Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Game News LOTR: The White Council announced

Whipporowill

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2003
Messages
2,961
Location
59°19'03"N 018°02'15"E
Melkor also created the Trolls to be his perverted take on Ents - according to some lore. Sauron was just a pussy understudy to Melkor - who was a god, where Sauron was just a maia - (Gandalf, Saruman and the balrogs) a servant spirit of the gods.
 

glasnost

Augur
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
202
Location
spurious messiah camp
kingcomrade said:
What I'd like someone to explain is how The Bad Guy in LotR got his massive armies. Was he just a really persuasive recruiter? "Hey, I'm the ultimate evil and we've got the greatest dental care plan this side of the Middle Earth."

Yeah, persuasion was pretty much what he was all about. He was the brains and handsome face behind Melkor/Morgoth's hammer and will. When Morgoth was taken out of the picture, subterfuge and manipulation were still his chief tactics. He was very charismatic, and knew how best to get what he wanted out of a variety of targets.

I think the human contingent of his armies in LotR has a lot to do with religious manipulation, like was suggested earlier. Going back further, that's how Sauron engineered the destruction of the Numenorians, the human elite. As a prisoner of war, his good behavior brought him closer to the ear of the king, whose pride made it easy for Sauron to cultivate within him and his court a new religion, playing on their growing terror of death and focused on escape from it through the worship of Melkor/Morgoth, rather than the austere and increasingly incomprehensible (as the Numenorians became more materialistic and arrogant) 'lived mysticism' of the elves in Valinor.

Eventually Numenor was destroyed. It's doubtless that some of Sauron's loyal cultists survived, and made their way back to the mainland. Sauron himself was caught in Numenor's destruction, so much of his previous ability was lost. This wasn't too much of a problem, because the 'black numenorians', like 'The Mouth of Sauron', that Tolkien mentioned would be ideal marshals and high priests with which he could rally the eastern nations around his banners. We don't know much about it, but a sort of 'warrior-religion' makes sense, promising immortality through victory in a holy war against the western elves and the Numenorian remnant. I don't know if Sauron himself would style himself as a god, he seems more likely to play the part of messenger and guide, a dread prophet of Melkor the Invisible (he genuinely admired and served his former master. Tolkien figured that's how he kept his head so long, and didn't lose it in delusion and pride till the very end). He wouldn't need to be as subtle as he had to be with the Numenorians--just playing on their natural superstitions and stirring up a hunger for conquest within them would probably be enough.

The orcish contingent is a little different. It depends on what the nature of orcs really is, which as was talked about in an earlier thread, wasn't actually set in stone. If orcs are just psychic puppets, then it's just a matter of broadcasting the right signal for them to come running. If not, there are still the ingrained memories and bonds that ages of servitude and subjugation would have imprinted on them. Also, from what Sam overheard between two of them below the tower at Cirith Ungol, it's clear that the orcs believed the elves and their allies would never permit their continued existence under any circumstance. The fear of the western powers was stronger than the hate for their master and his servants.

Once humans drew blood in the cause of Sauron's wars, the same fears could be used against them as well. Some of their ancestors likely fought against the elves in the events of the Silmarillion, and any preserved legends would likely contain depictions of the elves as terrifying, perhaps otherworldly, beings who gave no quarter. There were plenty of seeds for Sauron to water and grow to his own ends.
 

glasnost

Augur
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
202
Location
spurious messiah camp
I wasn't contesting that. The questions that are open are the nature of orcs prior to that manipulation, and how much, if any capacity they have to be moral free agents after the fact.

Melkor poured himself into everything. more or less. "The entire world was Morgoth's ring." His touch would be felt within every person and would twist lesser beings' perception of every thing (some things more than others) but it was at the cost of weakening his localized incarnation into a 'mere' skulking warchief.
 

Mefi

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,364
Location
waiting for a train at Perdido Street Station
glasnost said:
I wasn't contesting that. The questions that are open are the nature of orcs prior to that manipulation, and how much, if any capacity they have to be moral free agents after the fact..

