My response is 'apples to oranges'.
more like "apple to basket of fruit"
the basket being d&d (because it is the definitive fantasy role playing system)
the fruit being:
middle earth
dragon lance
forgotten realms
greyhawk
and thousands of other fantasy settings that could be governed by the rules set forth by d&d
(anyone who creates a fantasy setting before or after d&d is subject to have their work translated into d&d system by fantasy geeks worldwide)
Okay, I know you had already posted this long before I said anything on the will-o-whisp thread - but it does bear mention (at least for the archives, when the will-o-whisp thread won't be current anymore) that reposting this article is copyright violation. And formatting/linking to an external document for large articles is good for the eyes.
Now, that said - I'm somewhat at a loss as to the point of your post, actually.
Are you asking the same question as the writer of the article? If so, the answer is that nothing needs to be changed. D&D does not need to be more like Tolkein, or less so - though the individual DM can certainly tailor the game to his whim - perhaps a DM might decide a wizard has d8 hit dice, 8 base skill points and an average base attack bonus but is only capable of casting 4th level spells at 20th level. That would certainly be more 'Tolkein-esque.' On the other hand, wizards work just fine under the current system.
Are you asking what level Gandalf would be under the current D&D system? The answer is moot - a 5th level wizard would be slain nearly instantly by a balor, D&D's equivilant of the balrog. It's not the same 'system.'
Or are you simply comparing the two 'systems?' They're similar on the surface, but Tolkien, having been free of the shackles of an actual mechanical system for his spells and monsters, was on whim able to have fairly low-powered characters triumph against inconceivable odds.
I think Tolkien died many years before the Player's Handbook got published... so he wrote LoTR without any of the rule books handy. I'm sure if he were alive today he would gladly go back and update everything - maybe change some of those "fireballs" to "meteor swarms" etc., etc.
;-)
lotr has been compared to D&D since it's inception, this article is from 1977, only a few years after D&D came out.
i don't think ppl will ever stop comparing the two.
im not in total agreement with this article but all reference's come from the books as the movies weren't ouut then. but... it does have some merit.
i think (like you) that he may have been holding back, but in support of the article he did utilize artifacts quite a bit, and he may have survived the fight with balrog thru the ring of power he possessed. (the ring was fire based as was the balrog)
the article is 30 years old. what are the time restraints on copyright? i am not making a profit off of, or taking away from dragon magazine in any way.
One reason that people will never stop comparing D&D and LotR is because no one can ever come to a real answer on the subject becaue there isn't a question to be answered. It really is apples to oranges. One is a game, the other is an attempt to create a mythology for the modern world. Kinda hard to line them up and make them square with each other.
Oh, and considering Disney's treatment of the Mouse, I'd say that the copyright on these things has a good 1,087,456,002 (plus or minus 43) more years to it.
the article is 30 years old. what are the time restraints on copyright? i am not making a profit off of, or taking away from dragon magazine in any way.
Allow me to introduce you to the Paizo store.
Yes, the article is close to 30 years old - but the copyright has been maintained. So posting this article isn't much different than posting the contents of a current issue of Dragon. Does that make sense?
If I'm wrong (and I'm pretty sure I'm not) either one of the Paizo staffers or Sebastian (one of the posters here - he's a lawyer and would know these things way better than me) will pop in here in due time (and they might anyway, just because the topic sounds interesting - though I'm still not sure which direction you wanted to take here).
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Did someone say my name?
the article is 30 years old. what are the time restraints on copyright? i am not making a profit off of, or taking away from dragon magazine in any way.
As Saern mentioned, the duration for copyright is roughly the date on which Micky Mouse was created plus twenty years. It's at least 100 years in most cases because the clock doesn't start running in most cases until the author dies. So yeah, the article is still under copyright, and Thanis is correct that it should not be posted.
As for making profit, that's a piece of the analysis, but far from the full story. A good rule of thumb is to not post a full article on the internet without the author's permission. It's just a rule of thumb, but it's a pretty good one. You're probably not going to get sued, but it's bad karma.
Disclaimer: I'm not your lawyer, I am not giving you legal advice, blah, blah blah.
