Of powers outside our realism?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Azrakhor Akallabeth

This is why I believe you aren't receiving an overwhelming volume of response to these very relevant, and oh so interesting questions. But good luck finding them. The journey is worth the wait, I promise!

There are some very interesting threads on many of them on the forum. Certainly a bit of use of the search facility might be more profitabel than expecting someone else to produce a cribsheet. I feel like Sam that some questions require a week's answer or none at all since they require a degree of evidence balancing and conjecture.

[Galadriel55]

I wouldn't call it "powers", but rather "power". I noticed that although he was once the most powerful ainu, during the first age he and Melian had a few "mental battles", and Melian won. (I can't quote right now, but there was something like "often did his thought stray to her, and there was foiled"). Which shows exactly how much power he lost over this time.

Well, maybe instead of "lost" I should say ''used". He put in into Arda and its creatures.

And more about powers: cunning lies.

[Azrakhor Akallabeth]

I can always readily admit when I make a speculation. In the case of the above quoted text, that's all it was. And I allow the fact that I can be wrong in my speculations. I'm sure my speculations are irrelevant, and I could have been wrong, and likely am. I shall certainly endeavor to stick to the researchable facts.

[skip spence]

haha, so in order to learn the answers to the above questions, answers that you apparently know so well and have readily available, we have to pay an advance fee and for a publisher for 60 upcoming books... and then, god forbid, we have to read them all?

Uhm, thanks but no thanks!

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Actually, AzrakhorThus far, it has received one direct answer (Blantyr's answer, while comprehensive, deals with non-canonical sources. If Paradus is looking for a Dungeons-and-Dragons synthesis, I doubt he could do better than Blantyr, but if he is looking for a Tolkien-based exegesis to back it up, recourse to the Ambarquenta website isn't like to cut it):

Ambarquenta runs 316 pages, and you are correct, it has or is no exegesis. It's a set of role playing rules, not an academic thesis. It's bulky enough without footnotes. Those trying to play the game aren't likely to want the footnotes. I also figure that those who see a D&D level break out and have a decent knowledge of the books will know where the D&D level break out came from and will be able to judge reasonably how worthy the break out is.

It also seemed to me that Paradus was asking his questions at a D&D level. At least, I wasn't up to answering it at a deeper level.

It is also interesting looking at how the Barrow Downs natives attempt other levels that just don't get touched if one looks at things from a D&D perspective. Reincarnation isn't mentioned at all in Ambarquenta, or in The Hobbit, or with the exception of Gandalf in the main body of LotR. That elves are of Arda and thus have dominion over Arda also doesn't show up. Ambarquenta sees the elves domain as in thought, speech and perception. Speaking with beasts, reading another's motive and communicating mind to mind were taken as inherently elven in terms of abilities outside our realism, rather than being close to nature. Looking at abilities actually shown in the books, I can see where AQ's author was coming from. I'm not saying he is right, all who disagree are wrong, or that I can quote a source. I can respect that he is sincerely walking a valid path. What was actually done in the books, and who could do it?

I guess my own perspective is one of immersion rather that academic abstraction and proof. In any role playing format, I tend to play female characters. I have long loved Tolkien. Thus, I had to create a Tolkienesque female character. The models that came to mind were Arwen, Galadriel, Goldberry and Eowyn… two princesses, a queen and a demi-goddess. As you might imagine, you can't get there from here given the number of skill picks allowed a beginning character. Aerlinn couldn't be as grand as Tolkien's major characters, but she I wanted to give her the potential to grow into it.

Three themes dominated the initial character development. Elves are hunter gatherers far more than farmers or herders. She had to be at home in a woods. My interpretation of the culture says elves would be artists far more than businessmen. The motive would be the search for beauty rather than profits or wealth. This spills over into morality. Rather than striving for justice or law, one strives to create a beautiful environment, to do the beautiful thing rather than the just thing.

The result was a singer who spent the fair weather months wandering the forests, gathering venison, acorns and strawberries, singing to Yavanna and Elbereth while watching for servants of the Enemy. In my mind, the songs to Elbereth were no small thing. Elrond, at one point, noted that the Shadow had grown nigh on to the Misty Mountains, and that all under the Shadow was dark to him. At least in my mind, the wandering companies in singing songs to the one who protects from the Enemy are among other things cleansing the land from Shadow. They are helping to keep Elrond's vision clear.

