Gandalf (15 HD, Native Outsider)


Conversions

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Speaking of Narya, I've found another error in the stat block. The two auras listed in Gandalf's description should be (Su), not (Sp). Copy-paste strikes again!

Grand Lodge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LazarX, the inability of anyone but Iluvitar being able to create life is a direct transference of Tolkien's religious faith where this is an article of faith and Lucifer/Satan is specifically excluded from that ability by dogma.

This is something Tolkien had to "fix" since early versions of his mythos had Melkor creating the orcs and other evil beings. His conscience got the best of him and this is one of the "retcons" he did to his overall world building.

It's interesting to study Tolkien's creative process in writing these books. You can quite clearly see how over time his religious beliefs completely dominated his world building, causing him to revisit many, many things he had previously written. In the end he viewed LotR as a deliberate attempt to popularize the fundamental tenets of his own faith.

It's interesting to see how popular the book has become with such a history behind it.

Why should it's history hinder it's popularity? If anything having a history adds to a book's enduring cache. No one would seriously deny the Oxford dean's religious beliefs, after all he belonged to that same circle as C.S. Lewis and the others. But I would strongly contest the assertion that he consciously used LOTR to promote any nation or belief as he did frequently throughout his life. Did he do so unconsciously? Perhaps, but show me any author who writes literature of consequence who's not grinding some kind of axe.


LazarX wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LazarX, the inability of anyone but Iluvitar being able to create life is a direct transference of Tolkien's religious faith where this is an article of faith and Lucifer/Satan is specifically excluded from that ability by dogma.

This is something Tolkien had to "fix" since early versions of his mythos had Melkor creating the orcs and other evil beings. His conscience got the best of him and this is one of the "retcons" he did to his overall world building.

It's interesting to study Tolkien's creative process in writing these books. You can quite clearly see how over time his religious beliefs completely dominated his world building, causing him to revisit many, many things he had previously written. In the end he viewed LotR as a deliberate attempt to popularize the fundamental tenets of his own faith.

It's interesting to see how popular the book has become with such a history behind it.

Why should it's history hinder it's popularity? If anything having a history adds to a book's enduring cache. No one would seriously deny the Oxford dean's religious beliefs, after all he belonged to that same circle as C.S. Lewis and the others. But I would strongly contest the assertion that he consciously used LOTR to promote any nation or belief as he did frequently throughout his life. Did he do so unconsciously? Perhaps, but show me any author who writes literature of consequence who's not grinding some kind of axe.

From an interview with Tolkien:

Tolkien interview wrote:

G: ... Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

T: He's mentioned once or twice.

G: Is he the One?...

T: The One, yes.

G: Are you a theist?

T: Oh, I'm a Roman Catholic. Devout Roman Catholic.

Besides this admission of the book's religious bias, Tolkien wrote and commented many times on the overtly religious themes and morality in the books and how that was all very, very deliberate.

As to why an overt religious agenda would potentially color opinion of the book... well, I don't know why that would even have to be explained in a culture where open faith is routinely mocked and ridiculed.


LazarX wrote:
...show me any author who writes literature of consequence who's not grinding some kind of axe.

Stephenie Meyer? She's not a good writer, but as a consequence of her existence vampires have been made un-cool.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
As to why an overt religious agenda would potentially color opinion of the book... well, I don't know why that would even have to be explained in a culture where open faith is routinely mocked and ridiculed.

Depends where you go and who you talk to. I assure you, a lack of faith is just as often mocked and ridiculed.


Detect Magic wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
As to why an overt religious agenda would potentially color opinion of the book... well, I don't know why that would even have to be explained in a culture where open faith is routinely mocked and ridiculed.
Depends where you go and who you talk to. I assure you, a lack of faith is just as often mocked and ridiculed.

You can assure me all you like.

I'll believe it when I see a copy of "On the Evolution of Species" soaking in a vat of urine as "high art" in a "reputable" museum, or see a "painting" of Friedrich Nietzche done in cow manure treated the same way.

Until then it's ludicrous to suggest that lack of faith is "mocked and ridiculed" in a manner even remotely comparable to how faith is mocked and ridiculed.

And by the way, I'm a committed agnostic. I have no dog in this fight. I just know what I see.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

Sticking to the topic, I would suggest fast healing of some sort for Gandalf.

and... specifically referencing the moment of his return in Fangorn, the spell-like ability "heat metal". I have always assumed his actions disarming Aragorn et al were the basis for that spell in D&D. Unless of course we are limiting this to Gandalf "the Grey" assuming a difference from "the White".


It's funny that you jumped right to Evolution-or-Faith. As if the ideas are somehow mutually exclusive. That said, evolution-deniers are almost always religiously motivated to do so.


Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

Sticking to the topic, I would suggest fast healing of some sort for Gandalf.

and... specifically referencing the moment of his return in Fangorn, the spell-like ability "heat metal". I have always assumed his actions disarming Aragorn et al were the basis for that spell in D&D. Unless of course we are limiting this to Gandalf "the Grey" assuming a difference from "the White".

Admittedly, I haven't read all of the books, so I'm not sure if fast healing fits, but I'd certainly add heat metal to his list of spell-like abilities in that case.


Detect Magic wrote:

It's funny that you jumped right to Evolution-or-Faith. As if the ideas are somehow mutually exclusive. That said, evolution-deniers are almost always religiously motivated to do so.

It's convenient to use Darwinism as a foil to demonstrate the vast difference in acceptance of "faith" vs "atheism". People immediately understand the reference. I also use Nietzche as an example of an atheist.

Anyway, my point is pretty well made here, and this has veered greatly off topic.

I would suggest that Tolkien's works might not sell as well today in a less religiously tolerant environment but the truth is that Harry Potter revisits, again deliberately, many of the same themes and sold quite well. Quite a bit better than Tolkien even.

So I think the real issue is that the vast majority of readers simply aren't aware of it.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:

It's funny that you jumped right to Evolution-or-Faith. As if the ideas are somehow mutually exclusive. That said, evolution-deniers are almost always religiously motivated to do so.

It's convenient to use Darwinism as a foil to demonstrate the vast difference in acceptance of "faith" vs "atheism". People immediately understand the reference. I also use Nietzche as an example of an atheist.

Anyway, my point is pretty well made here, and this has veered greatly off topic.

I would suggest that Tolkien's works might not sell as well today in a less religiously tolerant environment but the truth is that Harry Potter revisits, again deliberately, many of the same themes and sold quite well. Quite a bit better than Tolkien even.

So I think the real issue is that the vast majority of readers simply aren't aware of it.

Because its not there.

Certainly not in the bleedingly obvious way Lewis handled his own CHrist analogue.

If I recall correctly, Tolkein hater the throught that his owrk was allegory either (the evil Empire in the East).

He was a scholar of ancient languarges and stories, and built his worlds out of them.


I don't think most people are aware of the religious undertones, though, Adamantine. It's pretty apparent for those who are studied in Christian theology, but most people aren't (even Christians). The same can be said of many parallels in film and literature. References are often lost upon readers or movie-goers because they just aren't familiar with the source material.

That said, I love Middle-Earth and I'm as non-religious as they come! You don't have to be religious to appreciate good storytelling.


Funky Badger wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:

It's funny that you jumped right to Evolution-or-Faith. As if the ideas are somehow mutually exclusive. That said, evolution-deniers are almost always religiously motivated to do so.

It's convenient to use Darwinism as a foil to demonstrate the vast difference in acceptance of "faith" vs "atheism". People immediately understand the reference. I also use Nietzche as an example of an atheist.

Anyway, my point is pretty well made here, and this has veered greatly off topic.

