Why I don't like Elminster !
Darkmore The French Druid
a thing that bothered me a bit.
Well, I've been wandering around this NG and few sites about the
forgotten realms for few months now.
And actually I do like the DND rules and all the technical stuff (stats,
charts ...).
I really do think that it's the best way to turn a fantasy world into a
mathematical system so as to be "role-played".
Even the way the classes are described and regulated seems good.
So I can hear you saying "What's the problem dude".
For me the problem comes from the "forgotten realms" and all the things
that deal with the world that this term describe.
So I can hear you saying "Why dude ?? ".
Here's the big thing :
I come from the Tolkien's "School".
And everyone of you should be agree with the fact that the world
described in his books ( since 1937 !!!!) has never been equalled.
This man has established the tension Dwarfs/Elven, he has invented the
Elvish language, he used maps ( prooving that his world was concrete ),
and so on....
So I can understand that if you have to create a fantasy world you
"have" to deal with the Tolkien's mythology but there are different way
to do it .
Wether you accept it and credit Tolkien's work or you try to hide the
(massive) influence.
So, about the realms in BG1.
Here's one of the sad thing : the Halflings.
It's clear that this race is only the realms' version for the Hobbits so
why aren't they called Hobbits ??
The text given in the "character creation" section to describe the
Halflings is almost the same than in "The Hobbit" (1st Chapter) and "The
Lord Of the Ring" (prologue) !!
Even the sub-races are similar to the three kind of hobbit that are
described in Tolkien's books (before they setlled in the Shire
-->Harfoots, Stoors, Fallohides).
And Tolkien is not even in the credits
But the most pitfull thing (sorry if my words are hard) is as you can
guess the Elminster dude.
This guy is just a vulgar clone of the great Gandalf !!!
Not only he is an old powerfull wizard (this can be forgiven for most
wizards are old in the fairy tales) but his behaviour concerning the
world that surround him is deeply Gandalf-like.
Remember that Gandalf get involved in the Middle Hearth story only to
fight against Sauron : once in "The Hobbit" and of course in "The
Lord..." but most of the time he just wanders on the Middle Hearth
coming where he is unexpected (like Bilbo's house) doing few things
(the meeting Bilbo/Thorin & Cie) and going away when he seems to be
needed (just before Mirkwood).
So even if BG1 was (and is still) a great game, I've been really
astonished when I first met Elminster.
Once again I'm sorry if my words were hard and I hope there's no harm
done.
I didn't mean to make a kind of deathmatch : Gandalf VS Elminster, It
was just a way to say that its' sad that Tolkien's work has been
revisited and not improved.
It was also a way to show that TSR (or whoever) want to make Tolkien
Stuff without Tolkien's name (which means more money and less work).
Anyway I wait for your advices and arguments if you want to.
weenie
Darkmore The French Druid wrote in message
<3A06B401...@club-internet.fr>...
>So I can understand that if you have to create a fantasy world you
>"have" to deal with the Tolkien's mythology but there are different way
>to do it .
The different way is Steven Donaldson's way, and I'dd take the Tolkien way
any day of the week, credited or not. It just wouldn't cut it if they made
up too much stuff... I mean you have human/elf/dwarf people on one side and
orcs/trolls/demons on the other. They use magic or blades. Thats the basic
setup that everyone would (is gonna) use in such a game.
>Wether you accept it and credit Tolkien's work or you try to hide the
>(massive) influence.
>
>So, about the realms in BG1.
>Here's one of the sad thing : the Halflings.
>It's clear that this race is only the realms' version for the Hobbits so
>why aren't they called Hobbits ??
Copyright money, obviously - cheaper to call them 1/2lings then to pay the
JRR people. Actually I'm not sure how this is settled, maybe the TSR or WotC
paid ~something~
>Even the sub-races are similar to the three kind of hobbit that are
>described in Tolkien's books (before they setlled in the Shire
>-->Harfoots, Stoors, Fallohides).
>And Tolkien is not even in the credits
>
How do you imagine that: "Thanx, JRR, we ripped all your Middleearth races
and put them in another world because nobody was inteligent enough to make a
good LotRings RPG" !?
>But the most pitfull thing (sorry if my words are hard) is as you can
>guess the Elminster dude.
>This guy is just a vulgar clone of the great Gandalf !!!
~
>So even if BG1 was (and is still) a great game, I've been really
>astonished when I first met Elminster.
Me to. I completely agree on that issue - the Great Wizard is a neccessity
in a game like this, but why does he HAVE to have a long, white beard and a
pointy hat!?
Although, maybe it's a question for the guy who writes them books about the
Realms, Drizzt and Elminster... can't remember the name, never read any of
them
>
>Once again I'm sorry if my words were hard and I hope there's no harm
>done.
>Anyway I wait for your advices and arguments if you want to.
>
All in all, you have a point here, but still you have to remember that
Tolkien himself 'copied' most of his stuff from a bunch of fairy tales and
legends, so it's smth like common property - and hey: IIRC Tolkien never
said that elves had pointy ears, did he? Nice touch, Bioware...
And.. what kind of advice are you looking for exactly? How to cope with BG
games until they do a LotRings game at last? Now that's a tough one... I'll
think about it 8-)
Lord_Anthrax
Darkmore The French Druid <dark...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
<snip>
Well, where to begin? First of all, this is nothing new. Fantasy fans
have been going on about this for years, ever since the original D&D
work first came out. As for your words about TSR and Ed Greenwood(the
man who created the Realms and Elminster Aumar), they did draw quite
shamelessly upon Tolkien's work, just as every other fantasy game and
novel with a similar setting and world construction.
Why? Put simply, Tolkien is the standard, the baseline, for this work,
and accreditation to him has been stated in their works at various
points, just not cited constantly. Imitation, they say, is the highest
form of flattery.
Do the legions of chop-sockey films pay homage to Bruce Lee and his work
when they roll the credits? No, but the homage is there. It is inferred
in their work, and their emulation, at least in the case of the good
ones. I won't dispute that some blatantly steal and plagiarize from
works like this, works that set the standard and created genres, but in
most cases it's them trying to be like their ideals in their own ways.
Tolkien's work is immortal, and will be very very difficult to ever
match in its breadth and depth. But many do try to emulate him, their
hero and inspiration, and that's what this is. Nothing more.
--
Regards,
The Lord Anthrax
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeremy Clark
I'm sure many fantasy works can all be traced back to Tolkien. I'm sure Ed
Greenwood did use Gandalf as a basis for Elminster, but there's nothing
wrong with that. As long as his books are entertaining, I don't see why you
would complain. Look at the second book of the Icewind Dale Trilogy, The
Streams of Silver. Bruenor (A Dwarf) goes off to reclaim his family's
ancient home (In a mountain) that was taken from the Dwarves by an evil
dragon. That's pretty much a Hobbit rip off, but the story was good, and I
enjoyed it throughly...even if I couldn't dismiss the similarities.
In short, you haven't really stumbled over anything revolutionary. I'd
suggest that you get off your high horse and quit ranting.
Toktuk the American Barbarian :)
"Darkmore The French Druid" <dark...@club-internet.fr> wrote in message
news:3A06B401...@club-internet.fr...
> All right I probably won't have much friends after this post but here's
> a thing that bothered me a bit.
>
> Well, I've been wandering around this NG and few sites about the
> forgotten realms for few months now.
> And actually I do like the DND rules and all the technical stuff (stats,
> charts ...).
> I really do think that it's the best way to turn a fantasy world into a
> mathematical system so as to be "role-played".
> Even the way the classes are described and regulated seems good.
>
> So I can hear you saying "What's the problem dude".
>
> For me the problem comes from the "forgotten realms" and all the things
> that deal with the world that this term describe.
>
> So I can hear you saying "Why dude ?? ".
>
> Here's the big thing :
> I come from the Tolkien's "School".
> And everyone of you should be agree with the fact that the world
> described in his books ( since 1937 !!!!) has never been equalled.
