Thread: Rune Keeper Lore

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

As I said, if Gandalf needs something to work his 'magic' on (as Tolkien has him say quite firmly in the book) then there *is* something that says he can't do such things. The Fellowship had already seen his power in that scene with the wolves, so if he could have have conjured fire entirely out of thin air and have it burn without fuel there'd have been no reason for him not to just whip shedloads of that to melt the snow. As it is, he says he can't do that.

He can't do that because of restrictions. It was part of his terms for being sent there. He wasn't allowed to use his full power in front of mortals, hence limited. I like to think that means he could easily make a firestorm, since he can burn an entire hill top of trees when in the presence of mortals.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

As for Weathertop, given that the Ring-wraiths were averse to fire (even torches) then he wouldn't have needed the kind of wild magical firestorm you're imagining to see them off.

Even if he doesn't need it, the text shows there was enough light to be seen for miles. My own vision of that is an act of power.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Your reply shows exactly what I was getting at: that you're reading more into it than is actually there because you imagine Gandalf to be as wildly super-powered as, say, Dumbledore. The point is that by Middle-earth standards he does have super-powers but Dumbledore is super-powered by Harry Potter standards, which means a heck of a lot more magic altogether and far wilder stuff at that. It's not like Gandalf only magicked the Balrog to death, all his hewing away at it with Glamdring played a major part and that's only to be expected given that it's Middle-earth we're talking about. Even Maiar needed to roll their sleeves up and engage in physical violence: magic wasn't all-powerful, there were evidently limitations that even the likes of Gandalf had to deal with. The same went for Sauron: given that there were no artificial limits on his use of his power, if you were right then he'd have been able to just stride around the battlefield setting people on fire by the score and he'd have been utterly unstoppable. As it's important to the plot that he be vulnerable, that people could get close enough to him to engage him in melee, there can be no scope for conjuring magical firestorms of the kind you imagine - it'd be insanely over-powered given that everyone else only brings swords and spears to the party.

Suggesting because I imagine one scene mirroring another is the same as Gandalf is pretty much like Dumbledore is, as you put it, 'reading more into it than is actually there'. The words state there was lights to be seen for miles. I like to picture a firestorm.

As for Sauron not using fire, maybe it takes more energy than you'd think to do such things. Gandalf uses it to defend himself when he needed it. Sauron would just end up exhausting himself and leaving himself open to attack when he thought he and his army would do the job.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Of some kind of light, yes. But not like lightning. It's not like he shoots those Ring-wraiths down, he drives them off. I've always seen that as some kind of 'holy' or 'blessed' light, not as some comic-book 'zap'.

You're thinking of the wrong moment. Think of Grima.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Beleg is much the same, as to him being able to set things on fire just by willing it isn't amazing unless it's all uncanny magical fire as well.

Actually, no. Anything I've suggested follows both the logic of Middle-earth magic we've discussed and in scale is dwarfed by the two instances I mentioned (Weathertop and Zirak-zigil). That's setting aside Dorothir's idea of the 'magic logic' only applying to Gandalf because of the restrictions placed on him when he was sent to Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Dorothir

You're thinking of the wrong moment. Think of Grima.

You've got me interested now, any chance of a quote?

Ahh, you mean this?

"He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth.
In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue's voice: 'Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff? That fool, Háma, has betrayed us!' There was a flash as if lightning had cloven the roof. Then all was silent. Wormtongue sprawled on his face."

Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath

You've got me interested now, any chance of a quote?

Ahh, you mean this?

"He raised his staff. There was a roll of thunder. The sunlight was blotted out from the eastern windows; the whole hall became suddenly dark as night. The fire faded to sullen embers. Only Gandalf could be seen, standing white and tall before the blackened hearth.
In the gloom they heard the hiss of Wormtongue's voice: 'Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff? That fool, Háma, has betrayed us!' There was a flash as if lightning had cloven the roof. Then all was silent. Wormtongue sprawled on his face."

Yup. Roll of thunder, flash of light as if lighning had smashed through the roof. All points to a zap to me

Originally Posted by Dorothir

Yup. Roll of thunder, flash of light as if lighning had smashed through the roof. All points to a zap to me

Indeed it seems I've missed that in the past when discussing Gandalf's magic. The only major difference between that and the zap in The Hobbit would be the overtly offensive nature of the latter. Though the former definitely appears more magical and powerful in nature, a few different things going on at once. Definitely a good find there Dorothir.

Originally Posted by Dorothir

He can't do that because of restrictions. It was part of his terms for being sent there. He wasn't allowed to use his full power in front of mortals, hence limited. I like to think that means he could easily make a firestorm, since he can burn an entire hill top of trees when in the presence of mortals.