I would suggest that Tolkien's works might not sell as well today in a less religiously tolerant environment but the truth is that Harry Potter revisits, again deliberately, many of the same themes and sold quite well. Quite a bit better than Tolkien even.

So I think the real issue is that the vast majority of readers simply aren't aware of it.

Because its not there.

Certainly not in the bleedingly obvious way Lewis handled his own CHrist analogue.

If I recall correctly, Tolkein hater the throught that his owrk was allegory either (the evil Empire in the East).

He was a scholar of ancient languarges and stories, and built his worlds out of them.

LOL, so who do we believe Funky? You or the old professor himself?

I believe him.

However, you do make one solid point. Tolkien was not happy that people believed that his book was an allegory on WWII and specifically the Bomb. After his book received significant distribution many, many people assumed that the One Ring was clearly a nuclear bomb allegory and that Mordor was clearly Hitler's Germany.

Tolkien insisted that such was never the case, that he wrote the basic outlines well before WWII (but after WWI) and that it was never intended to be an allegory for any human condition of the day.

Instead he talked about how he was addressing what he called "true myth" which was his idea that all the great myths he borrowed from (Gilgamesh, Arthur, Beowulf, Gotterdamerung, etc) were all in some sense the discrete remnants of a truth that was visible only in the shattered fragments contained within those stories.

In fact he made a direct comparison between that "true myth" concept and the "Phial of Galadriel" which he said was deliberately conceived as a fragment of the Silmarils to put this "true myth" concept directly into the book.

Believe me Funky, Tolkien knew exactly what he was doing. He was a linguist and a scholar. He was very deliberate about it.


Funky has a point though, Adamantine. Tolkien's allusions aren't incredibly obvious. They are mostly subtle, and often overlooked.


Detect Magic wrote:
Funky has a point though, Adamantine. Tolkien's allusions aren't incredibly obvious. They are mostly subtle, and often overlooked.

Oh, I'll grant you that. Tolkien was subtle, very subtle. He and CS Lewis actually talked about that. They were very close friends and discussed their writing a lot.

I like CS Lewis, but he's about as subtle as a frying pan to the skull.


Artists aren't always to be trusted, AD. Especially after the fact... :-)

I'd say whatever allusions are there, the work is far from a parable for anything other than conformity to patriarchal inheritence - which in themselves - as you point out - aren't particularly (or rather, exclusively) Christian tropes.

Darn, I'm going to have to re-read LOTR now.


Funky Badger wrote:

Artists aren't always to be trusted, AD. Especially after the fact... :-)

I'd say whatever allusions are there, the work is far from a parable for anything other than conformity to patriarchal inheritence - which in themselves - as you point out - aren't particularly (or rather, exclusively) Christian tropes.

Darn, I'm going to have to re-read LOTR now.

Indeed you should, if your paragraph above is an indication of what you got the first time.

:-)

By the way, here is another direct Tolkien quote:

JRR Tolkien wrote:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously of course, but consciously in the revision.

Which is Tolkien explicitly saying what I observed above, that you can see, in his revision history, how he continually revised and adapted the story to be more true to his faith and present itself, subtly to be sure, as a "fundamentally religious" work.


The Lord of the Rings may well be a Catholic work, but Gandalf certainly isn't, or at least in appearance. He's very much an Odin-figure, if ever I've seen one. Even his horse is reminiscent of Sleipnir. Makes sense though, since Tolkien was an expert in ancient norse mythology.


Yeah, no S. He outright ripped off a bunch of dwarf names. I can't blame him though, as they're pretty good. There are real world literary and historical references peppered throughout his works.

I've read the Silmarillion twice, only because its beautifully written. I only began to make sense of it the second time around, and even then just parts of it. All of this discussion is pretty pointless considering it will never reach a resolution, and is subjective anyway. Its interesting to read though, from my level of knowledge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LazarX, the inability of anyone but Iluvitar being able to create life is a direct transference of Tolkien's religious faith where this is an article of faith and Lucifer/Satan is specifically excluded from that ability by dogma.

This is something Tolkien had to "fix" since early versions of his mythos had Melkor creating the orcs and other evil beings. His conscience got the best of him and this is one of the "retcons" he did to his overall world building.

It's interesting to study Tolkien's creative process in writing these books. You can quite clearly see how over time his religious beliefs completely dominated his world building, causing him to revisit many, many things he had previously written. In the end he viewed LotR as a deliberate attempt to popularize the fundamental tenets of his own faith.

It's interesting to see how popular the book has become with such a history behind it.

Why should it's history hinder it's popularity? If anything having a history adds to a book's enduring cache. No one would seriously deny the Oxford dean's religious beliefs, after all he belonged to that same circle as C.S. Lewis and the others. But I would strongly contest the assertion that he consciously used LOTR to promote any nation or belief as he did frequently throughout his life. Did he do so unconsciously? Perhaps, but show me any author who writes literature of consequence who's not grinding some kind of axe.

From an interview with Tolkien:

Tolkien interview wrote:

G: ... Where is God in The Lord of the Rings?

T: He's mentioned once or twice.

G: Is he the One?...

T: The One, yes.

G: Are you a theist?

T: Oh, I'm a Roman Catholic. Devout Roman Catholic.

Besides this admission of the book's religious bias, Tolkien wrote and commented many times on the overtly religious themes and morality in the books and how that was all very, very deliberate.

As to why an overt religious agenda would potentially...

I don't think he wrote it to "deliberate attempt to popularize the fundamental tenets of his own faith." I'd have to see a much more direct reference than I ever have to accept that.

It's definitely informed by his faith and he did make a deliberate effort to make the world view and the setting compatible with his Catholicism. Religious themes flow throughout the book, but that's more that he was a religious man and that is reflected in his secondary creation. I see that as very different than deliberate popularization.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Detect Magic wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
As to why an overt religious agenda would potentially color opinion of the book... well, I don't know why that would even have to be explained in a culture where open faith is routinely mocked and ridiculed.
Depends where you go and who you talk to. I assure you, a lack of faith is just as often mocked and ridiculed.

You can assure me all you like.

I'll believe it when I see a copy of "On the Evolution of Species" soaking in a vat of urine as "high art" in a "reputable" museum, or see a "painting" of Friedrich Nietzche done in cow manure treated the same way.

Until then it's ludicrous to suggest that lack of faith is "mocked and ridiculed" in a manner even remotely comparable to how faith is mocked and ridiculed.

And by the way, I'm a committed agnostic. I have no dog in this fight. I just know what I see.

No, but I've seen book burnings.

Religion might get mocked in some circles. In others, not being religious has more serious consequences.


Both Tolkien and Lewis talked alot about "true myth." Or that many myths have grains or elements that pointed to what they believed to be the truth. Hence when Tolkien writes a mythology heavily influenced by norher European folklore and pre-christian beliefs and attempts to reconstruct a lost mythology for England he has so many links back to his own world view.


(sorry for poor english)

I like your build, for sure. But I find it a little overpowerful IMHO.
Gandalf is charismatic, in a way, but I woulnd put it at 25. He is no Aragorn. People listen to him for his advice. Many men don't like him at all. Many hobbit despise him and call him a troublemaker. A 12 or 14 seem more appropriate. If you put him at 25 charisma, what score will you give to Aragor, who lead men into desperate battles and convince an undead army to join him.

Same for the wisdom. He dosent decifer the moon gate on the Moria. Dosent see trought the trahison of saruman, he lost his way in the Moria. His bright, but more of a 21 intel, maybe 14 or 16 wis, maybe 18.
I think he can hit 16 str with magic like bull strenght, in battle, but not all the time.