> This man has established the tension Dwarfs/Elven, he has invented the
> Elvish language, he used maps ( prooving that his world was concrete ),
> and so on....
> So I can understand that if you have to create a fantasy world you
> "have" to deal with the Tolkien's mythology but there are different way
> to do it .
> Wether you accept it and credit Tolkien's work or you try to hide the
> (massive) influence.
>
> So, about the realms in BG1.
> Here's one of the sad thing : the Halflings.
> It's clear that this race is only the realms' version for the Hobbits so
> why aren't they called Hobbits ??
> The text given in the "character creation" section to describe the
> Halflings is almost the same than in "The Hobbit" (1st Chapter) and "The
> Lord Of the Ring" (prologue) !!
> Even the sub-races are similar to the three kind of hobbit that are
> described in Tolkien's books (before they setlled in the Shire
> -->Harfoots, Stoors, Fallohides).
> And Tolkien is not even in the credits
>
> But the most pitfull thing (sorry if my words are hard) is as you can
> guess the Elminster dude.
> This guy is just a vulgar clone of the great Gandalf !!!
> Not only he is an old powerfull wizard (this can be forgiven for most
> wizards are old in the fairy tales) but his behaviour concerning the
> world that surround him is deeply Gandalf-like.
> Remember that Gandalf get involved in the Middle Hearth story only to
> fight against Sauron : once in "The Hobbit" and of course in "The
> Lord..." but most of the time he just wanders on the Middle Hearth
> coming where he is unexpected (like Bilbo's house) doing few things
> (the meeting Bilbo/Thorin & Cie) and going away when he seems to be
> needed (just before Mirkwood).
> So even if BG1 was (and is still) a great game, I've been really
> astonished when I first met Elminster.
>
> Once again I'm sorry if my words were hard and I hope there's no harm
> done.
> I didn't mean to make a kind of deathmatch : Gandalf VS Elminster, It
> was just a way to say that its' sad that Tolkien's work has been
> revisited and not improved.
> It was also a way to show that TSR (or whoever) want to make Tolkien
> Stuff without Tolkien's name (which means more money and less work).
>
Jarle Kaste
Darkmore The French Druid <dark...@club-internet.fr> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:3A06B401...@club-internet.fr...
>...
>...
> Wether you accept it and credit Tolkien's work or you try to hide the
> (massive) influence.
They should give Tolkien the credit he deserves. The guy created
a whole world! How many people do you know who has done that!
And as you've said, lots of ideas from Tolkien has been..."borrowed",
and thus he should be credited in some way (just a "Thanks, Tolkien"
in the credit list or something).
> Tolkien's work has been revisited and not improved.
That would be impossible...Improving Tolkiens work...
yeah, right...I'd like to meet the person who could do that
> I didn't mean to make a kind of deathmatch : Gandalf VS Elminster
Of course not! We all know that Gandalf would win :)
But I agree with the rest. That's why I...errr....*cough*...kind
of pretend that I am Gandalf (or at least a mage very much like him)
when I play BG. I am, too, a powerful mage now.
(lvl 17...$%(ぃ"!...stupid exp-cap)
But it doesn't bother me too much. BG has a completely different
story than LOTR ', and the game is great...the best game I've ever
played. Besides, creating a new world is hard work, and combining
that with creating a new game....well, let's just say that the developers
would need ALOT more time. They haven't exactly copied anything;
but they've gotten ideas from Tolkien. I think we must allow people
to use some of Tolkiens ideas when they create something new,
because Tolkien covered everything (it wouldn't be cool to play BG
if they had monsters like "The Iron Hulk", "EMP monsters" or stuff
like that, eh? :)
') good vs evil, every game has that base story, so I don't think that
is a LOTR copy...
And to finish my post (really OT) :
Tolkien books vs other books -> Tolkien wins
BG1/2 vs Diablo1/2 -> BG1/2 wins
Sauron vs Sarevok -> Sauron wins (note: look at the names)
Jarle "Gandalf" Kaste
jka...@online.no
http://home.online.no/~rkaste
http://home.online.no/~rkaste/vb/vbindex.htm
"He who breaks a thing to find out what it is,
has left the path of wisdom."
--- Gandalf (JRR Tolkien)
Darkmore The French Druid
weenie wrote :
> Copyright money, obviously - cheaper to call them 1/2lings then to pay the
> JRR people. Actually I'm not sure how this is settled, maybe the TSR or WotC
> paid ~something~
>
>
Exactly what I was thinking ! And must be true indeed !!
> How do you imagine that: "Thanx, JRR, we ripped all your Middleearth races
> and put them in another world because nobody was inteligent enough to make a
> good LotRings RPG" !?
>
>
ARH ARH that could have benn fun !!
> All in all, you have a point here, but still you have to remember that
> Tolkien himself 'copied' most of his stuff from a bunch of fairy tales and
> legends, so it's smth like common property -
Yeah but here he's done a real work for he gathered the tales and put them
together in something clear and usable.
And it is a hard work considering that they are lots of different cultures and
tales in europe (just check out the scandinavia !!).
It's more something like a synthesis and not a vulgar 'copie'.
nalbe...@my-deja.com
> You seem to feel as you've stumbled over this like it was some big
secret.
> In short, you haven't really stumbled over anything revolutionary. I'd
> suggest that you get off your high horse and quit ranting.
>
So it's an issue that you've heard others talk about before. How does
that hurt the credibility of the argument?
With the number of thoughts that have originated on this planet since
the begining, it's hard to believe that there are many thoughts "thunk"
that haven't been thought before.
Don't criticise someone for thinking. If everone was that way, where
would science be? Even Einstein talked about things that others talked
about before. Maybe he should've gotten off of his high horse.
Maybe he's not an a high horse at all, maybe you're on a low horse -
it's all relative.
Darren Toews
"Jarle Kaste" <jka...@online.no> wrote in message
news:zPBN5.3884$mx.8...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> > Tolkien's work has been revisited and not improved.
> That would be impossible...Improving Tolkiens work...
> yeah, right...I'd like to meet the person who could do that
Read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. I don't know if I'd say its
better than Tolkien's work, but its just as good IMHO. So far, I've enjoyed
it more than I enjoyed The Hobbit and LOTR (again, not to say Tolkien's work
is no good ... far from it). I can't wait to read Winter's Heart.
Slightly off topic ... does anyone know when the RPG based on Jordan's
series is due out? I think WOTC is publishing it, but I'm not sure.
Darren
Darkmore The French Druid
Lord_Anthrax wrote :
> Well, where to begin? First of all, this is nothing new.
Wel it is new for me :-)
> Imitation, they say, is the highest
> form of flattery.
>
Whow!! I do not agree with that.
Doing something new with the background could be great.
It's all about improving not 'copy/past -ing' !!
> But many do try to emulate him, their
> hero and inspiration, and that's what this is. Nothing more.
I can understand it though I find it quite sad !
Darkmore The French Druid
Jeremy Clark wrote :
> You seem to feel as you've stumbled over this like it was some big secret.
>
No!
> In short, you haven't really stumbled over anything revolutionary. I'd
> suggest that you get off your high horse and quit ranting.
Just done it ... ThanX !
Nightjar
> They should give Tolkien the credit he deserves. The guy created
> a whole world! How many people do you know who has done that!
It is a fairly standard literary technique in fantasy and one that pre-dates
JRR Tolkien. Tolkien created an alternative Earth populated with imaginary
creatures. You can see an alternative Earth in books like Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle's Lost World and Vampires all over the imaginary worlds must be
cursing Bram Stoker for stereotyping them. Most Science Fiction writers have
had to create whole worlds, if not whole galactic empires. Later writers,
like Larry Niven in the Ringworld series and Terry Pratchett in the
Discworld series, even managed to get away from the view that a world should
be globe shaped.
