78 réponses à ce sujet

[KCFender]

What makes Tolkien separate in my mind from the entire fantasy genre isn't just that he was the first to use it in modern novel form, but that his story treated the fantasy with utmost poetry. The story itself was far from fantastic. Magic is close to non-existent and plays very little part. It is almost treated as superstition by most in Middle-Earth. Even battle heroics are but a divergence within the main story arc. The point of the story is that our ultimate "savior" isn't in anything fantastic, but in a "simple" and very vulnerable person who simply makes the gesture to sacrifice himself. I have zero care for Christian allegory, or fantasy novels, but Tolkien made something special. I know I'm taking the topic too seriously, but neither Gandalf nor any other element from TLotR should be used as a basis for what is the norm in the fantasy genre, if only because the norm of the fantasy genre has become typically rubbish for fantasy's sake. Tolkien didn't even write fantasy. He wrote a novel to translate his feelings and interpretation of Old English prose, and wrapped it around a plot that he admittedly took from his wonderfully humanistic view of The New Testament. People loved the aesthetic - sometimes more than the story itself perhaps - and ripped it right the **** off, and made a lot of campy short reads out of it, and the genre itself really took off, for better or worse.



tl;dr: No.

[TastyLaksa]

deathwing200 wrote...

Think about this:

If you were a powerful mage, would you prefer to obliterate your enemies from a long range with a fireball or fight like a chump with a sword and a staff? Why exactly should you "hold back" for weaker enemies other than as a part of badly written plot?

Gandalf was a badly written mage, who talked too much.

Tolkien was SOOOOOOO bad at writing characters. He was more concerned about having a world for his invented language anyways.

[hangmans tree]

I heard that dwarves are the worlds most skilled fireball tossers. With a pea soup digested and a torch at hand they make a really formidable pyro-wizards. Well maybe the range is not extreme, and the spel is more like a flame thrower and is called Bengal Flames. Still, one can hold a group of hurlocks at a distance and cover quite a large area with suppresive fire.



Some elves of Zevran concept orientation specialize in this form of magic also, but they put more pressure to the wider arc of the cone due to more relaxed muscles...



This, of course, is called Low Magic.

[Darthnemesis2]

Mordaedil wrote...

pwnd

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Gandalf wants to be Merlin.



Aragorn wants to be Arthur.



They aren't really that original, it's a fun story though.



Merlin had better spells and Arthur got a better sword.

[PaladinZero]

If you want to wield staff and sword, look no further than Neverwinter Nights 2. Take the appropriate feats, nerf your casting potential a bit, and poof, you got a mage wielding sword and staff. Not really worth it, might as well be wielding a dagger for the damage and penalties you take, but I did it because I too wanted to be a Gandalf clone.

[deathwing200]

Bonkz wrote...
Sorry  but this was too stupid to read and not comment on it.

Gandalf a badly written mage? Seriously either you haven't read Tolkien or you are just ignorant.
In tolkiens universe mages would cast a spell only when it was important, they weren't show offs throwing fireballs around places. Magic was considered a serious force and not to play with.

As for the OP i agree to some extent. Ofc in a game you can't have a mage not throwing spells. Would be a waste to have one if you would not cast.

Edit: As two people above said about Gandalf not using his powers cause of fear he would found, that is correct.

Actually the reason Tolkien gimped mages in his universe is because he wanted the events to run their course via more mundane means (like swords, bows, catapults etc),  which was fine, except now the supposedly mighty mages in his world were gimped by purely lame and unrealistic restrictions such as "mages would only cast a spell when it was important". A powerful wizard such as Gandalf (at least how he was portrayed) should have been able to slaughter mere orcs by the thousands, except he couldn't because then the story wouldn't be as climatic and exciting, so obviously he had to wade into melee. Did it feel cheap? Oh yes. Introducing "mighty wizards" into low magic world always leads to problems, when you're trying to keep them "low profile". It's much easier in DnD - a high power is always checked by an even higher power.