Not sure what you mean by this. The origins of orcs were constantly revised by Tolkien but I think what is clear is his Christian idea of "no soul beyond redemption" is present throughout all rewrites and comments he makes on the subject in his writing. (eg letter 142 to Robert Murray).
 

glasnost

Augur
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
202
Location
spurious messiah camp
Mefi said:
glasnost said:
I wasn't contesting that. The questions that are open are the nature of orcs prior to that manipulation, and how much, if any capacity they have to be moral free agents after the fact..

Not sure what you mean by this. The origins of orcs were constantly revised by Tolkien but I think what is clear is his Christian idea of "no soul beyond redemption" is present throughout all rewrites and comments he makes on the subject in his writing. (eg letter 142 to Robert Murray).
well, the latter (moral free agency) is determined by the former (nature). It has nothing to do with questions of redemption, and everything to do with who is the 'author of their action'. As long as the question of their nature is left ambiguous (and I believe Tolkien died with it left in that condition), then all the ramifications of nature/essence (questions of intelligence and will) remain unresolved, because they are sequent to it. That's why I gave several different ideas of why the orcs hung out with Sauron. The subject is murky.

Example: in one text Tolkien speculates on the possibility of orcs being solely material--without soul or spirit. In this particular possibility, redemption, as understood by his Catholic faith, is meaningless and irrelevant.
 

Mefi

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,364
Location
waiting for a train at Perdido Street Station
glasnost said:
The subject is murky.

True. I seem to recall Tolkien making a similar comment, something along the lines of "I haven't got a clue about what I'm going to do to fit orcs properly into Middle Earth lore". As related in Morgoth's Ring, he has some Orc leaders as being fallen lesser Maiar, in Unfinished Tales he has some orcs being corrupted Druedain as well as the corrupted Elf idea. He also mentions the idea of them being either inanimate objects animated by Morgoth's will (rejected very early on) or as beasts to which Morgoth gave a little independant will (again rejected).

Only the rejected ideas on the issue of whence Orcs came from would cause any real problems. The extent of such free will remains problematic though ;)

Example: in one text Tolkien speculates on the possibility of orcs being solely material--without soul or spirit. In this particular possibility, redemption, as understood by his Catholic faith, is meaningless and irrelevant.

True, but he rejected that idea - most probably as a direct result of his Catholic beliefs.
 

GhanBuriGhan

Erudite
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,170
The corrupted elf idea is the one published in the Simarillion though, isn't it? Also it seems most in line with the idea of Melkor being able to corrupt and mimick, but never to truly create.
 

Mefi

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,364
Location
waiting for a train at Perdido Street Station
GhanBuriGhan said:
The corrupted elf idea is the one published in the Simarillion though, isn't it? Also it seems most in line with the idea of Melkor being able to corrupt and mimick, but never to truly create.

It is, although the Silmarillion can be read as what some of the elves thought happened as that manages to explain most of the inconsistencies within it (not all though). In the additional things Tolkien wrote he's speaking directly as the author. Tolkien was revising and changing ideas constantly to try and resolve the inconsistencies in his published work as well as his own private notes (which have since been published). He never did manage to resolve this particular issue - in Morgoth's Ring, he specifically states that he wants to cut out the elvish link to orcs in future editions of Silmarillion.
 

ad hominem

Scholar
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
413
Location
Here, there, and everywhere
GhanBuriGhan said:
The corrupted elf idea is the one published in the Simarillion though, isn't it? Also it seems most in line with the idea of Melkor being able to corrupt and mimick, but never to truly create.
That's correct. Although there is evidence that some of this may have changed if he'd lived another 20 years (if you can somehow manage to wade all the way through all twelve of The History of Middle Earth it's plain just how fluid many of his ideas were). The Silmarillion was published basically on where his thoughts were at the time, but they changed so regularly it's hard to say where they would have settled if he'd actually ever published the thing himself, as opposed to the posthumous publication.

EDIT: Damn you, Mefi!
 

glasnost

Augur
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
202
Location
spurious messiah camp
Mefi said:
glasnost said:
The subject is murky.