Colin
Henry
blatant style their saving grace? Tolkein is "The King" - the father of
modern fantasy. I always took Elminster as being a slightly-tongue-in-cheek
version of Gandalf - he's that similar! Sadly, Tolkein didn't produce a
massive quantity, and since his realms were so good, there's nothing wrong
with apeing his style; if they copied things but did so discreetly, I might
have a problem - but their sources are so obvious I see it as rather
flattering.
And to be fair, Elminster is just ONE character in the Realms, by ONE
author. Tolkein didn't have any parallels for Drizzt or the Harpers for
instance.
So whilst I agree the similarities show a lack of individuality, I'd stop
short of pronouncing plagiarism!
Henry
Henry
Just because it's been discussed before doesn't damage the nature of the
debate. Just because they discussed the ethical weights of capital
punishment in the 1960s doesn't mean the argument's redundant now
Henry
> Slightly off topic ... does anyone know when the RPG based on Jordan's
> series is due out? I think WOTC is publishing it, but I'm not sure.
I heard of a game called WOT a while ago (early summer I think)- it got
quite high ratings in the mags, 70-85, iirc.
http://www.ozplanet.net/~simonsson62/
<nigh...@insertmysurname.uk.com> wrote:
>It is a fairly standard literary technique in fantasy and one that pre-dates
>JRR Tolkien. Tolkien created an alternative Earth populated with imaginary
>creatures. You can see an alternative Earth in books like Sir Arthur Conan
>Doyle's Lost World and Vampires all over the imaginary worlds must be
>cursing Bram Stoker for stereotyping them. Most Science Fiction writers have
>had to create whole worlds, if not whole galactic empires. Later writers,
>like Larry Niven in the Ringworld series and Terry Pratchett in the
>Discworld series, even managed to get away from the view that a world should
>be globe shaped.
Just a couple of pointless comments here that might be of interest to
the young wee ones... :)
Michael Moorcock has created intricate and very complex worlds in his
Eternal Champion cycle of stories, which include such heroes as Elric,
Hawkmoon, Erekose, Corum, etc. Wildly inventive and very entertaining.
AD&D draws a great deal of inspiration from the writings of Jack Vance
(the magic system in particular) and Fritz Leiber.
This is vintage fantasy and highly recommended. A far cry from the
stereotyped stories of David Eddings, Terry Brooks, etc.
Watch yer topknots!
</Anders Simonsson>
http://www.ozplanet.net/~simonsson62/
---
"What?! Boo is outraged! See his fury! It`s small,
so look close. Trust me, it`s there."
- Minsc from Baldur`s Gate 2.
IFM
> I come from the Tolkien's "School".
> And everyone of you should be agree with the fact that the world
> described in his books ( since 1937 !!!!) has never been equalled.
> This man has established the tension Dwarfs/Elven, he has invented the
> Elvish language, he used maps ( prooving that his world was concrete ),
I know this is picking flies but, Tolkien was quite upset at people
correcting his terminology elves to elfs, DWARVES to dwarfs etc.
--
Ian
ICQ# 45447000
------------------------------------------------------------
looking for something to kill a few hours?
http://surf.to/ifm
------------------------------------------------------------
Horosco
news:3A06B401...@club-internet.fr...
> Well, I've been wandering around this NG and few sites about the
> forgotten realms for few months now.
> For me the problem comes from the "forgotten realms" and all the things
> that deal with the world that this term describe.
> Here's the big thing :
> I come from the Tolkien's "School".
> So, about the realms in BG1.
> Here's one of the sad thing : the Halflings.
> It's clear that this race is only the realms' version for the Hobbits so
> why aren't they called Hobbits ??
> And Tolkien is not even in the credits
>
> But the most pitfull thing (sorry if my words are hard) is as you can
> guess the Elminster dude.
> This guy is just a vulgar clone of the great Gandalf !!!
> So even if BG1 was (and is still) a great game, I've been really
> astonished when I first met Elminster.
I know the snipping that I've done is a bit out of the ordinary, but I
wanted to gather all the relevant points all together and then respond to
them together.
First of all, the developers of BG have nothing to do with anything from the
forgotten realms. So there would be no need for them to credit Tolkien,
since they didn't get anything from him, they took the stuff that TSR gave
them to use from their worlds. And the forgotten realms aren't the only
realms in the AD&D universe. The first that was created was Eurasia, which
is on Earth. (this is essentially middle earth) The forgotten realms are
on the planet of Toril. Many of the people on Toril migrated from Earth
originally.
AD&D did not make up the term hafling, that came from Tokien as well.
However, Tokien's family were being spoiled brats and wouldn't let TSR use
the term Hobbits, but they did let them use halflings, for what ever reason.
As for Gandalf/Elminster, there have been countless powerful wizards in
countless stories. I doubt you can offer any conclusive evidence that
Elminster was a clone of Gandalf. If he was a clone, he could have been
cloned from any of the other powerful wizards. Gandalf himself was most
likely cloned.
Derville
Darkmore The French Druid <dark...@club-internet.fr> wrote in message
news:3A06B401...@club-internet.fr...
here's
> a thing that bothered me a bit.
>
> I come from the Tolkien's "School".
> described in his books ( since 1937 !!!!) has never been equalled.
> This man has established the tension Dwarfs/Elven, he has invented
the
> Elvish language, he used maps ( prooving that his world was
concrete ),
> So I can understand that if you have to create a fantasy world you
> "have" to deal with the Tolkien's mythology but there are different
way
> to do it .
the
> (massive) influence.
I'm with you there on the Tolkien hero-worship. I've read LOTR half a
dozen times or thereabouts, and gone stir crazy wrapping my head
around the names in the Silmarillion (doesn't help that some names are
re-used in LOTR). And yes, with such a massively popular book, there
will always be accusations of copying. But I believe I'm right in
saying that there are only apparently four or so different basic
storylines ever created (I can't name them all, but it's things like a
quest, or a stranger entering, and a couple of others). So all
stories are basically just fleshing out one of these four basic
principles.
> So, about the realms in BG1.
> Here's one of the sad thing : the Halflings.
> It's clear that this race is only the realms' version for the
Hobbits so
> why aren't they called Hobbits ??
> The text given in the "character creation" section to describe the
> Halflings is almost the same than in "The Hobbit" (1st Chapter) and
"The
> Lord Of the Ring" (prologue) !!
> Even the sub-races are similar to the three kind of hobbit that are
> described in Tolkien's books (before they setlled in the Shire
> -->Harfoots, Stoors, Fallohides).
> And Tolkien is not even in the credits
The omnipotent RCV told me here a long time ago that the name was
changed to halflings when the Tolkien estate objected to the use of
the word hobbit. So that's all a thing to avoid paying huge sums to
Tolkien's estate. Still, when we talk about little people with furry
feet who smoke pipes and eat six meals a day, we know what sort of
creature it is ;-). Oh, but apparently no pipes for BG halflings :-(.
> But the most pitfull thing (sorry if my words are hard) is as you
can
> guess the Elminster dude.
> This guy is just a vulgar clone of the great Gandalf !!!
> Not only he is an old powerfull wizard (this can be forgiven for
most
> wizards are old in the fairy tales) but his behaviour concerning the
> world that surround him is deeply Gandalf-like.
> Remember that Gandalf get involved in the Middle Hearth story only
to
> fight against Sauron : once in "The Hobbit" and of course in "The
> Lord..." but most of the time he just wanders on the Middle Hearth
> coming where he is unexpected (like Bilbo's house) doing few things
> (the meeting Bilbo/Thorin & Cie) and going away when he seems to be
> needed (just before Mirkwood).
> So even if BG1 was (and is still) a great game, I've been really
> astonished when I first met Elminster.
Again, the idea of the old magician with the white hair who acts as a
kind of party leader isn't all that original (I'm sure it had been
used by other people even before JRRT created Gandalf). However,
Gandalf has advantages over Elminster, such as being able to wield
Glamdring (I wouldn't mind seeing that sword in BG2, or its sister
Orcrist). But at least Gandalf was a bit more hands on in his
approach, while Elminster just flits around with his "Hello, oh
Bhallspawn. What, you didn't know your daddy was the god of murder?