Paizo has a dog in this fight, so they may just delete the offending post.
more like "apple to basket of fruit"
the basket being d&d (because it is the definitive fantasy role playing system)
the fruit being:
middle earth
dragon lance
forgotten realms
greyhawk
and thousands of other fantasy settings that could be governed by the rules set forth by d&d(anyone who creates a fantasy setting before or after d&d is subject to have their work translated into d&d system by fantasy geeks worldwide)
Actually Iron Crown's Rolemaster/Middle-Earth Role-Playing was and is still the definative fantasy RPG for me (Oh, and Gandalf works pretty well in it too, And Aragorn works a far shade better as well), with D&D 3.5 running a distant 5th right now. Just because 3.5 (or D&D period) is the most popular 800 lb. gorilla right now, does not make it the best. On the contrary if that were true wouldn't our once popular President here in the U.S. have finally sorted out this whole governing thing by now?
I'll give you the latter three, but Middle-Earth, Pern, Hyperboria, and countless other fantasy worlds are not related to D&D other than you can bend the D&D rules enough to accomidate them. That's true of most open-ended game systems. Systemwise current D&D is okay, classic D&D is to my mind better, but for some games and genres systems like DC Heroes, Call of Cthulhu, 7th Sea, Over the Edge, Mage the Ascension, Fading Suns, or Teenagers from Outer Space might simulate the reality you are shooting for better.
It's a very relative world out there,
G=G-cubed
Yup,
Gandalf is weak, this week they showed the whole trilogy on tv and what I saw was that Gandalf didn't use anything above 3rd level.
Gandalf in my opinion is a 6th level druid / 6th level sorcerer. With the half-angel template that makes him level 20. Powerful enough to face a balor.
OK, the above is complete nonsense but it shows how you can always apply mechanics to every fictional character. Given the fact that Gandalf is only 5th level, did you enjoy the book any less or more?
For me it didn't matter, the book however was better IMHO.
Gandalf is weak, this week they showed the whole trilogy on tv and what I saw was that Gandalf didn't use anything above 3rd level...
OK, the above is complete nonsense but it shows how you can always apply mechanics to every fictional character...
Yep :)
I was very fond of ICE's MERP. The final version included a mechanic to discourage indiscriminate spell use by non-evil casters -- certainly in keeping with the flavor of the trilogy.
Critics are just using the wrong game system :P
WHat the heck!??! Gandalf is resurected?!?...More info on that one????
In my opinion, one of the central themes of the LoTR trilogy is how relatively unimportant people can change the destiny of the world. I think that the original D&D roleplaying game also encapsulated that nicely, and as the original game rarely ventured above tenth level, a mid to high level caster would have occupied the role Gandalf played nicely. Also, 1ed D&D pays an acknowledged debt to Middle Earth, and unabashedly adapted Tolkien's ideas to a tabletop game. Perhaps it was so fitting because many fantasy/sci-fi books are/were about a single hero, while both LotR and the Hobbit are about groups who make a perilous journey and need the various strengths of the group to succeed.
His strengths (aside from his admittedly limited casting repertoire) were in his wisdom, his affinity with animals and his willingness to make risky/unpopular decisions that "normal" people couldn't see the outcome of, to end a sentence in a preposition, which I haven't. He had a sense of the overarching plan of things, and various knowledges that were beyond the ken of the folk around him.
Thus I agree with the above post. If you have to translate him into D&D for whatever reason, he seems more like a Druid than a Wizard, although arguably he may have taken some wizard or Human Paragon levels during or after his transformation into Gandalf the White, a shift which I believe also heralds his transformation from a more philosophical steward of Middle Earth and its creatures into a direct combatant vs. Evil and its forces.
The above article fails to take into account that Sauron was vastly more powerful before his imprisonment and the whole thing is about him regaining his near deific status. He may be limited without the relic of the ring, but given that power, Sauron would be epic-level at the least, with at the bare minimum some fighter levels and some wizard/sorcerer levels.
Anyway, I just thought I would chime in on this. Hope you all had a happy holiday season and see you soon!
WHat the heck!??! Gandalf is resurected?!?...More info on that one????