So far as I recall, the restriction is NEVER stated to be that he can't use his power when mortals are looking; let's have a quote to back that up, please.

Even if he doesn't need it, the text shows there was enough light to be seen for miles. My own vision of that is an act of power.

It was at night. If you set every last bit of turf on a hilltop brightly aflame then it would be visible for miles. Plus there was 'light' as well as 'flame'. he said.

Suggesting because I imagine one scene mirroring another is the same as Gandalf is pretty much like Dumbledore is, as you put it, 'reading more into it than is actually there'. The words state there was lights to be seen for miles. I like to picture a firestorm.

What you might like to picture is your own affair, I'm just pointing out how that would go directly against something in the text. The guy says he needs stuff to burn, and that means just plucking fire out of thin air and flinging it about wasn't on the cards.

As for Sauron not using fire, maybe it takes more energy than you'd think to do such things. Gandalf uses it to defend himself when he needed it. Sauron would just end up exhausting himself and leaving himself open to attack when he thought he and his army would do the job.

No, as Sauron only came out to fight in the War of the Last Alliance as a last resort. He was being attacked, in person, by Gil-galad and gang so if he didn't start flinging that sort of magic around then that very strongly suggests he didn't have that kind of magic at all (even at his full strength, with the Ring still in his possession). It's much like in the Silmarillion, when Morgoth duelled with Fingolfin: that was melee with magical weapons, and magic wasn't allowed to dominate the action. Your imagination's leaning towards a different style of fantasy to that.

You're thinking of the wrong moment. Think of Grima.

So there's a flash of light that maybe dazes Grima, by the look of it, but does him no lasting harm. If you recall, what we were discussing was how the version of Gandalf in The Hobbit zaps several Goblins to death in an instant and how nothing like that was to be found in LOTR.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

So far as I recall, the restriction is NEVER stated to be that he can't use his power when mortals are looking; let's have a quote to back that up, please.

You'll have to look it up yourself. I'm fairly certain it was a quote mentioning they could not dominate others or reveal their true power.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

It was at night. If you set every last bit of turf on a hilltop brightly aflame then it would be visible for miles. Plus there was 'light' as well as 'flame'. he said.

So he used light blasts while creating a firestorm. He's pretty good, old Gandy.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

What you might like to picture is your own affair, I'm just pointing out how that would go directly against something in the text. The guy says he needs stuff to burn, and that means just plucking fire out of thin air and flinging it about wasn't on the cards.

Again, it only goes against the text if you read it a certain way. I read it differently, so it in fact enhances the text to have Gandalf create firestorms.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

No, as Sauron only came out to fight in the War of the Last Alliance as a last resort. He was being attacked, in person, by Gil-galad and gang so if he didn't start flinging that sort of magic around then that very strongly suggests he didn't have that kind of magic at all (even at his full strength, with the Ring still in his possession). It's much like in the Silmarillion, when Morgoth duelled with Fingolfin: that was melee with magical weapons, and magic wasn't allowed to dominate the action. Your imagination's leaning towards a different style of fantasy to that.

Meh, I think Sauron didn't use magic so as to not exhaust himself in the middle of a battle. Morgoth didn't use magic against Fingolfin because it wasn't a test of magic, it was a duel.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

So there's a flash of light that maybe dazes Grima, by the look of it, but does him no lasting harm. If you recall, what we were discussing was how the version of Gandalf in The Hobbit zaps several Goblins to death in an instant and how nothing like that was to be found in LOTR.

A flash of light, so much like lightning that it would seem the roof itself was opened up to let it in, that knocks Grima unconscious. A flash of light that kills some Goblins. To me, that sounds like exactly the same thing, just a watered down version since he wasn't aiming to kill Grima.

Originally Posted by Dorothir

You'll have to look it up yourself. I'm fairly certain it was a quote mentioning they could not dominate others or reveal their true power.

Burden of proof is on you. There's a difference between them not being supposed to use their power to dominate others (i.e. what Saruman had taken to using it for) and not ever using it where mortals could see it. I can't imagine why that should apply the Fellowship as well, as they weren't exactly everyman, were they?

Again, it only goes against the text if you read it a certain way. I read it differently, so it in fact enhances the text to have Gandalf create firestorms.

You mean you've come up with an excuse for ignoring a clear quote.

Meh, I think Sauron didn't use magic so as to not exhaust himself in the middle of a battle. Morgoth didn't use magic against Fingolfin because it wasn't a test of magic, it was a duel.