Oh well, I'll put in a spoiler space next time. Bye for now". And
Elminster is portrayed as being all but immortal, whereas even Gandalf
suffered a few cuts and bruises in his career. So they do differ
sublty, but I'd agree that for most Tolkien readers, any old man with
a white beard will bring forth shouts of "Gandalf!".
> Once again I'm sorry if my words were hard and I hope there's no
harm
> done.
> I didn't mean to make a kind of deathmatch : Gandalf VS Elminster,
It
> was just a way to say that its' sad that Tolkien's work has been
> revisited and not improved.
> It was also a way to show that TSR (or whoever) want to make Tolkien
> Stuff without Tolkien's name (which means more money and less work).
>
> Anyway I wait for your advices and arguments if you want to.
Gandalf v Elminster - Gandalf wins. I mean, this guy has taken on
balrogs and led expeditions to the gates of Mordor. Elminster just
popped up on a shopping trip in Baldur's Gate ;-). Oh, and one other
thing: it's a crying shame that no-one has created a game starring a
few Ents, since they were without a doubt my favourite of all the
characters in LOTR, followed by Tom Bombadil, who was quite obviously
abusing several illegal substances to remain so inordinately cheerful.
Kind of like Mad Arcand, come to think of it...
--
P. ("Happy I am, yes I am!")
(Remove 'your.inhibitions' to reply)
Read the alt.games.baldurs-gate Usage FAQ:
www.demonspawn.net/bg/usage.htm
Lord_Anthrax
Darkmore The French Druid <dark...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
> Whow!! I do not agree with that.
> Doing something new with the background could be great.
> It's all about improving not 'copy/past -ing' !!
I think they did improve on it. The Forgotten Realms beats Tolkien's
work any day in what it was made to be..a Role-Playing Game setting. Its
worldview is more Heroic Fantasy than Epic Fantasy(though some elements
verge on the epic.) It is a world where your characters can truly rise
up from humble beginnings and become great and powerful heroes of lore.
It is populated by many things that draw upon Tolkien's work, and not
just the races, creatures and Elminster. In particular I think of
Manshoon of Zhentil Keep and Halaster Blackcloak of Undermountain, who
are obviously influenced by Saruman(The Red, as in the Red Wizards of
Thay?) Does this automatically make these characters bad? No, of course
not..because they are built from stereotypes, but are not purely
stereotypical. They have their own idiosyncranisities that make them
unique. Just like many films in Hollywood draw upon this movie or that
movie and from these elements make their visions(Star Wars, anyone?)
Why do they do these things? Partially because of recognition(Hey, this
guy's like <insert famous character here>! Neat!), partially because of
their own dreams(I want someone in this <media name here> that's like
<famous character name>, whom I always liked), and partially because
it's always easier to imitate something else than it is to create
something totally new.
> I can understand it though I find it quite sad !
Personally, I'm quite happy to see more of the same. If you find it so
sad, stop playing BG. :)
--
Regards,
The Lord Anthrax
Lord_Anthrax
"Horosco" <Hor...@netscape.net> wrote:
> As for Gandalf/Elminster, there have been countless powerful wizards
>in countless stories. I doubt you can offer any conclusive evidence
>that Elminster was a clone of Gandalf. If he was a clone, he could
>have been cloned from any of the other powerful wizards. Gandalf
>himself was most likely cloned.
*cough cough* Merlin *cough cough* :)
Geoffrey Brent
> >So, about the realms in BG1.
> >Here's one of the sad thing : the Halflings.
> >It's clear that this race is only the realms' version for the Hobbits so
> >why aren't they called Hobbits ??
>
> Copyright money, obviously - cheaper to call them 1/2lings then to pay the
> JRR people. Actually I'm not sure how this is settled, maybe the TSR or WotC
> paid ~something~
Copyright laws don't actually allow you to protect ideas -
only the expression of those ideas, which isn't quite the
same thing. As TSR have demonstrated, you can include
a race that's blatantly a rip-off of Hobbits, even to the
sub-races, and it is _not_ a copyright violation. If they
were to lift chunks of Tolkien's text, _that_ would be a
copyright violation (I doubt 'fair use' would apply) or if
they stole cover artwork, but there is no legal protection
for the _idea_ of hobbits.
In fact, there's no legal reason (AFAIK) why TSR couldn't
start publishing characters who are recognizable as Frodo,
Bilbo etc. (I'm glad to hear I'm _not_ the only one who thinks
Elminster is a Gandalf clone...) Copyright law doesn't protect
characters, either. You _can_ trademark a character - Disney
have done this, and I know of some authors who've done the
same - but it's a lot more work than copyright, and expensive.
I don't think Tolkien's characters were ever trademarked.
ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer ;-)
> >Even the sub-races are similar to the three kind of hobbit that are
> >described in Tolkien's books (before they setlled in the Shire
> >-->Harfoots, Stoors, Fallohides).
> >And Tolkien is not even in the credits
Yeah, _that_ sucked - especially considering how many other
authors they _did_ credit for inspiration.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> I think they did improve on it. The Forgotten Realms beats Tolkien's
> work any day in what it was made to be..a Role-Playing Game setting. Its
> worldview is more Heroic Fantasy than Epic Fantasy(though some elements
> verge on the epic.) It is a world where your characters can truly rise
> up from humble beginnings and become great and powerful heroes of lore.
Like Bilbo & Frodo Baggins, you mean? ;-)
> It is populated by many things that draw upon Tolkien's work, and not
> just the races, creatures and Elminster. In particular I think of
> Manshoon of Zhentil Keep and Halaster Blackcloak of Undermountain, who
> are obviously influenced by Saruman(The Red, as in the Red Wizards of
> Thay?)
Probably not, since Saruman's actually 'The White' :-) (Gandalf
is 'The Grey', until he becomes 'The White' to replace Saruman;
Radagast is 'The Brown', and I don't think Tolkien ever mentions
names or colours for the other two Istari.)
> Does this automatically make these characters bad? No, of course
> not..because they are built from stereotypes, but are not purely
> stereotypical. They have their own idiosyncranisities that make them
> unique. Just like many films in Hollywood draw upon this movie or that
> movie and from these elements make their visions(Star Wars, anyone?)
Which I'm told owes an awful lot to Kurosawa's "The
Hidden Fortress"...
> Why do they do these things? Partially because of recognition(Hey, this
> guy's like <insert famous character here>! Neat!), partially because of
> their own dreams(I want someone in this <media name here> that's like
> <famous character name>, whom I always liked), and partially because
> it's always easier to imitate something else than it is to create
> something totally new.
Yeah, but IMHO that's a form of parasitism. It's understandable,
but that doesn't make it laudable. It irritates me in the same way
that hacks who write cheap Sherlock Holmes rip-offs and sell
them solely on the reputation of another author irritate me :-)
The only writer I know of who uses borrowed characters well
is Kim Newman (_Anno Dracula_ et al. - you've got to give
style points for anyone who features a vampire Biggles in a
book for grown-ups :-)
Also IMHO, the _last_ thing I'd want to steal from Tolkien for a
RPG setting would be Gandalf. Ultra-powerful "NPCs" can
work nicely enough in a book, but in an RPG they have bad
consequences. It makes the players feel powerless, it makes it
too easy for a GM to railroad them (which is why a lot of
inflexible GMs _like_ them - it means you don't have to outthink
your players) and they have a nasty way of ending up as "the
GM's PC" and reducing all the players' characters to hangers-on.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> It is a fairly standard literary technique in fantasy and one that pre-dates
> JRR Tolkien. Tolkien created an alternative Earth populated with imaginary
> creatures. You can see an alternative Earth in books like Sir Arthur Conan
> Doyle's Lost World and Vampires all over the imaginary worlds must be
> cursing Bram Stoker for stereotyping them.
