Magic in Middle-earth

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Blantyr

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.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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, 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.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Morth

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.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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.

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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'.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

With all due reflection, playing Goldie without magic wouldn't be as bad as playing Goldie without fully opaque clothing.

*points to your avatar*

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

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:

Originally Posted by blantyr

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?

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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".

Originally Posted by blantyr

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 blantyr

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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.

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

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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?

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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."

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