Think about it, pretty much in any magic unverse magic users tend to be highly arrogant precisely because magic is so powerful that it allows them to be above and beyond "mere mortals". They tend to show off their power and obliterate things just because they feel like it.

Modifié par deathwing200, 10 décembre 2009 - 10:16 .

[kelsjet]

deathwing200 wrote...

Actually the reason Tolkien gimped mages in his universe is because he wanted the events to run their course via more mundane means (like swords, bows, catapults etc),  which was fine, except now the supposedly mighty mages in his world were gimped by purely lame and unrealistic restrictions such as "mages would only cast a spell when it was important". A powerful wizard such as Gandalf (at least how he was portrayed) should have been able to slaughter mere orcs by the thousands, except he couldn't because then the story wouldn't be as climatic and exciting, so obviously he had to wade into melee. Did it feel cheap? Oh yes. Introducing "mighty wizards" into low magic world always leads to problems, when you're trying to keep them "low profile". It's much easier in DnD - a high power is always checked by an even higher power.

Think about it, pretty much in any magic unverse magic users tend to be highly arrogant precisely because magic is so powerful that it allows them to be above and beyond "mere mortals". They tend to show off their power and obliterate things just because they feel like it.

You showed yourself to be pretty clueless in your previous post.
This post, however, places you squarely in the group of the illiterate.

Please, do go on and tout your totally random, ill informed BS.. it is obvious that you subscribe to the "ignorance is bliss" newsletter. The rest of us will just sit back and watch you, the train wreck.

Modifié par Torias, 10 décembre 2009 - 10:41 .

[deathwing200]

Torias wrote...

You showed yourself to be pretty clueless in your previous post.
This post, however, places you squarely in the group of the illiterate.

Please, do go on and tout your totally random, ill informed BS.. it is obvious that you subscribe to the "ignorance is bliss" newsletter. The rest of us will just sit back and watch you, the train wreck.

It's very easy to say "you're ignorant" and act high and mighty rather than to think of coherent argument, am I right? Or are you mad because I pointed out flaws in your favorite book, which wasn't even that good (Tolkien is a mediocre writer at best, overhyped to the max)? In any case, I'll ignore any post from you from now on.

Modifié par Torias, 10 décembre 2009 - 11:21 .

[Mordaedil]

Jsmith0730 wrote...

You know... looking at that pic... has there EVER been a game where a magic class could wield a staff & sword? There needs to be one, IMO.

NWN. [smilie]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-smug.gif[/smilie]

Also, Gandalf was not a poorly written mage, when he was the first damn mage ever written. D&D made wizards capable of blowing up stuff because there was a need for mobile catapults that counted as one unit and they decided it'd be best represented by "magic", because with "magic" anything is possible.

Though inspiringly, Gandalf did something that no mages ever have done in D&D or any fictional character since:
Show restraint.

Some posters on these boards could learn a lot from Gandalf.

[Koralt]

Modifié par Koralt, 10 décembre 2009 - 10:52 .

[JessicaGlenn]

Lol, I've gotta go with deathwing on this one. I've read the LOTR books, though admittedly I skipped the poetry parts, having no patience for them. After the ressurrection of Gandalf because of whatever he was, all I could think was why don't you just deux ex machina away and have him be Sauron's brother.

[Razh2211]

JessicaGlenn wrote...

Lol, I've gotta go with deathwing on this one. I've read the LOTR books, though admittedly I skipped the poetry parts, having no patience for them. After the ressurrection of Gandalf because of whatever he was, all I could think was why don't you just deux ex machina away and have him be Sauron's brother.

They are the same race.

Anyway, Gandalf didn't have mana potions with him so he had to be economic about casting spells. And later in the story he was too busy running around collecting allies, stoping guys from being torched and what not.

[Bonkz]

You guys are stuck with the mages you have seen in video games in the last 15 years and think that all mages that don't rain fire on their enemies are not worthy being called mages.