I wouldn't single out Bram Stoker; while Dracula was certainly
very influential in vampire fiction, a lot of the stereotypes people
attribute to it were actually invented before or after Stoker.
Vampire-as-charismatic-Byronic-antihero? Goes back to, well,
Byron & Polidori. Sunlight burning vampires? Didn't happen
until around 1930, well after Stoker's death. Seductive vampire
temptresses? Goes back to time unrecorded, via the myths of
the lamia and Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Christabel". IMHO
Stoker's main contribution to the genre was in the story, not in
any new 'rules' for vampires.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> Why? Put simply, Tolkien is the standard, the baseline, for this work,
> and accreditation to him has been stated in their works at various
> points, just not cited constantly.
The original Players' Handbook (or maybe DMG, it's been
a while) included a big list of "recommended reading"
for AD&D players - Moorcock, Leiber, etc. etc. Tolkien's
name was notable by its absence. To me that looks like a
pretty major omission, and I _don't_ recall reading any
acknowledgement of his works at all in my 1st Edition days.
Anybody have the old books handy to confirm or refute this?
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> > As for Gandalf/Elminster, there have been countless powerful wizards
> >in countless stories. I doubt you can offer any conclusive evidence
> >that Elminster was a clone of Gandalf. If he was a clone, he could
> >have been cloned from any of the other powerful wizards. Gandalf
> >himself was most likely cloned.
>
> *cough cough* Merlin *cough cough* :)
Note that many of the influential & popular portrayals of
Merlin appeared _after_ Gandalf, and if any 'borrowing'
took place it's more likely that _they_ borrowed from
Gandalf. What similarities do you see between pre-
Tolkien portrayals of Merlin, and Tolkien's Gandalf, beyond
"powerful wizard on the side of good"? Gandalf doesn't
strike me as the sort of person to be seduced by Nimue,
or to spend his life in service to one particular king; he's
too much of a wanderer.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> AD&D did not make up the term hafling, that came from Tokien as well.
> However, Tokien's family were being spoiled brats and wouldn't let TSR use
> the term Hobbits, but they did let them use halflings, for what ever reason.
I'd like to see a source for this claim; the way IP laws work,
it's highly unlikely that Tolkien's family could have _stopped_
them from using the word 'Hobbit'. You can't copyright a word,
and to the best of my knowledge Tolkien never trademarked it
either.
As for 'halfling', I don't recall Tolkien using it, but in any case
it's unlikely that it was his invention. The construction ("half",
plus "-ling" used as a diminutive) is a pretty obvious one, and
may well have been part of the language already.
> As for Gandalf/Elminster, there have been countless powerful wizards in
> countless stories. I doubt you can offer any conclusive evidence that
> Elminster was a clone of Gandalf. If he was a clone, he could have been
> cloned from any of the other powerful wizards. Gandalf himself was most
> likely cloned.
Well, they're both old guys of mysterious and ancient origins
who smoke pipes, wander around offering cryptic words of wisdom
and yet are usually offstage doing something more important
when Our Heroes could really do with the help. How many of
those 'powerful wizards' you mention resemble Gandalf as closely
in appearance, habits and behaviour? (Names, please.)
(FWIW, in AD&D terms Gandalf is pretty clearly Chaotic Good.)
Geoffrey Brent
Lord_Anthrax
Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
> Like Bilbo & Frodo Baggins, you mean? ;-)
Yes, the Hobbits who got to do all the fun stuff. Meanwhile, I think a
majority of players would want to take their place. Kind of like Star
Wars gamers killing off a certain farmboy on Tatooine...
Thus, my reason for saying the Realms is better for this kind of thing.
It's not a hardwired story with heroes already established.
> Probably not, since Saruman's actually 'The White' :-) (Gandalf
> is 'The Grey', until he becomes 'The White' to replace Saruman;
> Radagast is 'The Brown', and I don't think Tolkien ever mentions
> names or colours for the other two Istari.)
Ahem..Saruman changed his name to The Red. Remember?
> Which I'm told owes an awful lot to Kurosawa's "The
> Hidden Fortress"...
Not to mention the legend of King Arthur(the classic tale of father
versus son).
> Yeah, but IMHO that's a form of parasitism. It's understandable,
> but that doesn't make it laudable. It irritates me in the same way
> that hacks who write cheap Sherlock Holmes rip-offs and sell
> them solely on the reputation of another author irritate me :-)
> The only writer I know of who uses borrowed characters well
> is Kim Newman (_Anno Dracula_ et al. - you've got to give
> style points for anyone who features a vampire Biggles in a
> book for grown-ups :-)
Still doesn't keep the well-written ones from being enjoyable, and
that's what really matters IMHO.
> Also IMHO, the _last_ thing I'd want to steal from Tolkien for a
> RPG setting would be Gandalf. Ultra-powerful "NPCs" can
> work nicely enough in a book, but in an RPG they have bad
> consequences. It makes the players feel powerless, it makes it
> too easy for a GM to railroad them (which is why a lot of
> inflexible GMs _like_ them - it means you don't have to outthink
> your players) and they have a nasty way of ending up as "the
> GM's PC" and reducing all the players' characters to hangers-on.
Only if the GM is a poor GM does this become a problem. High-powered
NPC's must be used with caution. This does not make them bad in and of
themselves. Using them as sources of info and, when absolutely
necessary, a source of aid is quite appropriate. I've always taken the
stance that the players are the heroes, and the stars. I do use powerful
NPC's in my games, but sparingly as I outlined above. As always, do
what's the most fun for you and your group.
> Geoffrey Brent
Lord_Anthrax
Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
> As for 'halfling', I don't recall Tolkien using it, but in any case
> it's unlikely that it was his invention. The construction ("half",
> plus "-ling" used as a diminutive) is a pretty obvious one, and
> may well have been part of the language already.
Didn't the men of Gondor call Hobbits halflings?
> Well, they're both old guys of mysterious and ancient origins
> who smoke pipes, wander around offering cryptic words of wisdom
> and yet are usually offstage doing something more important
> when Our Heroes could really do with the help. How many of
> those 'powerful wizards' you mention resemble Gandalf as closely
> in appearance, habits and behaviour? (Names, please.)
>
> (FWIW, in AD&D terms Gandalf is pretty clearly Chaotic Good.)
Take out the pipesmoking and you've described Merlin quite nicely. And I
do mean the classic Merlin, such as L'Morte D'Arthur, which predates
Tolkien by, oh, 700 years or so?
Geoffrey Brent
> > As for 'halfling', I don't recall Tolkien using it, but in any case
> > it's unlikely that it was his invention. The construction ("half",
> > plus "-ling" used as a diminutive) is a pretty obvious one, and
> > may well have been part of the language already.
>
> Didn't the men of Gondor call Hobbits halflings?
Possibly - it's been a while since I read LotR, and I don't
have my copy handy any more. If it is, I stand corrected.
But the main point here was that the word "hobbit" isn't
protected by IP law anyway; TSR could have used it if
they'd been willing to deal with the resulting PR.
> > Well, they're both old guys of mysterious and ancient origins
> > who smoke pipes, wander around offering cryptic words of wisdom
> > and yet are usually offstage doing something more important
> > when Our Heroes could really do with the help. How many of
> > those 'powerful wizards' you mention resemble Gandalf as closely
> > in appearance, habits and behaviour? (Names, please.)
> >
> > (FWIW, in AD&D terms Gandalf is pretty clearly Chaotic Good.)
>
> Take out the pipesmoking and you've described Merlin quite nicely. And I
> do mean the classic Merlin, such as L'Morte D'Arthur, which predates
> Tolkien by, oh, 700 years or so?