So, let's see... Sauron's being beaten up and he doesn't use magic even as a last resort, even when it became clear (as it must have at some point) that he was going to lose? That's way beyond the bounds of credibility. The simpler explanation is that he doesn't have magic of that kind.

A flash of light, so much like lightning that it would seem the roof itself was opened up to let it in, that knocks Grima unconscious. A flash of light that kills some Goblins. To me, that sounds like exactly the same thing, just a watered down version since he wasn't aiming to kill Grima.

What happened to the smell like gunpowder, if it's 'exactly the same'? And the fact remains, LOTR's Gandalf doesn't zap any Orcs even though there were plenty of Orcs in need of zapping.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Burden of proof is on you. There's a difference between them not being supposed to use their power to dominate others (i.e. what Saruman had taken to using it for) and not ever using it where mortals could see it. I can't imagine why that should apply the Fellowship as well, as they weren't exactly everyman, were they?

Take up your issue of the rules with Tolkien. He made them up.

And this the Valar did [the sending of the Istari], desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open displays of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

You mean you've come up with an excuse for ignoring a clear quote.

No, I think he's talking only in the situation at hand. You think he's talking in general. Two different views on exactly the same quote. Of course, I'm forgetting I'm talking to the person who thinks his view is the only view.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

So, let's see... Sauron's being beaten up and he doesn't use magic even as a last resort, even when it became clear (as it must have at some point) that he was going to lose? That's way beyond the bounds of credibility. The simpler explanation is that he doesn't have magic of that kind.

Or he was too exhausted. I prefer to think of it that way.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

What happened to the smell like gunpowder, if it's 'exactly the same'? And the fact remains, LOTR's Gandalf doesn't zap any Orcs even though there were plenty of Orcs in need of zapping.

He's Gandalf the White by that time. His magic got upgraded now, so it doesn't smell of gunpowder. One more upgrade and he can do spells that smell of cinnamon.

Gandalf doesn't zap any orcs just as he doesn't the fling the weapons out of every enemies hands (like he does for Gimli): he didn't happen to do it.

Originally Posted by Dorothir

Take up your issue of the rules with Tolkien. He made them up.

And this the Valar did [the sending of the Istari], desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open displays of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt.

I'm taking up the issue with you, because what it says there does not reflect what you said. The ban was on seeking to rule by open displays of power, not on them never using their power when there was anyone around to see. Helping the Fellowship by using his power, as he did, was not an open display of power with umpteen witnesses, nor was he doing it to impress and overawe (although it certainly made quite the impression on Sam).

No, I think he's talking only in the situation at hand. You think he's talking in general. Two different views on exactly the same quote. Of course, I'm forgetting I'm talking to the person who thinks his view is the only view.

Nah, you're forgetting that you're talking to the person who expects people to back up what they say when they come out with something questionable. You have no evidence. The kind of display you're talking about doesn't appear in the Silmarillion, and you've offered nothing to explain that. Neither can you explain why Sauron never shows that kind of power, either, despite being by all accounts a very powerful sorcerer and having no Istari-style limitations to cramp his style.

Or he was too exhausted. I prefer to think of it that way.

From doing what, peering out of the windows of Barad-dûr and watching his armies being defeated? The second most powerful evil being Arda had ever seen goes out to fight those besieging his fortress as a last resort and all of a sudden he's too feeble to do any magic? And then there's the general lack of battle-magic in the Silmarillion, too. Was everyone too tired there, as well? So it seems everyone's always too tired to hurl magic around like that except for that nice Mister Gandalf, because you prefer to think of him that way.

Gandalf doesn't zap any orcs just as he doesn't the fling the weapons out of every enemies hands (like he does for Gimli): he didn't happen to do it.

He does do that trick more than once: he disarms Denethor that way, too. So much for that excuse, then.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

So there's a flash of light that maybe dazes Grima, by the look of it, but does him no lasting harm. If you recall, what we were discussing was how the version of Gandalf in The Hobbit zaps several Goblins to death in an instant and how nothing like that was to be found in LOTR.

The effects are certainly different but there can be no doubt there are connexions between the two. Earlier on we were under the impression that no such thing was done in LotR anywhere, now we have a fairly similar case right in the heart of the book, far later than any of the trifles seen at the beginning of FotR. Rolling thunder, dimmed lights, flash like lightning that felt as though it broke the roof....does bridge the gap somewhat, even if not all the way. It's written about in much more detail and doesn't have any of the kiddy language but it nevertheless bridges the gap a fair bit.
Also Dorothir is right about this: just because Gandalf does something at one point but is not seen doing it at another it doesn't make it invalid.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

I'm taking up the issue with you, because what it says there does not reflect what you said. The ban was on seeking to rule by open displays of power, not on them never using their power when there was anyone around to see. Helping the Fellowship by using his power, as he did, was not an open display of power with umpteen witnesses, nor was he doing it to impress and overawe (although it certainly made quite the impression on Sam).

They were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty. Using almighty power in front of the people they're trying to help is certainly majestic. Again, it's how it's interpreted. Searching that quote into google will show you countless other people that also read it the way I did. But, of course, they're all wrong too because the mighty Radh has read it a different way.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Nah, you're forgetting that you're talking to the person who expects people to back up what they say when they come out with something questionable. You have no evidence. The kind of display you're talking about doesn't appear in the Silmarillion, and you've offered nothing to explain that. Neither can you explain why Sauron never shows that kind of power, either, despite being by all accounts a very powerful sorcerer and having no Istari-style limitations to cramp his style.

No evidence = evidence that Radh won't take because he doesn't read it that way. Brilliant.

The display that occurs when Gandalf burns the trees in their encounter on the hill with wargs doesn't happen in the Silmarillion either. Want to explain that?

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

From doing what, peering out of the windows of Barad-dûr and watching his armies being defeated? The second most powerful evil being Arda had ever seen goes out to fight those besieging his fortress as a last resort and all of a sudden he's too feeble to do any magic? And then there's the general lack of battle-magic in the Silmarillion, too. Was everyone too tired there, as well? So it seems everyone's always too tired to hurl magic around like that except for that nice Mister Gandalf, because you prefer to think of him that way.

Just so I'm clear on your version of the battle between Sauron and the two captains (since it's pointless me arguing from how I've read it as you'll no doubtedly think that's wrong too), how did it happen and what happened?

Seems everyone's too tired to set trees on fire except Gandalf, too.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

He does do that trick more than once: he disarms Denethor that way, too. So much for that excuse, then.

But why doesn't he do that to all his enemies? Seems like it would be pretty helpful. I do love how you come up with one example of Gandalf performing the same trick on an ally and think that covers it when the point was why he doesn't use certain magic on all his enemies.

Originally Posted by Dorothir

They were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty. Using almighty power in front of the people they're trying to help is certainly majestic. Again, it's how it's interpreted. Searching that quote into google will show you countless other people that also read it the way I did. But, of course, they're all wrong too because the mighty Radh has read it a different way.

No, because in this case you're misinterpreting it. In the context a 'form of majesty' would be like Sauron's former 'fair' form (as when he went around calling himself Annatar) which was said to be supremely regal in appearance and exceedingly tall (taller than any Elf), reflecting his power and, of course, announcing unmistakeably to the world that he was a Maia. Instead, the Istari were required to appear in humble guise, as wise old men.

On the Internet you'll find someone who'll agree with pretty much any opinion you might choose to hold, but that doesn't make it right. That is, in fact, a fallacy (the appeal to numbers).

No evidence = evidence that Radh won't take because he doesn't read it that way. Brilliant.

No evidence = no evidence. All you've got is that you prefer to think of it that way, and you've demonstrated that you're prepared to ignore clear quotes in the process. You 'prefer' to think that Gandalf's power isn't really limited by needing stuff to burn, despite Tolkien having him say so, but you have no evidence for that whatsoever.

The display that occurs when Gandalf burns the trees in their encounter on the hill with wargs doesn't happen in the Silmarillion either. Want to explain that?

It's fine as it is, as it's within the limitation that Tolkien suggests: there's something that'll burn, there. It makes a cool display of Gandalf's power and he's certainly not messing about - the problem only arises when you start suggesting that he can do far more than that, breaking with the reasonable limitation that he needs something to use his power on and suggesting he could conjure great swirling gouts of flame out of nowhere. It's the latter I'm taking exception to, as even in the far more magical First Age that's noticeable by its utter absence. That's why the Fire-drakes were such an innovation: previously, the Elves hadn't had to deal with anything that spewed flame all over the place.

Just so I'm clear on your version of the battle between Sauron and the two captains (since it's pointless me arguing from how I've read it as you'll no doubtedly think that's wrong too), how did it happen and what happened?

You know it's not discussed in any detail (beyond how Gil-galad died) but if you're imagining it as some comic-book thing with Sauron flinging lightning-bolts and fire all over the shop then you're truly hopeless. The prologue to the movie of FOTR had the right general idea; they filmed the scene where Sauron kills Gil-galad by grabbing and immolating him but it didn't make the cut, leaving it unexplained why Sauron was reaching for Isildur with his ring-hand.

Seems everyone's too tired to set trees on fire except Gandalf, too.

There are assorted massive battles in the Silmarillion and in none of them do we see any Maiar striding through the fray casually blowing people up, despite the fact that Morgoth had quite a collection of Maiar on his payroll. The Balrogs are a particular case in point: we know they possessed powerful magic as well as being powerhouses in melee, but in battle the magic we see is there to augment their fighting abilities (whips of fire rather than anything mundane), not replace them. Sauron's equivalent was his Black Hand, which burned like fire (that being why the Ring was so hot to begin with) and which he used to destroy Gil-galad.

You can't ascribe massive additional super-powers to Gandalf without ascribing the exact same (or more) to Sauron, and then you'd have to explain why he doesn't use them even as a last resort. And not by lame excuses like how he was maybe feeling a bit tired, either.

But why doesn't he do that to all his enemies? Seems like it would be pretty helpful. I do love how you come up with one example of Gandalf performing the same trick on an ally and think that covers it when the point was why he doesn't use certain magic on all his enemies.

Twice was quite often enough - any more than that and it's get samey, it'd be like 'ho-hum, Gandalf is doing his telekinesis thing again'. It's when he doesn't do something even so much as once in LOTR that questions can be asked.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

No, because in this case you're misinterpreting it. In the context a 'form of majesty' would be like Sauron's former 'fair' form (as when he went around calling himself Annatar) which was said to be supremely regal in appearance and exceedingly tall (taller than any Elf), reflecting his power and, of course, announcing unmistakeably to the world that he was a Maia. Instead, the Istari were required to appear in humble guise, as wise old men.

I love it! I'm misinterpreting something that loads of other people also interpreted as! Your ego knows no bounds.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

On the Internet you'll find someone who'll agree with pretty much any opinion you might choose to hold, but that doesn't make it right. That is, in fact, a fallacy (the appeal to numbers).

But, of course, they'd be wrong anyway because you say so.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

No evidence = no evidence. All you've got is that you prefer to think of it that way, and you've demonstrated that you're prepared to ignore clear quotes in the process. You 'prefer' to think that Gandalf's power isn't really limited by needing stuff to burn, despite Tolkien having him say so, but you have no evidence for that whatsoever.

They're only clear quotes in so much as you will only take your interpretation as the correct one. Just as you did with Beleg.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

It's fine as it is, as it's within the limitation that Tolkien suggests: there's something that'll burn, there. It makes a cool display of Gandalf's power and he's certainly not messing about - the problem only arises when you start suggesting that he can do far more than that, breaking with the reasonable limitation that he needs something to use his power on and suggesting he could conjure great swirling gouts of flame out of nowhere. It's the latter I'm taking exception to, as even in the far more magical First Age that's noticeable by its utter absence. That's why the Fire-drakes were such an innovation: previously, the Elves hadn't had to deal with anything that spewed flame all over the place.

Did you really just side step that question? You bring up the point that there had been no previous experience with firestorms and then proceed to ignore that there had also been no previous experience with higher powers summoning fire to burn entire hilltops, rather brushing it off. Gandalf has performed an act that you have said has never happened but try to use the fact a different act has never happened as some sort of reason to back your own view.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

You know it's not discussed in any detail (beyond how Gil-galad died) but if you're imagining it as some comic-book thing with Sauron flinging lightning-bolts and fire all over the shop then you're truly hopeless. The prologue to the movie of FOTR had the right general idea; they filmed the scene where Sauron kills Gil-galad by grabbing and immolating him but it didn't make the cut, leaving it unexplained why Sauron was reaching for Isildur with his ring-hand.

No, I imagined it without much magic. I imagined it as Sauron coming down to take out the captains in that war, to demoralise the advancing opponent. As the fight draws to its end, Saruon realises he should have should used magic but is too weak now to do anything about it. In a last ditch attempt, he burns Gil-galad to death and kills Elendil but it leaves him exhausted. So exhausted that he could not defend himself when Isildur cuts the ring from his finger.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

There are assorted massive battles in the Silmarillion and in none of them do we see any Maiar striding through the fray casually blowing people up, despite the fact that Morgoth had quite a collection of Maiar on his payroll. The Balrogs are a particular case in point: we know they possessed powerful magic as well as being powerhouses in melee, but in battle the magic we see is there to augment their fighting abilities (whips of fire rather than anything mundane), not replace them. Sauron's equivalent was his Black Hand, which burned like fire (that being why the Ring was so hot to begin with) and which he used to destroy Gil-galad.

You can't ascribe massive additional super-powers to Gandalf without ascribing the exact same (or more) to Sauron, and then you'd have to explain why he doesn't use them even as a last resort. And not by lame excuses like how he was maybe feeling a bit tired, either.

And you still have yet to explain why no Balrogs burnt down the land around them but Gandalf has done twice. Until then, I'm free to ascribe suitable powers to Gandalf as much as I like, especially when there is nothing to suggest it didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Twice was quite often enough - any more than that and it's get samey, it'd be like 'ho-hum, Gandalf is doing his telekinesis thing again'. It's when he doesn't do something even so much as once in LOTR that questions can be asked.

Then that's the exact same reason I'll use as to why he didn't use the zap any more.

Originally Posted by Dorothir

I love it! I'm misinterpreting something that loads of other people also interpreted as! Your ego knows no bounds.

Yep, you're misinterpreting it and I don't care how many other people have done the same. A form of majesty, it says, nothing about behaviour. When Maiar took a physical form reflecting their power then they appeared majestic, semi-divine, as Sauron had formerly done. The Istari were required to take forms that did not do that, so they turned up as old greybeards. They were also required not to make impressive shows of power for all to see, and again Gandalf does not do that: the only people to see the impressive show he put on against the wolves were the Fellowship, just as there was hardly anyone there to see the water-horses he added to the flood Elrond summoned, just as Bilbo was the only person to momentarily glimpse what he was like when he was angry. What you've done is to try to combine two separate statements:

their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open displays of power,

See that 'or' in the middle? Majestic forms OR open displays of power, either adopting an outwardly impressive form OR making impressive open shows of their power. Nothing about displays of power being majestic in themselves.

They're only clear quotes in so much as you will only take your interpretation as the correct one. Just as you did with Beleg.

Beleg didn't ignore that quote the way you're doing. You're wilfully ignoring it because it clashes with your mental picture, a picture which you seem to have brought to this from elsewhere entirely. It's a definite statement: Gandalf says he needs something to work on. He can't burn things that won't burn - that's hardly a controversial limitation, it's just that it's not apparently good enough for you.

Did you really just side step that question? You bring up the point that there had been no previous experience with firestorms and then proceed to ignore that there had also been no previous experience with higher powers summoning fire to burn entire hilltops, rather brushing it off. Gandalf has performed an act that you have said has never happened but try to use the fact a different act has never happened as some sort of reason to back your own view.

It's a matter of style: there's a difference between causing a hilltop to burst into flame and summoning endless swirling sheets of flame out of thin air. You will persist in talking about summoning fire and hurling it about when not only are there are no prior examples of that but it's never said to happen in LOTR, either! If Gandalf could do that but doesn't only because he's not supposed to, what prevented the Balrogs (who were fire-spirits, after all) from doing that instead of limiting themselves to supersized medieval weaponry and flaming whips? What was stopping Sauron?

It strikes me that the only reason you expect Gandalf to be able to put on a show like that is that's what other fantasy has led you to expect a powerful wizard to be able to do, hence Gandalf would otherwise be left looking a bit wimp - and never mind that Middle-earth is, in general, a low-magic setting (as it has to be, as the intention was to evoke a time of legend rather than the sort of overblown sword-and-sorcery you're plainly thinking of).

No, I imagined it without much magic. I imagined it as Sauron coming down to take out the captains in that war, to demoralise the advancing opponent. As the fight draws to its end, Saruon realises he should have should used magic but is too weak now to do anything about it. In a last ditch attempt, he burns Gil-galad to death and kills Elendil but it leaves him exhausted. So exhausted that he could not defend himself when Isildur cuts the ring from his finger.

He was the sorcerer type, first and foremost, and always had been - but you'd have us believe he only thinks of using magic at the end? Sorry, there's a far simpler explanation: that while immensely powerful, his magic wasn't of a kind that'd be useful in a face-to-face confrontation with wrathful High Elves and Dunedain so when he finally did have to go out there, he had no choice but to try going all medieval on them, relying on the physical advantages that came with being a Maia (being especially hard to kill, in particular) and that one really nasty trick he had up his sleeve. He didn't want to, because unlike the Balrogs he wasn't that much of a fighter, but eventually he had to. Not every fantasy has to have battle-magic in it, you know.

And you still have yet to explain why no Balrogs burnt down the land around them but Gandalf has done twice. Until then, I'm free to ascribe suitable powers to Gandalf as much as I like, especially when there is nothing to suggest it didn't happen.

