again that may fall under the category of being close to nature due to their similarity to the Noldor.

Another example is of course the mouth of Sauron but that doesn't help me support a case for good sorcerery.

The only other example I ca think of is when Aragorn calmed the horse with what someone dubbed elf magic in the extended eddition of the lord of the rings. Now I realize that as probably incorrect as that was most likely either his Dunedain abilities or perhaps an ability gained from living with the elves. If it was does that mean that humans can gain the abilites of the elves?

Well then again another bit of "Magic" might be the enchanting of the blade Narsil later turned Andural but that was the work of the elves. Does anyone know if Narsil was forged by the Numenorians?

However whie I may make the argument that humas have the potential to learn perhaps elven magic and use sorcerery for good. I think it may be possible that Tolkien had all forms of sorcrery used by humans almost always go bad for a reason.

Being that really the only beings who use good magic are pretty much only divine such as Mair or half Mair in the case of Luthien and the Valar which may have been their natural powers which could also explain the elves abilities being simply natural to them or the dwarves (of yore who made mighty spells while hammers fell like ringing bells, perhaps talking of their natural ability to enchant items?)

Well anyway. It might certainly might not but also certainly might be thought that Sorcerery is unatural as it doesn't come from the weilder of it, and being that this story is heavily influenced by Roman Catholisism Tolkien may have been trying to perhaps stress the natural evil tendincies of such things as Sorcerery that humans used and perhaps even names such magic witchcraft and devilry at times.

While stressing the goodness of such things as divine power and natural abilities grnted by said divine power.

I'm sorry once again if I'm just beating a dead horse but what do you think?

[Inziladun]

Can humans use magic without it being devilry or the craft of the enemy? I mean there are virtually no accounts of humans using magic without it being related to evil.

It seems to me that in Middle-earth the use of "magic" by those who do not possess it as part of their native ability, must then be "borrowed" from one who does have it. The perils of doing so seem readily apparent, which I think is why we don't see the Elves offering to lend any Men their Three Rings.

Now it seems to me that the ring wraiths when still human used their sorcerery for good "in their day."

How was that "sorcery" accomplished, though? Through the Nine Rings under Sauron's influence? That leads back to the borrowing. Is there any evidence they possessed such magical power before they obtained their rings?

I also remember something about the Numenorians being able to speak with animals such as birds and what not. But then again that may fall under the category of being close to nature due to their similarity to the Noldor.

I would put that into more of an affinity with the natural world, in line with that possessed by Elves (and Hobbits).

Another example is of course the mouth of Sauron but that doesn't help me support a case for good sorcerery.

I think in his case his magic was similar to the Ringwraiths': Their own beings and wills had been wholly swallowed by Sauron, to the point that they were in practice mere extensions of his own being. The Mouth seems to be a like state, having no name of his own, and being no one apart from his Master.

The only other example I ca think of is when Aragorn calmed the horse with what someone dubbed elf magic in the extended eddition of the lord of the rings. Now I realize that as probably incorrect as that was most likely either his Dunedain abilities or perhaps an ability gained from living with the elves. If it was does that mean that humans can gain the abilites of the elves?

I don't remember that in the movies, but at any rate I don't consider happenings there to be relevant to the books. Aragorn had elven-blood too though, so maybe that's a consideration.

However whie I may make the argument that humas have the potential to learn perhaps elven magic and use sorcerery for good. I think it may be possible that Tolkien had all forms of sorcrery used by humans almost always go bad for a reason.

I just don't see Tolkien's magic as being available for just anyone to learn and use. That's my opinion only, though,

[Roy Tmofl]

Ah I see. I like that idea. Magic having to be granted if is not natural. Such as the Dunedain gaining the ability to talk to animals after the valar blessed them and the elves always having this ability and the ability to work magic through song could be possibly because they were granted this as a natural ability by Eru. The drawves may have gained the ability to enchant their works as a blessing from Aule. Now that I think about it the Numenorian swords being magical could once again be from the Valar blesing them as I don't believe any other human race crafted a magic weapon of any kind.

Well anyways. Thank you very much for your help.