Again, it's been a while... but I do feel the difference between
Merlin and Gandalf is a lot greater than that between Elminster
& Gandalf, at least in terms of attitude. Merlin hitched his star
to Uther, and then to Arthur; Gandalf was quite happy to give
kings advice, but he was nobody's subject and made that very
clear. IMHO, Merlin looks more like Lawful Neutral-Good or
possibly True Neutral, translated into AD&D terms, and he
could as easily be a cleric or a druid as a mage.
(And it's more like 600 years. 1485, to be exact ;-)
Geoffrey Brent
Grant Maw
passionate feelings on this subject. My small contribution is that we should
always remember the old adage that goes something like
"if I have achieved great works and seen far, it has only been because I
have stood upon the shoulders of giants."
I'm sure that Tolkein would not have minded being remembered as the giant :)
Bruce D. Harding
>
> As for 'halfling', I don't recall Tolkien using it, but in any case
> it's unlikely that it was his invention. The construction ("half",
> plus "-ling" used as a diminutive) is a pretty obvious one, and
> may well have been part of the language already.
>
"Seek for the sword that was broken
In Imladris it dwells
(aaarrgh I've forgotten the middle)
Isilders Bane has awoken
And the halfling forth shall stand"
(Dream Of Faramir?)
Or something very close to it. I particularly remember the use of the word
halfing in this instance as I'd just got into D&D at the time. Havn't got the
book on hand to get the exact wording.
Geoffrey Brent
> Yes, the Hobbits who got to do all the fun stuff. Meanwhile, I think a
> majority of players would want to take their place. Kind of like Star
> Wars gamers killing off a certain farmboy on Tatooine...
>
> Thus, my reason for saying the Realms is better for this kind of thing.
> It's not a hardwired story with heroes already established.
I don't know the Realms terribly well, but I agree that pre-
established heroes work better for fiction than for roleplaying.
> > Probably not, since Saruman's actually 'The White' :-) (Gandalf
> > is 'The Grey', until he becomes 'The White' to replace Saruman;
> > Radagast is 'The Brown', and I don't think Tolkien ever mentions
> > names or colours for the other two Istari.)
>
> Ahem..Saruman changed his name to The Red. Remember?
I think your memory is in error here. He did indeed change it,
but it was to "Saruman the Many-Coloured".
> > Yeah, but IMHO that's a form of parasitism. It's understandable,
> > but that doesn't make it laudable. It irritates me in the same way
> > that hacks who write cheap Sherlock Holmes rip-offs and sell
> > them solely on the reputation of another author irritate me :-)
> > The only writer I know of who uses borrowed characters well
> > is Kim Newman (_Anno Dracula_ et al. - you've got to give
> > style points for anyone who features a vampire Biggles in a
> > book for grown-ups :-)
>
> Still doesn't keep the well-written ones from being enjoyable, and
> that's what really matters IMHO.
The problem is, the well-written ones are few and far between.
Most of the authors who base their work on others' characters
do so because they _can't_ create worthwhile characters of
their own, and have an easier ride on the back of a _real_ author
who's already done the work required to make a character famous.
Newman being a notable exception - he manages to make an art
of borrowing characters, and he does the research required to be
true to their original authors.
> > Also IMHO, the _last_ thing I'd want to steal from Tolkien for a
> > RPG setting would be Gandalf. Ultra-powerful "NPCs" can
> > work nicely enough in a book, but in an RPG they have bad
> > consequences. It makes the players feel powerless, it makes it
> > too easy for a GM to railroad them (which is why a lot of
> > inflexible GMs _like_ them - it means you don't have to outthink
> > your players) and they have a nasty way of ending up as "the
> > GM's PC" and reducing all the players' characters to hangers-on.
>
> Only if the GM is a poor GM does this become a problem. High-powered
> NPC's must be used with caution. This does not make them bad in and of
> themselves. Using them as sources of info and, when absolutely
> necessary, a source of aid is quite appropriate. I've always taken the
> stance that the players are the heroes, and the stars. I do use powerful
> NPC's in my games, but sparingly as I outlined above. As always, do
> what's the most fun for you and your group.
A good GM and good players can make just about anything work,
but some things are easier than others. Unfortunately I haven't always
been lucky enough to play with good groups, so there are things that
provoke a reflex reaction from me. Uber-NPCs are high on the list.
Another problem with running NPCs like Gandalf in an RPG is that
the players are likely to know much more about them than their
characters would. Yes, good players _can_ separate player knowledge
from character knowledge, but it still hurts the suspension of disbelief
and it makes it harder to maintain the air of mystery when your players
can tell you his real name, what nature of creature he actually is, and
when he was sent to Middle-Earth :-)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> Isilders Bane has awoken
> And the halfling forth shall stand"
>
> (Dream Of Faramir?)
>
> Or something very close to it. I particularly remember the use of the word
> halfing in this instance as I'd just got into D&D at the time. Havn't got the
> book on hand to get the exact wording.
Thanks. I stand corrected, then :-)
Geoffrey Brent
Chrystophylax
>Probably not, since Saruman's actually 'The White' :-) (Gandalf
>is 'The Grey', until he becomes 'The White' to replace Saruman;
>Radagast is 'The Brown', and I don't think Tolkien ever mentions
>names or colours for the other two Istari.)
Nit: Sauraman is the white, but changes to the Red, it is sort of a symbol
of him giving up the good fight.
Also, as to the other two Istari, their color was blue, and they had no
names save "ithryn Luin" (the Blue Wizards). "For they passed intoe the
East with Curunir, but they never returned, and whether they remained in
the East, puruing there the purposes for which they were sent; or perished;
or as some hold were ensnared by Sauron and became his servants, is not now
known." (from "Unfinished Tales")
</delurk>
Lord_Anthrax
Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
> Where are you guys getting this "Saruman the Red" stuff from?
I seem to recall Saruman being called the many-colored, but I think some
called him the Red due to his association with Sauron. It's been forever
since I read the books myself.
Lord_Anthrax
Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
> A good GM and good players can make just about anything work,
> but some things are easier than others. Unfortunately I haven't always
> been lucky enough to play with good groups, so there are things that
> provoke a reflex reaction from me. Uber-NPCs are high on the list.
>
> Another problem with running NPCs like Gandalf in an RPG is that
> the players are likely to know much more about them than their
> characters would. Yes, good players _can_ separate player knowledge
> from character knowledge, but it still hurts the suspension of
> disbelief and it makes it harder to maintain the air of mystery when
> your players can tell you his real name, what nature of creature he
> actually is, and when he was sent to Middle-Earth :-)
Maybe so, but what gamer hasn't dreamed of shooting arrows at the
Sheriff of Nottingham, for example? A lot of players enjoy when their
favorite characters are brought into a game, and as long as you can
avoid the Pro from Dover Syndrome(HEY! <famous character> wouldn't
<say/do/act like> that! make it right!)it helps to enrich the
experience, kind of like getting to hang with a sports hero or a
celebrity you really admire. Besides, I think I'd be more worried if I
found out the evil mage I was angering was Manshoon of Zhentil Keep than
I would Kasgooble the Somewhat Naughty. ;)
Luke Goaman-Dodson
The French Druid wrote in the log:
> It was also a way to show that TSR (or whoever) want to make Tolkien
> Stuff without Tolkien's name (which means more money and less work).
It's not quite the same. Halflings were originally called Hobbits in the
very first D&D game, but EEEEVVILL Tolkien Enterprises said "no you can't
have that" so they changed their name to halflings.
Forgotten Realms is Ed Greenwood's home campaign which he used for short
stories before he played D&D, so he can be forgiven for taking a bit of
Tolkien and putting it in.
Luke Goaman-Dodson
wrote in the log:
> All in all, you have a point here, but still you have to remember that
> Tolkien himself 'copied' most of his stuff from a bunch of fairy tales and
> legends, so it's smth like common property - and hey: IIRC Tolkien never
> said that elves had pointy ears, did he? Nice touch, Bioware...
Nice touch, Gary Gygax, you mean.