Uhm, yes... sorry if that's a spoiler in some way, but I think it's presumed that by this point, anyone playing D&D has seen/read The Two Towers at some point.
...If you have to translate him into D&D for whatever reason, he seems more like a Druid than a Wizard, although arguably he may have taken some wizard or Human Paragon levels during or after his transformation into Gandalf the White, a shift which I believe also heralds his transformation from a more philosophical steward of Middle Earth and its creatures into a direct combatant vs. Evil and its forces...
The discussion has me curious about something. I'm a HUGE Tolkien fan, the sort that knows more trivia than any well-adjusted person should. Among other things, there's a good argument against him getting Human Paragon levels.
How many know what Gandalf is?
Perhaps more to the point, how many think he's human?
thanks for your input guys this has been fun... now i'm gonna make your head spin :)
the valar were cylons! (as in the new battle star galactica)
galactica finaly found a world to settle on (middle earth)
the cylons debated amongst themselves and decided to lrt humankind live, but thought it would be a good idea to genetically mutate some of them (hence the halflngs gnomes elves dwarves and such) so they wouldn't band together against the cylons.
-after gandalf fights the balrog he is resurrected on a resurrection ship.
-it has been so long since humans colonized middle earth they have forgotten their technology and view the cyclon technology as "magic"
lol... i know this is a wild assumption, but it explains many things in lotr if u look at it this way.
Conan defeated Thulsa Doom, his henchmen, a pet snake. Conan kills everyone!
----
Gandalf was one of the Valar (thanks wikipedia) and therefor, not a human.
----
But Conan has killed Demon Lords, so semi-angels should be no problem.
The Cylon "explanation" doesn't mean anything, because there's nothing in need of further explanation. An interesting joke, yes, but nothing more. I hope that it wasn't your intent to make it so; I apologize if I'm being dense, but I couldn't tell from your post.
If I remember correctly, the valar (Gandalf, Saruman, Rhadagast? (sp?)) were the servants of a "deific" class of beings that were either servitors or the servitors of the servitors of Eru Iluvatar (Iluvator?). The balrogs were originally seven in number and were fallen valar if I remember correctly. The one that Gandalf killed was the last.
Tolkien's concept of magic is quite different, I believe, than that held by many modern fantasy game players. Gandalf's magic is more subtle and pervasive, yet more powerful in the end, than the typical "spell" found in modern D&D.
Again, the two things are quite different, and while comparrisons can be fun musings, they can't be anything serious. I find attempt to shovel literature into the constraints of D&D mechanics sily, myself. However, that's just my own opinion, and I mean no offense to anyone by stating it. Carry on.
Again, the two things are quite different, and while comparrisons can be fun musings, they can't be anything serious. I find attempt to shovel literature into the constraints of D&D mechanics sily, myself. However, that's just my own opinion, and I mean no offense to anyone by stating it. Carry on.
That´s the whole point: It is either written as a story or as a game. Translating one into the other never works out all that well IMHO. It does not matter if you translate a book into D&D or any other of the zillion game systems out there. And the other way round: Books derived from game settings are seldom great literature, to put it mildly.
The reason for this is the differing goal of each work: one is written to entertain one reader at a time, the other is written to give a group of people a common ground in rule mechanics to tell a story and play a game. So, any comparison will always be faulty and can be valued only for its entertainment value.Stefan
a book is a form of storytelling. storytelling has been around longer than books. storytellers don't tell their story to one person at a time4, they like to gather a group and tell it. same in d&d and novels, they are meant to be shared by many that's why their isn't just one copy of lotr. margret weis and tracy hickman are just two authors who have written novels based in a game world, and they are well written. the fact that they are in a gamew setting does not detract from their enjoyability in the least.
a book is a form of storytelling. storytelling has been around longer than books. storytellers don't tell their story to one person at a time4, they like to gather a group and tell it. same in d&d and novels, they are meant to be shared by many that's why their isn't just one copy of lotr. margret weis and tracy hickman are just two authors who have written novels based in a game world, and they are well written. the fact that they are in a gamew setting does not detract from their enjoyability in the least.
I don't know about that. I know a few non-gamers who are fantasy nuts, and they don't rate Dragonlance very highly. I think if you can mentally identify the classes/spells/whatever in the action it makes the book more enjoyable than it otherwise would be.
In one of the R.A. Salvatore books, I think it's "Exile", (but don't quote me) there is a bit where Drizzt is hunting something and it says "Drizzt crouched for several rounds." Even when I was a 15 year-old fanboy I couldn't believe that one slipped through.
There's a reason why most markets won't accept fiction obviously based on your D&D game; most campaigns don't have neat stories that follow clear arcs, unless the DM is one of those rail-roading "you're all minor characters in my brilliant fantasy trilogy" guys. No-one likes playing with those guys.
I thought Gandalf was a maia?
I thought Gandalf was a maia?
He was. which is why you should always be careful trusting Wikipedia... it's not always right.
- Ashavan
a book is a form of storytelling. storytelling has been around longer than books. storytellers don't tell their story to one person at a time4, they like to gather a group and tell it. same in d&d and novels, they are meant to be shared by many that's why their isn't just one copy of lotr. margret weis and tracy hickman are just two authors who have written novels based in a game world, and they are well written. the fact that they are in a gamew setting does not detract from their enjoyability in the least.
I have to say that I deeply disagree that the experience of a D&D game is in any way similar to that of great literature, which is what Lord of the Rings is. Both are at least partially based on entertaining an audience, and both happen to be based on fantasy, but otherwise, they're not similar at all, nor should they be. Horning the War of the Ring into D&D mechanics would ruin it for me. I read Dragonlance before I knew what D&D was, and I'm glad I did. Literature and games don't mesh.
But then, again, that's just my slant. But I'll defend it to the end, because it's an opinion and doesn't have to be supported by anything! :)
In my opinion, Gandalf's use of magic in the Lord of the Rings is more mysterious, magical and interesting than if he were a meteor throwing engine of destruction. Using subtle abilities (based originally in folklore, likely) with a lot of cleverness, Gandalf circumvents the challenges presented to himself and his allies. And honestly, where's the style and panache in magic missiles? He's a character known for his wisdom, so it makes sense that he would be reserved in using his gifts. If he only uses them when necessary, with only the absolute required amount of power, he leaves his allies, his enemies and the reader wondering,"What is he holding back?"
Who wants to travel and hang out with a guy known for his abilities to destroy hundreds of people with but a word from his lips, especially when this guy does it at every possible opportunity? Nobody in their right mind. Someone like that (even if he does it for the good guys) would very quickly be exiled, executed or imprisoned. For even for the small amount of arcane power Gandalf openly displays and moreso for his wisdom and willingness to tell people what they don't want to hear, Gandalf is not trusted in many places. Only the Fellowship and the Elves really respect and trust the guy throughout the entire story.
And it really is no fun to read a book written in D&D terms.
|
In the context of the article, it is clear that Gandalf could not be a D&D wizard at all. In 1977, wizards were strictly disallowed the use of swords.
The more interesting question for me, though, is how I might use the current D&D rules to build a Gandalf-like character. Upon reflection, I'd probably start with an Aasimar Bard, maybe with a Harper prestige class addition.
Tolkein's wizards were mostly adept at overtly or covertly changing the opinions and attitudes of others, and also great leaders and spies. That reads "Bard" to me.
Mmmh...and the One Ring is nothing more than a stupid, low-magic ring of invisibility???
Cursed Ring of Invisibility... tho some of the movie effects with the Ringwraiths suggest it's maybe an invisibility/etherealness ring.
MistaRyte
As to the One Ring, all it did for FRODO and BILBO was make them invisible. They had no magical ability. It could have allowed about half of the elven characters (like Galadriel or Elrond) to rule all of Middle-Earth.
I'm certain Gandalf could have used the One Ring and the ring of fire that he had (I'm not sure which book it mentioned that in but Gandalf had the elven ring of fire, I think it was mentioned in the Silmarilion) to rule the world, but he was afraid of being corrupted by its power.
Even in the hands of Frodo, it also hinted at some other powers however. Remember that it altered the senses, I would suggest that it allowed the wearer to see invisible and ethereal objects/creatures. It also made the wearer more susceptible to the ring-wraiths attacks, possibly because it altered their substance, making them more like the ring-wraiths (maybe something like the ghost touch ability?)
...If you have to translate him into D&D for whatever reason, he seems more like a Druid than a Wizard, although arguably he may have taken some wizard or Human Paragon levels during or after his transformation into Gandalf the White, a shift which I believe also heralds his transformation from a more philosophical steward of Middle Earth and its creatures into a direct combatant vs. Evil and its forces...The discussion has me curious about something. I'm a HUGE Tolkien fan, the sort that knows more trivia than any well-adjusted person should. Among other things, there's a good argument against him getting Human Paragon levels.
How many know what Gandalf is?
Perhaps more to the point, how many think he's human?
You will have to pardon my Tolkien ignorance. I didn't mean to offend any purists. Please don't misunderstand my intention. I was merely saying that it is D&D which owes the debt to Tolkien's work rather than trying to quantify Tolkien in D&D terms.
I was aware that Gandalf was more than human, at the very least planetouched, but in form, appearance and comportment he was mostly human. As usual, I hastily said something without really thinking. I was merely suggesting that he had a class which afforded him abilities outside the stereotypical D&D druid (if, again one must quantify him in D&D terms)... I do think that the Gygaxian D&D class of Druid was based on the idea of the Celtic "Wizard" as personified by Gandalf. He has aspects of Merlyn, Math and others from Celtic & English "mythology" & lore. You never see him crack a book once, and his "lightning bolts" more closely resemble "call lightning" than the 3d level wizard spell.
Again, I apologize for offending the experts, I was merely voicing an opinion, but as Twain is attributed as saying:
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and have them think you an idiot than to open it and have them be sure"
Don't feel so bad, ZeroCharisma (although, with a name like that, no wonder you failed the Diplomacy check! ((Joking))). :P
I think the post questioning the knowledge of Gandalf's nature that Tatterdemalion posted was brought on by the entire thread trying to confine Tolkien into D&D, not by what you specifically said.
But, that's also my interpretation of someone else's statement, and I don't want to offend Tatterdemalion by putting words in his mouth. Just trying to be a nice guy. If I'm putting my foot in my mouth, please tell me so I can take it out.
margret weis and tracy hickman do not reference the d&d rules system anywhere in their works. if a book was written like a d&d tabletop session, then yes, it would be boring. but these authors don't do that. a good author can write a book in any setting and hold the readeres attention. to say that reading a book set in a d&d universe is not good, you are showing how closed minded you are, and that you haven't read any.
as for those who say you can't put lotr into d&d, read this:
http://www.merp.com/downloads/Ea-d20/
You're misinterpreting our responses, Drall (and assuming too much).
Middle Earth can be emulated in D&D. Heck, Middle Earth can be emulated using the rules for Call of Cthulu if you really wanted. The rules are just a means of facilitating play.
However - Tolkien, having no set mechanical system for combat or spellcasting, was able to be much freer (?) in his descriptions. Even in the official MERP system, you CANNOT do everything that Tolkein described without bending or breaking the rules (which is fine if the situation warrants it).
There are good D&D novels. However, the majority of them are pretty terrible, because the author gets caught up in the RULES. I'd cite some examples, but I threw those books away. But try reading an official D&D book not written by a popular author and more than likely you'll see what I mean by page 3.
Don't feel so bad, ZeroCharisma (although, with a name like that, no wonder you failed the Diplomacy check! ((Joking))). :P
I think the post questioning the knowledge of Gandalf's nature that Tatterdemalion posted was brought on by the entire thread trying to confine Tolkien into D&D, not by what you specifically said.
But, that's also my interpretation of someone else's statement, and I don't want to offend Tatterdemalion by putting words in his mouth. Just trying to be a nice guy. If I'm putting my foot in my mouth, please tell me so I can take it out.