Can I reference an academic tome to verify this? No. Can I quote a line in the AQ rules to confirm it? Hmm… Almost, sort of. Speaking the name of a Valar does invoke the Power of Words rule, but it is very hard to stretch the rule as written to say that singing to Elbereth creates a blessing upon the land. Does my game master agree with me? I don't know. I didn't ask. I just mentioned that she tends to spend some spare time when the group isn't on the march singing songs to Yavanna and Elbereth, with a hint as to why. I don't need or want to know any effects. I don't expect it to change the adventures the group as a whole is having at all. Yet, that is part of what Aerlinn is and does.

Now, Aerlinn has high scores in attributes like grace, bearing, insight and fea. Most of the rest of the group focused on impressive strength, vitality and nimbleness. Aerlinn also has lots of skill levels in musician and singer. One might think if she sings songs dedicated to the Valar, she might have more effect than the others.

If so, it didn't make it into the AQ rules. The Power of Words section says absolutely nothing about the character's attributes, skills or race. Anyone can speak the Names in an appeal for aid.

Thing is, none of the other characters do. There is a comment in the Power of Words paragraphs saying that such invocations must be role played well. It is bad form for a player to say at every opportunity, "Elbereth! Elbereth! Elbereth! I want plus one to this dice roll!" In character, this translates to a notion that one doesn't invoke the aid of the Valar except in extreme circumstances. In practice, no one does. In the books, with rare exception such as Frodo's stand by the ford at Rivendell, one doesn't chant names prior to or in battle. Players in my game just don't do it.

Except Aerlinn. From Aerlinn's perspective, Yavanna wants the land to be sung into a greener green. Elbereth wants the land to be protected from Shadow. Ulmo wants things tainted washed clean. Este wants health and healed wounds. To sing to the Valar is not something to be done on rare occasion in moderation. Aerlinn is not strong in Power of Words magic because of skills, character and race. It is just that she is comfortable in it. By the strict rules of AQ, anyone could invoke the Valar just as well as she could. It would just be out of character, inappropriate for the cultures of most races.

Still, she also lives an appropriate lifestyle. If she would regularly manifest the virtues of the Valar, she has to embody said virtues. If I am going to have her sing regularly and invoke the Power of Words, I also feel obliged to role play her in a spirit compatible with Arwen, Galadriel and Goldberry. I also don't believe she seeks to be virtuous in order to gain power and dominion. It would be the other way around. The singing makes her aware of the beauty. The act of singing is beautiful, to be done for its own sake. It might be in some sense addictive, but it would be a glorious addiction. To feel the virtues of the Valar in song is to want to embrace them, to live them.

But that's just the Power of Words. AQ's Chapter 11 includes a spell list and rules for casting them. Chapter 11 magic does reference attributes, skills and race. Then there is Ambar, the ability to alter probability so that one might achieve one's fate or destiny. There are other game mechanics as well, ways to do things that were done in the books. I can embrace some with enthusiasm, while being dubious about others.

Some things I just avoid. Chapter 11 magic is enhanced by speaking words and making gestures. I want Aerlinn's magic to be subtle and unnoticeable. Sure, Gandalf might often wave his staff around, or speak in a commanding voice. That's Gandalf. That's not Aerlinn. If she wants to talk to a horse, she talks to the horse, and I'll eat the 6 point penalty on the dice roll rather than have her sing or gesture before she does it. The Art, or at least Aerlinn's Art, is casual, effortless and natural.

As a rule of thumb, when working elven magic, I want to play it subtly enough that if Sam Gamgee were there he wouldn't notice the magic. I might pass a note to the GM rather than let the other players know something magical is happening. If at all possible, I'd want Aerlinn to not notice she is practicing magic. She can just communicate with horses, and might not be overly aware of how she does it, and utterly unable to explain it to a Sam Gamgee. She can sing to the Valar, but so can anyone. They are just too self conscious to do so.