True. I seem to recall Tolkien making a similar comment, something along the lines of "I haven't got a clue about what I'm going to do to fit orcs properly into Middle Earth lore". As related in Morgoth's Ring, he has some Orc leaders as being fallen lesser Maiar, in Unfinished Tales he has some orcs being corrupted Druedain as well as the corrupted Elf idea. He also mentions the idea of them being either inanimate objects animated by Morgoth's will (rejected very early on) or as beasts to which Morgoth gave a little independant will (again rejected).
This was one that I liked, composite orcs. Not a race, but a hierarchy of different corrupted beings and matter.

as an aside, there is so much good stuff in 'Morgoth's Ring'. It was one of the high points of the series.

Example: in one text Tolkien speculates on the possibility of orcs being solely material--without soul or spirit. In this particular possibility, redemption, as understood by his Catholic faith, is meaningless and irrelevant.

True, but he rejected that idea - most probably as a direct result of his Catholic beliefs.

Oooh. That could very likely be true, but I'm not sure if I'd want to say it. For one thing, that would mean that Tolkien fell under his own condemnation, which he applied to the Arthurian legends, that they "explicitly contained the Christian religion."

Unless we are saying that Tolkien's independent philosophical thought (which he applied to his work), was formed in part by his latin catholicism, which would be true, and doesn't necessarily mean that "Tolkien ensured that his work was in conformity with the Baltimore Catechism", which would be a nasty thing, I think.

--
as another aside, I don't consider the Silmarillion to be a published book, rather a body of legends that was Tolkien's imaginative world and life's work. The edition in print was posthumous, edited by Christopher, prior to all of Christopher's exhaustive research. He spends no small part of his commentaries in the Histories essentially apologizing for some the decisions he made then, in light of what he had uncovered.

I've wondered if he's thought of putting together a new, post-Histories, edition. I doubt it though; it'd just be another reenvisionment. Perhaps fuller, but not much more 'final', which is an impossibility.
 

Mefi

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,364
Location
waiting for a train at Perdido Street Station
glasnost said:
Oooh. That could very likely be true, but I'm not sure if I'd want to say it. For one thing, that would mean that Tolkien fell under his own condemnation, which he applied to the Arthurian legends, that they "explicitly contained the Christian religion."

Unless we are saying that Tolkien's independent philosophical thought (which he applied to his work), was formed in part by his latin catholicism, which would be true, and doesn't necessarily mean that "Tolkien ensured that his work was in conformity with the Baltimore Catechism", which would be a nasty thing, I think.

I'm certainly not saying that Middle-Earth is Narnia ;) But the influence of his Catholicism in how he portrays the main themes is very evident. No doubt it was sub-conscious for him but it is very clearly there. There's no other reason for rejecting that option with regards to the background of orcs - it's not as if whatever he changed it to would not entail equal amounts of revision...

re. Silmarillion - yup :) Although the book had been knocking around in various semi-completed manuscript forms for quite some time and Tolkien was constantly fiddling with it. CT just made an absolute mess of it as he's confessed himself. It's quite hard to argue for a 'canon' of Tolkien's works outside of The Lord of the Rings itself (revised version) and maybe the revised version of the Hobbit. The Silmarillion could do with a substantial revision to take into account what is now known of Tolkien's intentions. Unlikely to happen though.

I doubt I would buy yet another mammoth series of 'Tolkien in rough draft' - I don't intend to write anything on him requiring such a source ever again :)
 

glasnost

Augur
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
202
Location
spurious messiah camp
'swhy the idea of a 'canon' is pretty silly. The arbiter of the nature of middle earth is Tolkien's brain, not whatever first printing or Allen and Unwin edition one takes a shine to, so the best way to understand what's going on behind everything is getting inside the man's head. Christopher's work over the years has made that possible in a very profound way. It's *the best* way he could have preserved and brought to light his father's legacy and depth of thought; it's too bad Brian Herbert, for instance, hasn't taken a similar approach...I compare him unfavorably rather often, I'm afraid. :)

I don't think Christopher's Silmarillion is a total mess. Considering the state of his father's notes, their shared desire to see this material published in some form (it was his life's work!), and the way the legends, in this and later forms captured my own imagination (much moreso, really, than LotR did...even as a kid.), I'd say he did a pretty good job. In any case, all the work he's done since has only expanded all the good stuff.

It is, however, a bit harsh to tell people that to really get a grip on Tolkien and the Silmarillion proper you should work your way through say...fourteen books...
 