LotR wasn't the best book written i'll give you that but it was a different approach on how a sorcerer was. It wasn't about, chunk down a pot and throw a few fireballs and lightning storms.

He knew that alone he couldn't stand against their enemies and he didn't use magic so he wasn't "detected". He was supposed to guide and unite.

Modifié par Bonkz, 10 décembre 2009 - 12:36 .

[Thorondor123]

Wolfva2 wrote...
 One thing I've often wondered, though. Sauron was lord of Vampires and werewolves, yet he only used orcs and trolls. What, did he run out of vamps and volves?

Werewolves (powerful wolves with evil spirits trapped inside them, not man/wolf hybrids) and vampires were Morgoth's creations. Sauron was his lieutenant and commander of werewolves but he couldn't restore his army after the war of wrath. It is possible, thought, that the Wargs of the third age were Sauron's attempt to create new werewolves.  

[IAGTTBleed]

Gandalf was a spirit send to guide the people of middle earth in their fight against Sauron. He took the form of a wizard so that the mortal races could identify with him. He wasn't sent to fight, he was sent to guide. The Valar(?) wanted the mortal races to be able to save themselves. Gandalf could not directly use his power against Sauron, it was against the rules.

[Mordaedil]

Bonkz wrote...

LotR wasn't the best book written i'll give you that but it was a different approach on how a sorcerer was. It wasn't about, chunk down a pot and throw a few fireballs and lightning storms.

To what standards, really? <_<

Without references here, this kind of statement is really meaningless. I see it everywhere and the only real conclusion I have is that there is NO good written book. None, zero, zilch.

It's like the entire concept of media of books is just crap on paper.

[Zweijsters]

Koralt wrote...

Wynne

[ChaosVC]

Haha

[DarwinJames]

"And the overpowered mages in Dragon age should follow in Gandalfs footsteps."



sssss ... No ... we wants even more power My Precioussssss ...

[Solistus1]

All these hacks ripped off Beowulf. Let's get back to the real roots of the genre!



Seriously though, if you can't make your argument about how and why the Dragon Age world should be different without resorting to "Tolkien did it this way" then maybe it's not the best argument. The relationship between magic and religion in DA:O is fairly unique and interesting, IMO.

[deathwing200]

Bonkz wrote...

You guys are stuck with the mages you have seen in video games in the last 15 years and think that all mages that don't rain fire on their enemies are not worthy being called mages.

LotR wasn't the best book written i'll give you that but it was a different approach on how a sorcerer was. It wasn't about, chunk down a pot and throw a few fireballs and lightning storms.

He knew that alone he couldn't stand against their enemies and he didn't use magic so he wasn't "detected". He was supposed to guide and unite.

Except even a guy w/o magical powers can "guide and unite". The whole concept of a "mage" is supposed to mean something fantastic, something beyond normal humans. Gandalf didn't demonstrate his powers for the reason that the writer didn't want him overshadowing other characters, which would undoubtedly happen in a low magic setting world where he is one of the few so called mages. Think about it: if Gandalf used his power to obliterate the orc armies in Two Towers, it would take the excitement out of the whole thing. I just think, the writer did a very poor job of actually coming up with an excuse for Gandalf not using his power.

Modifié par deathwing200, 10 décembre 2009 - 02:07 .

[Aesir Rising]

Gandalf has bigger fish to fry other than tossing out 6d6 fireballs at every passing goblin.

SecDef doesn't carry a BFG9000 to the office either.

I'm trying to distinguish between leaders and the cannon-fodder they lead.  Don't ask my why it is this way - why Gandalf or Robert Gates don't just drop Fuel/Air Explosives whenever they see a yellow-con goblin or an Al-Qaeda.  If I were in charge that's exactly what I'd do - but IRL I'm just the cannon fodder.

[Jsmith0730]

 I guess the moral is: A Wizard didn't do it.