Magic in Middle-earth

[aiea]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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

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

Letter #155 (draft letter to Naomi Mitchison)

I don't think you missed the most important part
The major difference it is
Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives-
and

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

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

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

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

[blantyr]

Interesting thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

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

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

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

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

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

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

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

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

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Blantyr

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

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

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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

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

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Morth

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

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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

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

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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

Yup, like Boromir in Lothlorien.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

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

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

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

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

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

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

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

D'accord, but as you note yourself, it's difficult to think of a situation where magic might be plausibly used in an inn setting. You could heal a cook's burnt fingers, or sing a song to appease two brawling drunkards, but both situations can be dealt with just as easily without resorting to magic.
But the inns aren't the whole of BD role-playing. There have been and will be games where magic can play a part.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

*points to your avatar*

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

All of the above is reasonable.

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

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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

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

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

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

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

[Nerwen]

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

Yes, hence the quotation marks.

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

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

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

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

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

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

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

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

Originally Posted by blantyr

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

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

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

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

[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"