Mefi

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,364
Location
waiting for a train at Perdido Street Station
Brian Herbert should have been shot before he started fucking about with the Dune universe. He can't even get consistency with his father's published work..

That said, CT also made an absolute balls up of most of his early stuff. He became more professional as more people gained access to the material and pointed out his errors. And the bits which didn't make sense, which turn out not have made sense because CT made them up.

You don't need to read every last snippet of Tolkien's notes to get a handle on Middle Earth - it just provides a good bullshit test when someone pontificates about it ;)

This new game is apparantly adding more towns to Middle Earth. Which is sweet but the locations they mention as having them really don't fit in with Tolkien's description of those areas for the time period the game is set in. It doesn't take reading all of Tolkien's writings to figure that out.

And yes I was equally pissy about the Jacksons putting elves into Helm's Deep.
 

Hazelnut

Erudite
Joined
Dec 17, 2002
Messages
1,490
Location
UK
Mefi said:
Brian Herbert should have been shot before he started fucking about with the Dune universe. He can't even get consistency with his father's published work..

That said, CT also made an absolute balls up of most of his early stuff. He became more professional as more people gained access to the material and pointed out his errors. And the bits which didn't make sense, which turn out not have made sense because CT made them up.

Anyone care to summarise? I got the first Unfinished tales after reading the Silmarillion 20 years ago, but I have never found it interesting enough to plough through. I'd be interested in the important 'errors' in the published Silmarillion though.

Mefi said:
And yes I was equally pissy about the Jacksons putting elves into Helm's Deep.

Did you watch the extras? They explained that this was done because the elves were fighting to the north, but they couldn't figure out how to introduce this into the film without confusing things or using up too much time. So they put a few at the Deep to symbolise the fact that the elves were not just doing a runner at a shitty time. You gotta remember that the films have to make sense to people who've never read the books, and they figured that having a small group of elves appear at the Deep was better than implying that they elves were not directly involved in the fight. Whether you agree or disagree with the Jacksons decisions, there are always reasons for them and consideration for the source material. This surprised me quite a bit when I watched though the extras, because I thought it was motivated more by 'lets tweak this and that because we think it'd be cool' when it wasn't.
 

Mefi

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,364
Location
waiting for a train at Perdido Street Station
Hazelnut said:
Anyone care to summarise? I got the first Unfinished tales after reading the Silmarillion 20 years ago, but I have never found it interesting enough to plough through. I'd be interested in the important 'errors' in the published Silmarillion though.

Just as a quick couple of examples, Gil-galad's lineage is all over the place. Whose son is he? Melian's Girdle doesn't protect Doriath from the Dwarves which makes no sense whatsoever. Glorfindel's being sent back to Middle-Earth is not mentioned which is odd as it would appear to be quite a special event. There are others but that'll do for now ;)

Ruin of Doriath is not written by JRR but is based on a very rough outline by him. Large sections of Tuor and the fall of Gondolin as well as the Earendil stuff is not written by JRR. In the War of the Jewels, Christopher goes as far as to say "it seems to me now, many years later, to have been an excessive tampering with my father's actual thought and intention: thus raising the question, whether the attempt to make a 'unified' Silmarillion should have been embarked on."

The Silmarillion is a half-baked mix of stuff Tolkien had knocking about in the 1930s, later revisions in Tolkien's notes and invention by Christopher Tolkien. It's fun in places but can't be trusted.


Did you watch the extras? They explained that this was done because the elves were fighting to the north, but they couldn't figure out how to introduce this into the film without confusing things or using up too much time. So they put a few at the Deep to symbolise the fact that the elves were not just doing a runner at a shitty time. You gotta remember that the films have to make sense to people who've never read the books, and they figured that having a small group of elves appear at the Deep was better than implying that they elves were not directly involved in the fight. Whether you agree or disagree with the Jacksons decisions, there are always reasons for them and consideration for the source material. This surprised me quite a bit when I watched though the extras, because I thought it was motivated more by 'lets tweak this and that because we think it'd be cool' when it wasn't.

Yeah I did watch Fran try to justify it. Bit like her justification for the charge of the Gondorian cavalry. I can even understand why she did it. But it still made me pissy despite me really enjoying the film.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom