Lord Liaden Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts Because she takes after her old man, and wants to be the Dark Lord (or Queen) herself. I can anticipate the next question: why not just kill her? Because every one of Tolkien's major bad guys have been sadistic SOBs who would rather torment and torture their enemies when they have the chance, than give them the relative ease of a quick death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts Or her imprisonment is part of her "training" so she can become as spiteful as he is. While she's there, she can be an overseer in the dungeons of Barad Dur so she can learn the finer points of torturing the other prisoners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts There was mention of a Fading of Elves that did not return West. I pictured them as ghasts or some sort of vampire. I envisioned using them somewhere' date=' sometime during the campaign (s).[/quote'] They can also become nature spirits. Tolkien said they diminished. I think he meant in power, but maybe also literally. Then they'd become the sprites and other "little folk" mentioned in folklore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts They can also become nature spirits. Tolkien said they diminished. I think he meant in power' date=' but maybe also literally. Then they'd become the sprites and other "little folk" mentioned in folklore.[/quote'] Something like "A rustic folk of hill and wood, who remember not." Lucius Alexander The palindromedary is sure I've got the quote wrong. edit: Here it is We must depart into the West, or dwindle to a rustic folk of dell and cave, slowly to forget and to be forgotten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts Then' date=' the question becomes: Why he imprisoned his daughter?[/quote'] The obvious answer is: because Sauron was afraid of her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancer Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts It'd be very easy to see a prophecy that Sauron's daughter would only come to power after her father's power was broken and his tower thrown down. Properly worded, it might suggest that she would participate in the breaking, and Sauron being the canny type wouldn't want that. But it would have to be left open enough that the possibility of father & daughter ruling ME together after the West was defeated. Combine those, and now you have ample reason to (1) keep her locked up and (2) not dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted March 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts The obvious answer is: because Sauron was afraid of her. Or maybe he was afraid she'd bring home a boyfriend, he'd disapprove of like Aragorn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts Or maybe he was afraid she'd bring home a boyfriend' date=' he'd disapprove of like Aragorn.[/quote'] One of the things that appeals to me about this Spawn of Sauron concept is that she'd still be half elvish, so if you wanted to, you could play it that she could somehow be turned back to the good guys' side. I'm just not sure how you'd go about doing that. Or she could be Pure Evil™, for a more straightforward campaign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts ... Turn the Sexy Sultry Sorceress trope up to eleventy ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts One of the things that appeals to me about this Spawn of Sauron concept is that she'd still be half elvish' date=' so if you wanted to, you could play it that she could somehow be turned back to the good guys' side. I'm just not sure how you'd go about doing that. Or she could be Pure Evil™, for a more straightforward campaign.[/quote'] Or if not half Elvish, half Numenorean. Sauron spent a long time on Numenor after Ar-Pharazon captured him, corrupting the locals to the worship of Melkor. She might even be of the royal bloodline of Elros on her mother's side (I've found no mention of children of Ar-Pharazon, but he had a queen so he could have had a daughter), making her King Elessar's very-far-removed cousin. That could be another reason why Sauron kept her under wraps; she would have had a legitimate claim to rulership of the Dunedain, giving her a power base of her own. And that could be a goal of hers in the Fourth Age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts Better yet, Sauron had a bunch of children. Now they're fighting one another trying to succeed him. They're b@$t@rd$ in more ways than one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hopcroft Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts The movies mentioned the idea that to destroy Sauron would be to "destroy evil forever", implying that it would completely destroy the power of Morder and everything associated with it. Mount Doom erupted violently when the Ring was cast into it. which would also have had cataclysmic physical effects on Morder and its inhabitants. Of course, in the novels the Reaving of the Shire (where the Hobbit homeland was occupied by forces who remained loyal to Saruman, who did not die until confronted in Hobbiton) took place after Sauron was obliterated, so evil as an idea at least was not extinguished.... But with so many people of power relocating to the distant West it seems apparent that the Fourth Age would have been considerably less wondrous than the Third and more dominated by the mundane civilizations of Men. And thus much less interesting to campaign in.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts Well, IIRC the books implied that all the evil the power of the Ring had spawned would be destroyed, and Sauron would never be able to take physical shape again. Didn't Gandalf say something about it being the responsibility of the people of the future to deal with the evils of the future? All they could do was uproot the evils they knew, so the future wouldn't be plagued by them. But looking at Tolkien's pseudo-history of Middle Earth, clearly each age was less marvelous than the previous one. The War of the Ring, epic as it may have been, was a paltry thing compared to the overthrow of Morgoth, which literally shook the world. But while the threats may have become more mundane, the power of the defenders of the Free Peoples to oppose it likewise declined. The greatest Elf lords of the First Age could stand toe to toe in battle with Sauron in his prime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts With Morgoth, even! No hope of winning, obviously, but hurting him ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterFurious Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts I wonder too: there were one, three, seven, and nine rings... why not five? Maybe there were five rings of great power that never entered into the story, possibly being given to lieutenants or something. In the fourth age, these might still be extant and could augment the power of five would-be dark lords, competing with each other to become pre-eminent. I think the reason there weren't five rings is because Tolkien wasn't going for the whole odd-numbered thing... if you add them all up, you have 20 rings all told... one for each digit on hand and foot.... not that Sauron (or anyone) would actually wear them like that, although I do seem to recall it being mentioned somewhere that once one of his "gift" Rings corrupted it's recipient, Sauron would take it and keep it in his possession in order to control that person. So maybe he did intend to wear them in such fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escafarc Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts But with so many people of power relocating to the distant West it seems apparent that the Fourth Age would have been considerably less wondrous than the Third and more dominated by the mundane civilizations of Men. And thus much less interesting to campaign in.... It may be the group I game with but they find "court intrigue" campaigns more engaging then combatting the "big evil" thing/The Quest/dungencrawling(i.e. kill the dude and take the thing) games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts One of the things that appeals to me about this Spawn of Sauron concept is that she'd still be half elvish' date=' so if you wanted to, you could play it that she could somehow be turned back to the good guys' side. I'm just not sure how you'd go about doing that. Or she could be Pure Evil™, for a more straightforward campaign.[/quote'] Perhaps more significantly she'd be HALF MAIAR, i.e. half an angel. Lucius Alexander The palindromedary says that there were giants in Middle Earth in those days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts I think the reason there weren't five rings is because Tolkien wasn't going for the whole odd-numbered thing... if you add them all up' date=' you have 20 rings all told... one for each digit on hand and foot.... not that Sauron (or anyone) would actually wear them like that, although I do seem to recall it being mentioned somewhere that once one of his "gift" Rings corrupted it's recipient, Sauron would take it and keep it in his possession in order to control that person. So maybe he did intend to wear them in such fashion.[/quote'] Although I can't find a passage specifically to that effect, the impression I have is that the Ringwraiths still wore the Nine Rings, which had caused their Wraith-state through prolonged use. Sauron had taken or destroyed all of the Seven Rings, because the Dwarves are too stubborn to be outright corrupted against their will (although the Rings did inflame their innate dwarven greed). When Sauron put on the One Ring, though, all other Ring-wearers would have their thoughts opened and their wills subverted to him, which is why the Elves hid their rings while he wore his. But the Three Rings of the Elves were created by Celebrimbor without Sauron's direct involvement, and were untainted by his evil. I think that's why we jump from Seven to Three: the lesser Rings were intended by Sauron to grant power far inferior to his own Ring, but the Three were called the greatest act of Elven crafting since the Silmarils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Typist Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts It may be the group I game with but they find "court intrigue" campaigns more engaging then combatting the "big evil" thing/The Quest/dungencrawling(i.e. kill the dude and take the thing) games Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts It may be the group I game with but they find "court intrigue" campaigns more engaging then combatting the "big evil" thing/The Quest/dungencrawling(i.e. kill the dude and take the thing) games And even a slightly dialed-down campaign might be more interesting to KTDWTT players. One of the big criticisms of LOTR is that the primary antagonist, Sauron, is invisible--he just sits in his tower the whole time and goes poof when his bling heats up. At least Smaug, Shelob, the Balrog, and the Nazgul could be faced, if not defeated by anything less than a Maiar or a crossdresser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted March 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts It may be the group I game with but they find "court intrigue" campaigns more engaging then combatting the "big evil" thing/The Quest/dungencrawling(i.e. kill the dude and take the thing) games I can at times. Though, I like watching the other characters. Cause I dont have much fun playing such characters. (I dont necessarily mind sitting out most of a session, if the others keep it entertaining) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts I think the reason there weren't five rings is because Tolkien wasn't going for the whole odd-numbered thing... if you add them all up' date=' you have 20 rings all told... one for each digit on hand and foot....[/quote'] Yes, but that leaves two rings (at least) for the ears, one for the nose, one for the belly button, two for the nipples.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts Rings, let's see: Six for the mastery of the lands Five for the mastery of the seas Three for the mastery of the air Two for the control of bad breath Four recalled for factory defects Yup, that makes twenty, all right! (Taken from National Lampoon's parody Bored of the Rings) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts Now that I think on it, Tolkien did give us a "five," being the five Istari, or Wizards. So we sorta skip from rings to staves and back to rings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 Re: LOTR thoughts So, did the Goblins, Trolls, and so forth, just drop dead when Sauron did? . They lost the ability to work together so effectively became nothing more than nuisances. The inherent problem with doing a sequel to TLOTR is that the ending of TLOTR eliminates or marginalizes all the cool stuff that someone might want to do a TLOTR game for. One has to stray from Tolkien's game plan to make it worth one's while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.