Lord_Anthrax
Luke Goaman-Dodson <bel...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Forgotten Realms is Ed Greenwood's home campaign which he used for
> short stories before he played D&D, so he can be forgiven for taking a
> bit of Tolkien and putting it in.
Actually, Ed Greenwood first created the Realms to be a setting for a
series of novels he wanted to write, but when D&D and later AD&D came
out, he adapted the setting for these rules. His notes on the Realms can
be found in the oldest of Dragon magazine issues(which you can get in a
spiffy CD-ROM collection for like $45 US, well worth it IMHO).
Lord_Anthrax
Darkmore The French Druid <dark...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
> But the most pitfull thing (sorry if my words are hard) is as you can
> guess the Elminster dude.
> This guy is just a vulgar clone of the great Gandalf !!!
A lot of people have been saying that El's just a Gandalf clone. While
they do share quite a few similarities on the surface, let me set down
some key differences between the two.
1)Elminster Aumar(yes, that's his real last name) was born approximately
500 years prior to the time of the BG games, a mortal man like any other
man.
2)Elminster is not the most powerful mage in the Realms. He is one of
them, but there are several others, such as the Simbul, Mage-Queen of
Aglarond, and Halaster Blackcloak, Lord of Undermountain, who are as
powerful(or in the case of Halaster, more powerful on his home turf).
Khelben "The Blackstaff" Arunsen, one of the Lords of Waterdeep, is
another mighty mage whose power rivals the Old Mage's.
3)Elminster is one of the "Chosen of Mystra". These are beings who have
been granted a small portion of Mystra(the Goddess of Magic)'s power,
and due to it are exceedingly long-lived. Others include the so-called
"Seven Sisters", Storm Silverhand, Bard of Shadowdale, the
aforementioned Simbul, Lady Alustriel of Silverymoon and Sylune(who is
deceased). They have other special abilities, one of which is the
ability to wield Spellfire in small quantities.
4)Though he seldom uses them, Elminster is also a powerful psionicist.
5)Elminster's main concerns in the Realms are keeping an eye out on
powerful beings who are extraplanar in origin and doing what he can to
hinder their activities, sowing seeds for future good as directed
through visions given to him by Mystra(in his youth, he actually trained
as a cleric of Mystra before learning the Mage's craft), and working
behind the scenes in conjunction with the Harpers(an organization he is
suspected to have created)to help bring about change for the better in
the Realms. Elminster loves knowledge and learning, and also spends a
good deal of time researching lost or forgotten lore. He seldom gets
directly involved, preferring to have friends and allies work in his
stead. However, he will take action, sometimes with dramatic results(as
one of his rivals, Manshoon of Zhentil Keep, can attest to).
6)Like Merlin, El often travels in disguise and works in secret, not
revealing his true self simply because it's no often necessary to do so
for the minor undertakings he engages in.
Hopefully, all this helps you to understand the cryptic ways of the Old
Mage better.
Horosco
news:3A079E52...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au...
> > >Gandalf himself was most likely cloned.
> >
> > *cough cough* Merlin *cough cough* :)
>
> Note that many of the influential & popular portrayals of
> Merlin appeared _after_ Gandalf, and if any 'borrowing'
> took place it's more likely that _they_ borrowed from
> Gandalf.
I am quite sure that the Legends of Arthur were written long before Tokien
was even born...
Derville
> Lord_Anthrax wrote:
>
> > Why do they do these things? Partially because of recognition(Hey,
this
> > guy's like <insert famous character here>! Neat!), partially
because of
> > their own dreams(I want someone in this <media name here> that's
like
> > <famous character name>, whom I always liked), and partially
because
> > it's always easier to imitate something else than it is to create
> > something totally new.
>
> Yeah, but IMHO that's a form of parasitism. It's understandable,
> but that doesn't make it laudable. It irritates me in the same way
> that hacks who write cheap Sherlock Holmes rip-offs and sell
> them solely on the reputation of another author irritate me :-)
> The only writer I know of who uses borrowed characters well
> is Kim Newman (_Anno Dracula_ et al. - you've got to give
> style points for anyone who features a vampire Biggles in a
> book for grown-ups :-)
Without getting too nitpicky (now you just now I'm going to nitpick
;-)), wasn't Conan Doyle greatly influenced by Edgar Allen Poe, and
his creation of Auguste Dupin? There's certainly a great similarity
between those two (some of Dupin's mental exploits are downright scary
if you read something like the Murders in the Rue Morgue), albeit that
I've only ever fully read the Hound of the Baskervilles (started a
couple of other Conan Doyle books, but lost interest for some reason).
But the thing there is, as long as the writers involved write good
stories, then I don't mind if they call all detectives Merlock Bones
or Jerry Dason or even Hercules Pierot. Still, I just thought I'd try
and see if I could mention Poe in a thread about Gandalf - jeez I'm
bored ;-).
--
P.
Derville
Grant Maw <gra...@my.address.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:LqQN5.15129$Tq6.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Sir Isaac Newton was credited with that phrase (I know because it's
written on the £2 coin over here ;-)). But I'm sure Tolkien would
prefer to be an ent if he had the choice (yet another fascinating
fact: JRRT and Mrs Tolkien's gravestones are inscribed with the names
"Beren" and "Luthien" on them, since apparently that was how JRRT
envisaged him and his wife together).
Geoffrey Brent
> <delurk>
> >Probably not, since Saruman's actually 'The White' :-) (Gandalf
> >is 'The Grey', until he becomes 'The White' to replace Saruman;
> >Radagast is 'The Brown', and I don't think Tolkien ever mentions
> >names or colours for the other two Istari.)
>
> Nit: Sauraman is the white, but changes to the Red, it is sort of a symbol
> of him giving up the good fight.
Where are you guys getting this "Saruman the Red" stuff from?
It's not in the copy _I_ read :-) He does indeed change, but
to 'the many-coloured':
The Two Towers, ch.'The Voice of Saruman':
"They looked up, astonished, for they had heard no sound of his coming,
and they saw a figure standing at the rail looking down upon them. An
old man, swathed in a great cloak, the colour of which was not easy
to tell, for it changed if they moved their eyes or if he stirred." Elsewhere
Saruman makes references to splitting white light into all colours with a
glass, and Gandalf replies that the white light that's split is no longer white
-
but my lovely assistant can't find the page number right now.
Geoffrey Brent
Nightjar
>
> I wouldn't single out Bram Stoker; while Dracula was certainly
> very influential in vampire fiction, a lot of the stereotypes people
> attribute to it were actually invented before or after Stoker.
How many people can name any other books by Bram Stoker, or know vampires
other than Dracula? However, I agree that I probably should blame the Hammer
House of Horror for many of the stereotypes. I did, however, like the
non-stereotypical reaction of Roman Polanski's Jewish vampire (Alfie Bass)
when faced with a crucifix.
Colin
Geoffrey Brent
> A lot of people have been saying that El's just a Gandalf clone. While
> they do share quite a few similarities on the surface, let me set down
> some key differences between the two.
>
> 1)Elminster Aumar(yes, that's his real last name) was born approximately
> 500 years prior to the time of the BG games, a mortal man like any other
> man.
A 500-year lifespan doesn't strike me as being "like any other man" ;-)
Yes, Elminster is (reportedly) human, while Gandalf is not, but in
practice the difference seems rather superficial. They both seem to
be effectively immune to the ravages of old age.
> 2)Elminster is not the most powerful mage in the Realms. He is one of
> them, but there are several others, such as the Simbul, Mage-Queen of
> Aglarond, and Halaster Blackcloak, Lord of Undermountain, who are as
> powerful(or in the case of Halaster, more powerful on his home turf).
> Khelben "The Blackstaff" Arunsen, one of the Lords of Waterdeep, is
> another mighty mage whose power rivals the Old Mage's.