This is just my spin on the books. Can I prove it? No. Can I come up with academic references to support my thesis? No. Still, I'm not sure that one ought to be dismissive of the role playing perspective. Deconstructing -- practicing Saruman's heresy, working details from the bottom up -- isn't the only way one might learn of something, but neither should it be dismissed. Aerlinn's experiences might not be canon or anything approaching canon, but they might hopefully provide food for thought.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by blantyr

Ambarquenta runs 316 pages, and you are correct, it has or is no exegesis. It's a set of role playing rules, not an academic thesis. It's bulky enough without footnotes. Those trying to play the game aren't likely to want the footnotes. I also figure that those who see a D&D level break out and have a decent knowledge of the books will know where the D&D level break out came from and will be able to judge reasonably how worthy the break out is.

It also seemed to me that Paradus was asking his questions at a D&D level. At least, I wasn't up to answering it at a deeper level.

[explanation of Ambarquenta character creation rules]

This is just my spin on the books. Can I prove it? No. Can I come up with academic references to support my thesis? No. Still, I'm not sure that one ought to be dismissive of the role playing perspective. Deconstructing -- practicing Saruman's heresy, working details from the bottom up -- isn't the only way one might learn of something, but neither should it be dismissed. Aerlinn's experiences might not be canon or anything approaching canon, but they might hopefully provide food for thought.

Yes, but the problem is that the original poster, Paradus, though he indeed seemed to thinking rather in D&D terms, was asking about "Tolkien's world"– that is, presumably, Tolkien's own writings rather than any roleplaying system based on them. Tolkien didn't write the "Ambarquenta" rules, did he?

[Anguirel]

well, it would be pretty hilarious if someone discovered that he had done...

Imagine the raised eyebrows at Oxford high tables

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Yes, but the problem is that the original poster, Paradus, though he indeed seemed to thinking rather in D&D terms, was asking about "Tolkien's world"– that is, presumably, Tolkien's own writings rather than any roleplaying system based on them. Tolkien didn't write the "Ambarquenta" rules, did he?

No, he didn't. Nor did the author of the AQ rules write LotR. And reading AQ would say nothing meaningful about Tolkien if you haven't read a great deal of Tolkien. I would say AQ is a not particularly good rules system unless one has a fairly deep love of Middle Earth. AQ is a reflection, inevitably a distorted reflection. As such it needs a correction which might best come from players with a knowledge of and respect for the original. I did assume Paradus familiar with the original.

I might say AQ doesn't answer anything. It perhaps asks far more questions than Paradus. For every point where it states something firm about how the books step outside realism, you can and perhaps should ask if the rules got it right. Tolkien's number one priority was not nitpick level consistency, while RPG rules have to act like rules. The job of writing rules can't be done perfectly. Still, my thought is that if one immerses one's self in the sub-creation, one learns different things than if one discusses the sub-creation in abstract. If one doesn't attempt to find patterns, one isn't going to learn patterns.

I do see Paradus's questions as relevant. What can one do in Middle Earth with song and magic that one can't do in our poor mundane reality? Who can do what, why, when and where? Yes, I am echoing Saruman's heresy of breaking things up to understand the parts. Perhaps I might be missing something of the whole.

But if one shuns the W questions, something is missing too. AQ was put together by people with a great love of Tolkien. In setting up RPG rules one has to address the W questions. An academic exegesis, if it avoids the W questions, isn't going to be complete.
.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by blantyr

Reincarnation isn't mentioned at all in Ambarquenta, or in The Hobbit, or with the exception of Gandalf in the main body of LotR.

As was said before, this is about what Tolkien wrote, not about a Tolkien-based RPG. He wrote other books except for TH and LOTR. In The Silmarillion it says that most Elves are allowed to reincarnate after their death, and quite a lot of them do.

The exceptions:

Feanor was not allowed to reincarnate as a punishment
Miriel (Finwe's first wife) didn't want to reincarnate (which is why Finwe chose to remarry)

There are probably others.

[Azrakhor Akallabeth]

Originally Posted by skip spence

haha, so in order to learn the answers to the above questions, answers that you apparently know so well and have readily available, we have to pay an advance fee and for a publisher for 60 upcoming books... and then, god forbid, we have to read them all?

Uhm, thanks but no thanks!