Thanks, Saern. I appreciate that. I know Tolkien can be a pretty sensitive subject among gamers, so I try to tread lightly. Even so, I hope that with my -5 Charisma modifier I don't wind up with your foot in my mouth. *grin*
That would be uncomfortable, for several reasons....
margret weis and tracy hickman do not reference the d&d rules system anywhere in their works. if a book was written like a d&d tabletop session, then yes, it would be boring. but these authors don't do that.
...except that it is rather easy to see what kind of stats the characters did, and practically hear the dice being rolled under that narration. They don't reference the system but it is clear they are using it.
Not that they are the only authors to do so...for example when I was watching tv scifi series Farscape I could do simultaneous translation to D&D terminology ("cleric casts CLW" "barbarian fails WILL save").Some of the gaming fiction I have been reading has been enjoyable, and some have been pretty bad. The worse ones are usually the ones which read like narrated version of gaming session. Weis & Hickman managed to do it well with that first Dragonlance series but several others haven't (I think I managed to finish first book of Salvatore's Icewind Dale series but it was definitely a painful process).
Problem with Middle Earth is that magic is downplayed a lot on the books and D&D magic system qould require lots of work to translate that. Rolemaster and MERP didn't do it well either, probably due to historical baggage (it has bene pointed out that if one uses those stats given to Gandalf in ICE's books, LotR would have been very short book with Gandalf teleporting Frodo to Mount Doom, end of story).
hehe what you dont know is that he has 11 levels of celestial outsider and 5 character class levels of mage and 3 character class levels of druid :)
You will have to pardon my Tolkien ignorance. I didn't mean to offend any purists.
No offense taken, certainly. As Saern has suggested, many posters seem intent on fitting Gandalf to existing D&D rules, and I wondered if it was thought that Gandalf could be accurately duplicated with the Rules As Written (which I would claim is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible).
As far as being a purist (which I can be), I don't think purism has a place in interpreting characters & creatures from various sources for RPGs. The point of our games is to create our campaign worlds, not duplicate others. While I was a huge MERP fan, I always thought it was too true a copy of Middle-Earth, and left little room for player and DM creativity.
Just my 2¢ :)
Regards,
Jack
hehe what you dont know is that he has 11 levels of celestial outsider and 5 character class levels of mage and 3 character class levels of druid :)
That's a surprisingly good interpretation -- as I said above, I think D&D RAW are often poor at recreating creatures from other sources.
D&D 3.5 (and the ingenuity of people on this board) continues to surprise and please me.
:)
I thought Gandalf was a maia?
I still have a copy of that original Dragon Magazine. According to my various sources – and without violating any copyrights of which I am aware...
“Wisest of the Maiar was Olórin. He too dwelt in Lórien, but his ways took him often to the house of Nienna, and of her he learned pity and patience.”
.....Silmarillion, hard back, Houghton Mifflin, 1977, p.30-31
‘Many are my names in many countries,’ he said. ‘Mithrandir among the Elves, Tharkûn to the Dwarves; Olórin I was in my youth in the West that is forgotten, in the South Incánus, in the North Gandalf; to the East I go not.’
.....Lord of the Rings, single volume “Red Book” hardback, Houghton Mifflin, no publication date cited in the book but, circa 1977/78. Vol. The Two Towers, Chap. Window on the West, (p. 279, approx.)
Gandalf was a “low level” angel of a sort; one of the spirits pre-existing the creation of Middle-Earth; one of the singers of the original song of Illuvitar who came to Middle-Earth to “live the song” and watch – even help – it manifest.
In this context the concept of “level” does not apply. As explained years ago (I think it was an old Dragon Magazine, but maybe not), when meeting extra-planar creatures of extreme power (Gods, etc), what the characters meet is merely an earthy manifestation like an Avatar. The application of things like an Armor Class and Hit points was merely a convenience to interpret how strong this “avatar” interacted with the world. If the characters “defeated” the God, the God did not die. The manifestation was merely dissipated. The God him/herself was never harmed or even at any risk.
The same holds for Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast and all the other members of the White Counsel. They were all “angels” to which application of an earthly limitation like Level, Hit Points or Armor Class is merely a convenience of reference for understanding their strength of interaction with “reality”. The rest is meaningless.
As to that horrible old article (ref. Vol 1, #5, March 1977, p.27) , it still gets me hopping mad, even 30 years later. It wasn’t the mere insinuation that the great Gandalf was a limp-wristed wimp. It was the grossly faulty logic used to make the argument. The entire article centers around the theme of “because this is all he ever did, that was all he was capable of doing, so here’s where he’d sit on our lists”. This is pathetic; a faux passé of impressive magnitude. It was slip-shod (despite the extensive referencing), intellectually lazy and, frankly, disingenuous to the Nth degree. To this day I shudder any time I think of it, and sometimes hope the author (Bill Seligman) has paid a heavy karmic price for it.
|
The same holds for Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast and all the other members of the White Counsel. They were all “angels” to which application of an earthly limitation like Level, Hit Points or Armor Class is merely a convenience of reference for understanding their strength of interaction with “reality”. The rest is meaningless.
It seems they had the potential, though, to pour themselves too much into the world, inadvertantly allowing themselves to be truly destroyed, or at minimum stripped of the ability to manifest in the material. Morgoth made this mistake, and he was originally the greatest of the valar. His legacy to the world is all the hate he poured into it in his attempt to dominate creation. Sauron makes the same mistake in microcosm when he creates the ring. Since part of his essence is there, he survives the Last Alliance and seeps back into the world.
Its also of note that he was originally so powerful that he survived Numenor and the destruction of his 'avatar' and was able to re-manifest without a ring. At some point in the Silmarillion, Morgoth loses his ability to make his guise fair.
And certainly there are lots and lots of examples of lesser maia being truly destroyed. The Balrogs. Possibly Ungoliant (what is a ceature of the void?). It's hard to say how dead 'Sharkey' is at the end.
Anyhow, there doesn't seem to be a very good fit in the D&D cosmology to represent maiar or valar.
So no, Gandalf is not just a 5th level wizard. Not in any game I'd ever run.
Okay . . . I never saw the original article, or the other thread, but I'm going to through my two cents in, with regards to what Gandalf is/was/will be . . .
A plot device.
When LotR was first written, it was a book. that's it. No game, no game mechanics. That's it. Tolkien didn't think about what or if his story was going to be quantified by others in attempts to re-create the granduer he wrote. Gandlaf did, in LotR what the author wanted or needed him to do. That's all.
Now, of course, to take this one step further . . . What would Gandalf (or a Gandalf-esque character) be if I were to have them in a game I run? A plot device, that's all. That's all that's needed.
|
|
The same holds for Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast and all the other members of the White Counsel. They were all “angels” to which application of an earthly limitation like Level, Hit Points or Armor Class is merely a convenience of reference for understanding their strength of interaction with “reality”. The rest is meaningless.
It seems they had the potential, though, to pour themselves too much into the world, inadvertantly allowing themselves to be truly destroyed, or at minimum stripped of the ability to manifest in the material. Morgoth made this mistake, and he was originally the greatest of the valar. His legacy to the world is all the hate he poured into it in his attempt to dominate creation. Sauron makes the same mistake in microcosm when he creates the ring. Since part of his essence is there, he survives the Last Alliance and seeps back into the world.
Its also of note that he was originally so powerful that he survived Numenor and the destruction of his 'avatar' and was able to re-manifest without a ring. At some point in the Silmarillion, Morgoth loses his ability to make his guise fair.
And certainly there are lots and lots of examples of lesser maia being truly destroyed. The Balrogs. Possibly Ungoliant (what is a ceature of the void?). It's hard to say how dead 'Sharkey' is at the end.
Anyhow, there doesn't seem to be a very good fit in the D&D cosmology to represent maiar or valar.
So no, Gandalf is not just a 5th level wizard. Not in any game I'd ever run.
I once made up stats for Gandalf out of boredom. He ended up being a unique 18-HD Outsider (Maiar)* with twenty levels of Wizard (Abjurer), five levels of Cleric (Eru the One)**, and the ability to spontaneously True Resurrect after 1d3 weeks of death within 1d%+50 miles of the point of death.
* a subtype I invented on the spot** a deity from The Silmarillion that I made up domains and a portfolio for