Weapon specialisation his a feat made for fighter. Gandalf know how to fight, but he is not Aragorn, Legolas Gimli or Boromir. Take the fight with the troll in the fellowship (movie). He's useful, but Legolas, Aragorn and, in some way, Merry and Pippin, are the one that win the fight. For me, his stand at Minas tirith or in other battle can be handled with bull strength, haste or tenser transformation. IN the battle against Saruman, in the fellowship, Gandal dosent seem to have uncanny dodge either. He is surprised by Saruman's attack. I'ld stick with the wizard base attack, maybe with a level or two of figther or ranger (he is a great traveler).

Bardic performance his a powerfull ability that can boost the morale of the troops and clearly pushes the limit of a group. Gandalf can be reassuring, confident, but there is nothing magic in his way.

I can see the aura of courage in Aragorn, not in Gandalf.

When he confront the witch king, he is clearly afraid, maybe even shaken. So, no immune to fear.

To portray Gandal with pathfinder rules, you need to make compromise. Your summun eagle spell his perfect. His skill, the same. I think that shadowfax can be a simple mount spell. Never forget that wizard are rare in Middle earth, so even a simple mount or knock spell his powerfull. A simple Protection against evil spell can explain why the «summuned» balrog was'nt able to touch him in the Moria.

My two cent. Good work.


thejeff wrote:
Melkor a child of Aule? Melkor is Morgoth, originally the strongest of the Ainur. Did you mean Curumo/Saruman? He was one of Aule's people.

You're right of course, I somehow mixed that up with Sauron as being a servant of Aule. Saruman was chosen to match him, also being a servant of Aule.

Ruyan.

Grand Lodge

Cibulan wrote:
I'm no expert but I don't believe Narya granted immortality. Gandlaf, as Istari/Maiar, was already immortal (although bound to a specific physical form much like Sauron, the Balrogs, etc.). Furthermore, Narya was one of the three Elven rings of power which would make the immortality redundant. The three rings definitively had some preservative powers for Elrond and Galadriel used them to keep their communities pure while all other Elves were fading.

It was nicknamed the Ring of Fire... Gandalf mentions this when he says he is the wielder of the secret flame.

It would have fire style powers including 20+ resistance to fire (one reason Gandalf didnt burn up).

Best to get some of the old Iron Crown Enterprises stuff on Middle Earth if possible. Some great stuff of interest to tolkien fan and conversion buff alike


Helaman wrote:
Cibulan wrote:
I'm no expert but I don't believe Narya granted immortality. Gandlaf, as Istari/Maiar, was already immortal (although bound to a specific physical form much like Sauron, the Balrogs, etc.). Furthermore, Narya was one of the three Elven rings of power which would make the immortality redundant. The three rings definitively had some preservative powers for Elrond and Galadriel used them to keep their communities pure while all other Elves were fading.

It was nicknamed the Ring of Fire... Gandalf mentions this when he says he is the wielder of the secret flame.

It would have fire style powers including 20+ resistance to fire (one reason Gandalf didnt burn up).

Best to get some of the old Iron Crown Enterprises stuff on Middle Earth if possible. Some great stuff of interest to tolkien fan and conversion buff alike

It's been discussed. In much greater detail. It was, as you say, the Ring of Fire. It's not at all clear from anything Tolkien wrote that it conferred any actual fire based powers. The name seems to have been more metaphorical than anything. As Cirdan said "For this is the Ring of Fire, and herewith, maybe, thou shalt rekindle hearts to the valour of old in a world that grows chill." That doesn't mean that it didn't and Gandalf's use of fire magics is suggestive.

It's main purpose was, as with all the Rings and in accord with the failings of the Elves who made them, preservation.


Interesting that Gandalf ended up with the Ring of Fire, and Feanor, the mightiest of the elves (who acted a lot like a man, most of the time) was the Spirit of Fire... hmmm, maybe not so interesting after all.

There's definately more nods to Norse/Old English mythology than Christian mythology in Tolkein's work - the maimed hero (who sometimes has gained wisdom in return) occurs again, and again and again... even Gandalf isn't a terribly convincing Christ figure except on a particularly superficial level (he didn't die, the POV characters thought he died).

