Magic in Middle-earth

[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.

[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 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 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.

[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?

[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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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?

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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).

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

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.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

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]

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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:

Originally Posted by The Muster of Rohan

...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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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 G55

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:

Originally Posted by blantyr

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]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

"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]

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"

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by blantyr

"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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

But does the Ring give the ability to sense power?

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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. 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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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?

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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

Agreed.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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.

[quote]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.

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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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":

Originally Posted by blantyr

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, because

Originally Posted by blantyr

Tolkien 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]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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":

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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]

Originally Posted by Nukapei

I've been thinking (never a good thing! ) 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.

Originally Posted by Nukapei

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]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

1. the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces
2. mysterious tricks, such as making things disappear and appear again, performed as entertainment.
3. a quality that makes something seem removed from everyday life, esp. in a way that gives delight
4. 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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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...

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

Originally Posted by blantyr

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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?

headdesk.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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?

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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…

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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?

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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]

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?