Balrogs were imagined as being more melee-oriented. They had a fire about them that'd burn those who got too close, as Gandalf said he was burned. Yes, I imagine that as they walked around then if there were grass underfoot it'd get scorched black, smoulder, maybe even catch fire. They didn't need to faff around using magic defensively as Gandalf does: they could just pile into a fight and lay about them with those outsized swords and maces they had, and given their size (nothing like the movie showed, but still towering several feet above those round them) they'd have been able to inflict more than enough harm that way. As for them using magic on top of that, I don't think that all the light-show atop Zirak-zigil was supposed to be Gandalf's work alone but rather the contention between his power and the Balrog's.

The 'nothing says it didn't happen' angle is the last resort of those who've got no argument. There are implications to saying that it did which you either refuse to deal with or make up ridiculous pseudo-explanations for, like Sauron suddenly deciding (against character!) to fight hand-to-hand rather than use magic.

Then that's the exact same reason I'll use as to why he didn't use the zap any more.

Also making for a very good reason why having anyone going around using high-powered magic casually just doesn't fit the setting, which is how we got into this subject in the first place. The thing that Tolkien does not have Gandalf using 'any more' (even assuming he'd retained the idea that Gandalf could strike Orcs dead in an instant, which I doubt) is hardly something to turn into something that's used as a matter of course.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

More arrogant, egotistical drivel.

You know what? I give up with you. I'm not going to bother trying to argue my own opinion with you because it's just that: opinion. You seem to have it stuck in your head that your opinion is the law and anyone elses is misinterpreted or just plain wrong.

You cannot believe how infuriating that is, especially when you just outright refuse to see anything given to you in any different stance than your own. What's worse is that you've dodged questions about certain points you've raised and then continued to use those points to try to counter my own view point, as if you don't understand when a pathetic argument is not going to work (your 'nobody does it before, why would Gandalf do it?' point, even though there's lots Gandalf does that nobody else did).

I'll leave my final thoughts on the matter of Gandalf's fight on Weathertop. To me, it was a firestorm. There is nothing in the lore that even comes close to saying it wasn't. If it really bothers you that I read the line about 'needing something to work on' to mean for that situation, I'll just say he used whatever shrubs were on the hilltop to fuel it and then manipulated it from there. He could not perform the same feat in front of the Fellowship because he was forbidden from using open displays of power.

Enjoy living a life presuming everyone else is wrong in their opinion and you're always right. I'm done with dealing with you.

Originally Posted by Dorothir

You know what? I give up with you. I'm not going to bother trying to argue my own opinion with you because it's just that: opinion. You seem to have it stuck in your head that your opinion is the law and anyone elses is misinterpreted or just plain wrong.

Oh, right, it's much easier to yell at me than admit you might be reaching even slightly in any of your 'interpretations', isn't it?

You cannot believe how infuriating that is, especially when you just outright refuse to see anything given to you in any different stance than your own. What's worse is that you've dodged questions about certain points you've raised and then continued to use those points to try to counter my own view point, as if you don't understand when a pathetic argument is not going to work (your 'nobody does it before, why would Gandalf do it?' point, even though there's lots Gandalf does that nobody else did).

You want infuriating? How about someone who second-guesses Tolkien when he suggests there are practical limits to what Gandalf can do, because that gets in the way of what they imagine a wizard should be able to do. The point that Middle-earth is generally a low-magic setting and that Gandalf's magic is still very powerful even with that limitation seems to have gone whistling right over your head. It's no good ignoring things like that and then complaining when I pour scorn on your opinions.

I'll leave my final thoughts on the matter of Gandalf's fight on Weathertop. To me, it was a firestorm. There is nothing in the lore that even comes close to saying it wasn't.

There's nothing to say Gandalf wasn't packing a home-made flamethrower either. That "there's nothing to say it wasn't" game is for the birds when there's nothing that even remotely suggests it was a 'firestorm', either.

If it really bothers you that I read the line about 'needing something to work on' to mean for that situation, I'll just say he used whatever shrubs were on the hilltop to fuel it and then manipulated it from there. He could not perform the same feat in front of the Fellowship because he was forbidden from using open displays of power.

And yet he does use an impressive display of power to save them from the wolves. Your explanation doesn't deal with that, it's like you've been pretending it doesn't count because it isn't spectacular enough for you. By any reasonable standard it was exactly the kind of thing that according to you, he should never do in front of witnesses but he does it anyway, overawing Sam and, one might imagine, leaving a lasting impression on the others, too. The key thing is that it wasn't as if he was doing that where a lot of people could see him do it, nor seeking to impress on anyone how powerful he was and how they should do what he says. That does explain his relative passivity during the Siege of Minas Tirith, as if he had made any substantial display of power there then everyone would have seen him do it and that would have gone against the rules he had to abide by.