(An aside - counterpoint to Aragorn being tougher than Gandalf. Gandalf beat up a balrog/balor... Aragorn cried a bit then ran off.)


Funky Badger wrote:
An aside - counterpoint to Aragorn being tougher than Gandalf. Gandalf beat up a balrog/balor... Aragorn cried a bit then ran off.

Never thought about it like that.


Funky Badger wrote:

Interesting that Gandalf ended up with the Ring of Fire, and Feanor, the mightiest of the elves (who acted a lot like a man, most of the time) was the Spirit of Fire... hmmm, maybe not so interesting after all.

There's definately more nods to Norse/Old English mythology than Christian mythology in Tolkein's work - the maimed hero (who sometimes has gained wisdom in return) occurs again, and again and again... even Gandalf isn't a terribly convincing Christ figure except on a particularly superficial level (he didn't die, the POV characters thought he died).

No. He died. Insofar as an incarnate Maia can die.

Letter 156 wrote:

Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me the only real cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as making no difference. 'I am G. the White,who has returned from death'.

He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'.

There are definitely nods to mythology, but the overarching themes are Catholic. Frodo's "failure" and his compassion for Gollum leading to the providential ending is not at all Norse.


thejeff wrote:
Funky Badger wrote:

Interesting that Gandalf ended up with the Ring of Fire, and Feanor, the mightiest of the elves (who acted a lot like a man, most of the time) was the Spirit of Fire... hmmm, maybe not so interesting after all.

There's definately more nods to Norse/Old English mythology than Christian mythology in Tolkein's work - the maimed hero (who sometimes has gained wisdom in return) occurs again, and again and again... even Gandalf isn't a terribly convincing Christ figure except on a particularly superficial level (he didn't die, the POV characters thought he died).

No. He died. Insofar as an incarnate Maia can die.

Letter 156 wrote:

Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me the only real cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as making no difference. 'I am G. the White,who has returned from death'.

He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'.

There are definitely nods to mythology, but the overarching themes are Catholic. Frodo's "failure" and his compassion for Gollum leading to the providential ending is not at all Norse.

Its a bit much to claim "compassion" as a particularly Catholic virtue.

Thanks for the Mr. G refresher, I'd forgotten those details...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Funky Badger wrote:
thejeff wrote:


There are definitely nods to mythology, but the overarching themes are Catholic. Frodo's "failure" and his compassion for Gollum leading to the providential ending is not at all Norse.

Its a bit much to claim "compassion" as a particularly Catholic virtue.

Which I absolutely was not doing.

It's the combination of that particular compassion, the way Frodo failed, that he failed at all, and that having gone to the end of his ability his effort was fulfilled by grace when it was beyond his or anyone's ability.


Just got home from work. JSYK, M.E.R.P.s Lords of Middle Earth have him listed as a one level lower than the Balrog (who is 'more powerful than a dragon') 35 and 36 respectively. Both are Maiar. The Balor may have been based on the Balrog, but I don't think you can use it as an accurate comparison to determine Gandalf's lvl or power.

The ring has 9 powers listed, including unlimited use of full spell lists, continuous effects, regen, stun immunity, etc. Note: When the One Ring is destroyed, Narya loses it's power.

Another thing to take into consideration is Gandalf's M.O. was never the lolsteamroll type. Up until he went one on one with the Balrog his greatest feat was igniting some pine cones. You just always assumed he was a badass, without him actually grandstanding his abilities.

It's be easier to convert him as 3rd edition, due to rules for demigods, which he would probably be; 20th lvl native outsider/20th lvl mage.


Nice, but I wouldn't go this route. I would instead make the Istari a custom race, then assign them class levels. This would easily account for the differences in abilities between Radagast, Saruman and Gandalf Grey/White.

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Conversions / Gandalf (15 HD, Native Outsider) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Conversions