Relative Powers

[Elu Ancalime]

Ah, right. Powers implied in my head made me thing of turnbased RPG.
________
Weed vaporizers

[Mister Underhill]

I've always thought this sort of "power" hierarchy is a red herring. Put rock, scissors, and paper in a hierarchy... see what I mean? Sauron's will beats Orcs, Orcish muscle beats hobbits, hobbit fortitude beats Sauron. If you need a snappy rhyme in a hurry, a Spider is a better bet than an Ent, but if you need to roust a wizard, talk to Treebeard.

What do you measure? Denethor has the power to set armies in motion with a command, but Legolas could put an arrow through his eye. Which is more "powerful"? If it's a good home-cooked meal you want, forget them both and see Sam. Which is a more accurate measure of power: the sheer magical force that Gandalf could project, or the wisdom which guided his decisions?

The problem with this sort of list is that it does seem to evoke a videogame mentality -- you start comparing Gandalf and Saruman's mana points, or Aragorn's armor class vs. Boromir's armor class.

If you're talking Middle-earth Fight Club, there are still a few kinks to be worked out. Sauron pre-Ring, Sauron with Ring, and Sauron the giant flaming eyeball are all different animals. Same with Sauron on the battlefield vs. Sauron the insidious court advisor vs. Sauron the commander-in-chief.

Anyway. I've lodged my complaint. Carry on with the list-making.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Child grumbles and then begins to jump up and down in an agitated fashion, waving her hands in the air......

Littlemanpoet

Stop!

I know what RPG you are talking about, but Mr. Underhill is right. You can't do this. Well, of course, you can, but I mean the whole idea of making such a list runs counter to the message and spirit of Tolkien. Everything in LotR makes me realize that, at any given instant in time, the tables can be turned and someone from the bottom of the list can defeat someone higher up. What that means is that the list has no real meaning.

If Hobbits are listed number 167 (or whatever they are), then how come Frodo managed to outwit Sauron and destroy the Ring? How could Samwise possibly have defeated a gigantic spider, which should have had him for lunch? There are dozens of examples like this, involving races other than hobbits, but I am too lazy to list them all out.

P.S. f you really want to continue with this enterprise, I believe you've left Galadriel off your list....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Lalwendë, there is enough in the quoted text to include Ungoliant in the list. The "it is said" bit is a classic Tolkienism that is used to suggest legend and folklore rather than feigned history. Therefore, I'm going to go with the feigned history. One of the presuppositions for this thread is that there is no being that is independent of the creation of Eru.

I'm all for worms, fisticuffs, well made points, and corrections backed by evidence to this list. But it being my list, I will make decisions now and then to end certain points of debate, as I did above regarding Ungoliant. It was a very good effort, Lal, but doomed, as it butted its head up against an immutabilty.

Hey, is this a democracy or a dictatorship?

I still say that there are elements in Tolkien's work that defy all attempts to be 'classified', and I think Tolkien intended it that way. One of the essential aspects of Faerie is that it is enigmatic and we cannot fully grasp what it means or how it works, and Tolkien's world works in the same way. Characters such as Ungoliant, Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are outside the logical world order, even that of Ea.

In fact, the layering of older drafts upon later drafts and the use of characters and situations which defy even religious (in terms of Eruist) logic help create the very essence of magic and faerie which is conveyed by Tolkien's work. Of course, the human urge (and even more so in the case of the Tolkienists' urge) is to classify and order everything, but sometimes we can't and we might have to accept some things that don't make us feel comfortable that this whole world is ordered by Eru.

The early version of Ungoliant from the Big Ungoliant Thread .

[Thinlómien]

I do agree the list is a bit weird thing to do. But I thnk the power should be measured in how much did/could the individual affect the world. Or that at least has been my unofficial guideline. That can be used for all my reasoning.

[Earendilyon]

lmp,

the Wiki is the WitchKing.

I can't agree on Gollum being more powerful than a typical Orc.

IIRC, The Hobbit tells us, that Gollum once and a while ate some stray Orcs.

[Lalaith]

Mr Underhill's paper/scissor/stone analogy also occurred to me.
And Child is right too - where *is* Galadriel?

[drigel]

And Child is right too - where *is* Galadriel?

and Melian, and Huan, and....

[The Saucepan Man]

I seem to recall there being an earlier thread which tried to do the same thing. Couldn't find it though.

I am with Mister U and Child on this issue. It is impossible to come up with a neat and logical heirarchy of power when we are dealing with such a range of characters with varying types of power in a world such as Middle-earth.

Elempi, you say that you are looking at all aspects of power within each individual and each group. But different types of power will prove the most decisive in different situations. It was said that there was power, of a kind, within the Shire. Hobbits excel, more than most other characters, at hiding themselves away when they do not wish to be seen and in feats of great endurance. It was these abilities that enabled Frodo and Sam to destroy the Ring and save Middle-earth. So they were very powerful in that situation, moreso than Sauron since they defeated him, yet they would not fare well in a one-on-one with him. Saruman had great powers of persuasion and could corrupt nations and control vast armies, yet he was felled by the lowly Wormtongue. The power of Men was in their ability to resist the inevitability of the Music of the Ainur and embrace change, making them more powerful in may ways than Elves, yet Elves were, in general terms, their superiors in physical prowess and spiritual fortitude. The Witch King, particularly at the Siege of Minas Tirith, was one of the most powerful beings of his Age in many ways, and yet he had a fatal weakness which was exploited (unwittingly) to great effect by a mere Hobbit and a shieldmaiden. Turin was a powerful warrior and yet, in consequence of Morgoth's curse, everything that he tried to achieve turned to ruin. His powers were restricted by his circumstances.

And I just don't think that you can measure these varying types and degrees of power against each other in order to give each character a "power" rating. Whether they are more powerful, in absoute terms, than another character depends upon the circumstances of any given situation.

And then there is the problem of the nature of the information that we have to work from. You place the Dragons above Sauron. Sauron was, however, a Maia, whereas we have no conclusive indication as to the nature of Dragons. They may have been Maiar spirits trapped within the bodies of great beasts, but they may also have been great beasts raised to a higher level. Either way, it is impossible to say whether they are of a higher order than a "senior" Maia like Sauron. Instinctively, I would say not. Balrogs are another example. Depending upon the source, they were either incredibly powerful Maiar, limited in number, or they were lesser Maiar, great in number and little more powerful than the greatest Orc captains. You place them below the Witch-King. On one analysis, I would agree with you. On another, I would not.

Similarly, the relative power of a being depends upon the point in time that we are considering and the circumstances then prevailing. As others have pointed out, the powers of both Morgoth and Sauron waned over time. Saruman and Gandalf (and indeed all of the Istari) were greater Maiar and so incredibly powerful in their "natural" state. And yet, as the Istari, their powers were limited and they could be vulnerable to the lowliest of blows, as Saruman's death shows.

But, ultimately, I think that Child has it right, when she says:

... the whole idea of making such a list runs counter to the message and spirit of Tolkien.

It is in the nature of Middle-earth that an individual's natural power is of less importance than the circumtances in which that character finds himself and, more significantly, his ability and strength of will to achieve his aims. In that regard, Frodo was infinately more powerful than, say, Boromir. And Turin, too. One of Tolkien's central themes, and one which runs through his writings, most particularly The Hobbit and LotR, is the ennoblement of the humble or, in other words, the fortitude of the least powerful to overcome the vast "powers" arrayed against them, and to prevail.