Uhm, thanks for playing, but no thanks back, Skippy. Your mocking two cents displays the heights of your stupidity because you do not even comprehend the subject, so go be a smart *** somewhere else because stupid people bore me. I'm out of here. Bye bye.

[blantyr]

There is one more form of magic that didn't make my above list. Before major conflicts, there is often an exchange of words that might at first seem like a form of taunting, but in fact is an exchange of prophecies. One of my favorites is between Gandalf and the Witch King over the fallen gates of Minas Tirith. I haven't my books with me. Pardon if I haven't got it precisely right.

Note, that earlier in the book, it is established that in Minas Tirith, the day and the First Hour begin with sunrise, when the cock crows.

Gandalf : "Fall back into the abyss awaiting you and your master!"

WK : "Old fool! Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now, and curse in vain!"

Cock : Crows, thus ending the hour.

Rohirim host : Horns horns…

Here, the Witch King might be said to have made a mistake. According to the terms of the exchanged prophecies, Gandalf had to die then for the curse to be in vain. If Gandalf didn't die then, both the Witch King and his master would fall into an abyss. Gandalf wasn't aiming just to save Minas TIrith, he prophesied a final victory. The Witch King allowed Gandalf's effort to stand.

A short time later, the Witch King loses another exchange of prophecies.

WK : "No mortal man may hinder me."

Eowyn : "But no mortal man am I. You look upon a woman! Begone if ye be not deathless!"

Now, I do not know if Eowyn as a member of a noble house had been trained in the art of prophecy as a battle skill, but it might be said that she defeated the Witch King right then with words, before a blow was struck. If she spoke out of love for her uncle and despair over his fall, the words are no weaker. The Witch King seemed to know what she had done. He hesitated before beginning the combat, but begin it he did.

Frodo : "You shall have neither the ring nor me!"

Gandalf : "You shall not pass!"

How would one make up rules for this in a role playing game? One can't. The closest I have been able to come to it in a Middle Earth game was Aerlinn firmly declaring that the wight shall return to his barrow. At that, she didn't dare do so, didn't dare initiate an exchange of prophecy, until the early glow in the east of the soon to rise sun gave extra force to her words. One finds nothing of the pre battle prophecy in the AQ rules. Still, I'm waiting on it, not in the rules, but in play. Should some evil creature predict doom, Aerlinn shall be looking for a way to turn his words and thus turn the doom.

I see role playing games as a shared daydream. Perhaps any sub-creation is a shared daydream. Middle Earth, in the beginning, wasn't much intended to be shared widely, perhaps not in a wider circle than the Inklings. Obviously an author or a games master will have a greater role in sharing a daydream than a reader or player.

I'm just not sure that academic formality is the only approach to sharing a daydream. Can I prove that my interpretation of battle prophecy is what Tolkien had in mind? Not in any formal sense. I just find embracing my interpretation enhances the daydream. It increases the depth and the wonder. What more is there to do? Still, one has to recognize the magic to share the magic.
.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Azrakhor Akallabeth

Uhm, thanks for playing, but no thanks back, Skippy. Your mocking two cents displays the heights of your stupidity because you do not even comprehend the subject, so go be a smart *** somewhere else because stupid people bore me. I'm out of here. Bye bye.

Azrakhor– should you happen to change your mind about leaving, as I hope you will, please note the following: we do rather fancy ourselves as debaters here, and one of our principles is that people who make claims should be able to back them up. This you've refused to do, on the grounds that though the questions are "READILY answerable", explaining why would take "ANOTHER 60 books". As this is an obvious contradiction in terms, I really can't say I'm surprised you copped a bit of flak for it– not to mention for your demands for payment before you will condescend to explain your points.

Further, while no doubt Skip meant to poke fun at you, apart from the mocking "haha" and "god forbid" all he actually did in that post is paraphrase you. Read it again.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Azrakhor Akallabeth

..,so go be a smart *** somewhere else because stupid people bore me.

I thought you were the one leaving? *shrugs*

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I thought you were the one leaving? *shrugs*

Perhaps he grew so bored with himself that his motor functions shut down completely and, being incapable of locomotion, hoped that you would leave in his stead.

A surrogate skip at the expense of spence, as it were.