Enjoy living a life presuming everyone else is wrong in their opinion and you're always right. I'm done with dealing with you.

You aren't everyone. You argue poorly and when seriously challenged you start yelling. Good luck in life with that

You guys sound like more intelligent versions of my teenage sisters...

So. Much. Drama.

Originally Posted by sir-rinthian

You guys sound like more intelligent versions of my teenage sisters...

So. Much. Drama.

Once again, my good Sir, you are so right.
After this thread, who can question that the pen...err, keyboard is stronger than the sword?
All of this started because of the following words:
"Is there any?"

(Though i must admit, i've laughed quite a bit at this drama thingie. Keep up the good work!)

I have owned a bag of "viking" runes since the 80s and I believe one of the inspirations for the RK was the viking soothsayer (who was remarkably free of pyrotechnics). Tolkiens translation of Beowulf is the tenuous link probably to this tradition and a motive for representing them in the game. You can find a parallel between the power of the soothsayers words in Julius Caeser telling him to beware the ides of march, and Glorfindols prophecy about the witch king at fornost, (a spell with a 1500 year duration?).

Commenting on a few of the posts, Rumil of Tirion (not of Lorien), invented writing independently of Daeron and presumably its alphabet wasnt cursive and could be used for runes, or there would be no reason for Feanor to invent his letters.

If we only consider LoTR and the Hobbit the only magic performed is by ring wearers, Gandalf does fire magic, Galadriel does fog magic, and the Nazgul do weird wraith stuff, Frodo goes invisable, the Istari without rings like Radagast and Saruman talk to birds, (Thorin and Bard talked to birds does this make them wizards?), or Sarumans amazing vocal tricks (applause!), did that make him some sort of ventriloquist, Sarumans attempt at pyrotechnics in imatation of Gandalf is achieved using primative black powder at Helms Deep like a modern day illusionist, which leads to my contention that not even the Istari were inate "magic users" which is bad news if you want base some character classes on the writings of JRRT. If Saruman could cast spells why did he forge himself an imitation ring?. This line of thought leads to the chicken and the egg arguement that you need magic to make a magic ring however.

I guess Turbine went with the name Rune Keeper to try and make a common justification/link to the lore (we allready have runes lets have runekeepers), I think calling the class "Seers" or "Astrologers" might have created less controversey, if it was explained that the runes in the bags were cast to determine augauries about a persons fate (ie you will die in a blnding flash of light), or Astrologers doing similar fate predicting tricks and magic that involved star and moonlight, most of the people who object to the RKs are also in the minority who would know about Malbeth the Seer, you average Joe MMOer doesnt care too much either way.

Here's a bit from 'Letters' describing the difference between wizards in the world of Tolkien and wizards i general.

"Nowhere is the place or nature of 'the Wizards' made fully explicit. Their name, as related to Wise, is an Englishing of their Elvish name, and is used throughout as utterly distinct from Sorcerer or Magician. It appears finally that they were as one might say the near equivalent in the mode of these tales of Angels, guardian Angels. Their powers are directed primarily to the encouragement of the enemies of evil, to cause them to use their own wits and valour, to unite and endure." Letters (131 - To Milton Waldman).

That thing about Gandalf not using his powers(?) in front of mortals is something I never heard off.

Originally Posted by BillyBeard

Here's a bit from 'Letters' describing the difference between wizards in the world of Tolkien and wizards i general.

"Nowhere is the place or nature of 'the Wizards' made fully explicit. Their name, as related to Wise, is an Englishing of their Elvish name, and is used throughout as utterly distinct from Sorcerer or Magician. It appears finally that they were as one might say the near equivalent in the mode of these tales of Angels, guardian Angels. Their powers are directed primarily to the encouragement of the enemies of evil, to cause them to use their own wits and valour, to unite and endure." Letters (131 - To Milton Waldman).

That thing about Gandalf not using his powers(?) in front of mortals is something I never heard off.

It's a (somewhat overreaching) extension of the thought in that letter, I think.

Wizards are there only to guide and encourage > wizards aren't allowed to do amazing stuff for people when they could get people to do it > wizards simply aren't allowed to do anything magical for people.

Others in the JRRT forums have described it more like this; Gandalf uses magic only to accomplish things that nobody else could have accomplished in the first place. Things like killing a balrog, or rescuing Faramir from the Nazgul on the Pellenor. When he's the only one for the job, he will do the job. But when other people are even remotely capable of doing it, he tries to let them do it (with a bit of help from himself.)