Nor is Gandalf the biggest badass in Middle-Earth :-) Saruman and
Sauron were both more powerful, in their day, and the Balrog was
able to match him - he only came back from _that_ fight with outside
help. The Witch-King of Angmar was probably no match for Gandalf,
but would've given him a good run for his money.
> 3)Elminster is one of the "Chosen of Mystra". These are beings who have
> been granted a small portion of Mystra(the Goddess of Magic)'s power,
> and due to it are exceedingly long-lived. Others include the so-called
> "Seven Sisters", Storm Silverhand, Bard of Shadowdale, the
> aforementioned Simbul, Lady Alustriel of Silverymoon and Sylune(who is
> deceased). They have other special abilities, one of which is the
> ability to wield Spellfire in small quantities.
And Gandalf (aka Olorin) was chosen, by a female goddess whose
name I can't recall, to be her emissary on Middle-Earth :-)
> 4)Though he seldom uses them, Elminster is also a powerful psionicist.
I think you're splitting hairs here. In terms of character style,
the difference between a powerful mage and a powerful mage
who also has mental powers he doesn't use much is not great.
For all we know Gandalf could've been a powerful psionicist
who didn't use his powers much either :-)
> 5)Elminster's main concerns in the Realms are keeping an eye out on
> powerful beings who are extraplanar in origin and doing what he can to
> hinder their activities,
Meanwhile, Gandalf's main concern is keeping an eye on
Sauron, a powerful being who's extraplanar in origin (he's
_not_ from Middle-Earth; sure the terminology is different,
but that's mere semantics) and doing what he can to hinder
Sauron's activities.
> sowing seeds for future good as directed
> through visions given to him by Mystra(in his youth, he actually trained
> as a cleric of Mystra before learning the Mage's craft), and working
> behind the scenes in conjunction with the Harpers(an organization he is
> suspected to have created)to help bring about change for the better in
> the Realms.
Meanwhile, Gandalf is subtly encouraging the destruction of Smaug
and change for the better in Middle-Earth.
> Elminster loves knowledge and learning, and also spends a
> good deal of time researching lost or forgotten lore. He seldom gets
> directly involved, preferring to have friends and allies work in his
> stead. However, he will take action, sometimes with dramatic results(as
> one of his rivals, Manshoon of Zhentil Keep, can attest to).
Gandalf, also, seldom gets directly involved, preferring to have
friends and allies work in his stead. (He effectively 'sponsors' the
mission to the Lonely Mountain, but doesn't take an active part in
killing Smaug; for the most part, he's 'offstage'.) However, he will
take action, sometimes with dramatic results (as the raid on Dol
Guldur demonstrates.)
> 6)Like Merlin, El often travels in disguise and works in secret, not
> revealing his true self simply because it's no often necessary to do so
> for the minor undertakings he engages in.
Whereas Gandalf travels in disguise and works in secret (he's _not_
the human he passes as, and his real name is not Gandalf), not
revealing his true self because it's not necessary to do so.
Sorry, but Elminster seems more like a Gandalf clone to me _now_
than he did before this list of 'differences'.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote in message
> news:3A079A42...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au...
> >
> > I wouldn't single out Bram Stoker; while Dracula was certainly
> > very influential in vampire fiction, a lot of the stereotypes people
> > attribute to it were actually invented before or after Stoker.
>
> How many people can name any other books by Bram Stoker, or know vampires
> other than Dracula?
'Lair of the White Worm'. 'Geraldine', Carmilla Karnstein, various
lamia, Lord Ruthven, Lucy Westenra, Strahd von Ravenloft, Miriam
Blaylock, Genevieve Dieudonne, Kate Reid... I could go on, but I
won't :-)
> However, I agree that I probably should blame the Hammer
> House of Horror for many of the stereotypes. I did, however, like the
> non-stereotypical reaction of Roman Polanski's Jewish vampire (Alfie Bass)
> when faced with a crucifix.
Heh. There was a discussion - on rec.games.frp.storyteller, I think -
on the topic of whether somebody with True Faith in capitalism should
be able to drive away vampires with the works of Ayn Rand ;-)
Geoffrey Brent
Harlequin
id say not. Allow me to enlighten you.
Back on the mid 80's this peep kept sending dragon magazie all these
submittals of adventures, areas, NPCs, etc. And they were all connected in
some way.
This caught the eye of TSR who was looking for a new campaign world. They
were impressed with all the work and detail in these submissions. They were
unsure if this guy was just making all this up as he went along or there
were parts of a greater work.
They made contact with him and went to see this world he 'built'. 4 filled
filing cabnets later of maps, NPCs, spells, monsters, histories and such all
they had to do in essence was buy his work from him and edit it into a
compleate setting.
Hence FR was born.
So this wasnt planned 'rip off' of Tolken, the FR setting. It just was more
convient of TSR to buy this massively built RP setting then build their own
from scratch.
Harle
Darkmore The French Druid wrote:
> All right I probably won't have much friends after this post but here's
> a thing that bothered me a bit.
>
> Well, I've been wandering around this NG and few sites about the
> forgotten realms for few months now.
> And actually I do like the DND rules and all the technical stuff (stats,
> charts ...).
> I really do think that it's the best way to turn a fantasy world into a
> mathematical system so as to be "role-played".
> Even the way the classes are described and regulated seems good.
>
> So I can hear you saying "What's the problem dude".
>
> For me the problem comes from the "forgotten realms" and all the things
> that deal with the world that this term describe.
>
> So I can hear you saying "Why dude ?? ".
>
> Here's the big thing :
> I come from the Tolkien's "School".
> And everyone of you should be agree with the fact that the world
> described in his books ( since 1937 !!!!) has never been equalled.
> This man has established the tension Dwarfs/Elven, he has invented the
> Elvish language, he used maps ( prooving that his world was concrete ),
> and so on....
> So I can understand that if you have to create a fantasy world you
> "have" to deal with the Tolkien's mythology but there are different way
> to do it .
> Wether you accept it and credit Tolkien's work or you try to hide the
> (massive) influence.
>
> So, about the realms in BG1.
> Here's one of the sad thing : the Halflings.
> It's clear that this race is only the realms' version for the Hobbits so
> why aren't they called Hobbits ??
> The text given in the "character creation" section to describe the
> Halflings is almost the same than in "The Hobbit" (1st Chapter) and "The
> Lord Of the Ring" (prologue) !!
> Even the sub-races are similar to the three kind of hobbit that are
> described in Tolkien's books (before they setlled in the Shire
> -->Harfoots, Stoors, Fallohides).
> And Tolkien is not even in the credits
>
> But the most pitfull thing (sorry if my words are hard) is as you can
> guess the Elminster dude.
> This guy is just a vulgar clone of the great Gandalf !!!
> Not only he is an old powerfull wizard (this can be forgiven for most
> wizards are old in the fairy tales) but his behaviour concerning the
> world that surround him is deeply Gandalf-like.
> Remember that Gandalf get involved in the Middle Hearth story only to
> fight against Sauron : once in "The Hobbit" and of course in "The
> Lord..." but most of the time he just wanders on the Middle Hearth
> coming where he is unexpected (like Bilbo's house) doing few things
> (the meeting Bilbo/Thorin & Cie) and going away when he seems to be
> needed (just before Mirkwood).
> So even if BG1 was (and is still) a great game, I've been really
> astonished when I first met Elminster.
>
> Once again I'm sorry if my words were hard and I hope there's no harm
> done.
> I didn't mean to make a kind of deathmatch : Gandalf VS Elminster, It
> was just a way to say that its' sad that Tolkien's work has been
> revisited and not improved.
> It was also a way to show that TSR (or whoever) want to make Tolkien
> Stuff without Tolkien's name (which means more money and less work).
>
> Anyway I wait for your advices and arguments if you want to.
Gillian Richards
Geoffrey Brent wrote:
>
> Horosco wrote:
>
> > As for Gandalf/Elminster, there have been countless powerful wizards in
> > countless stories. I doubt you can offer any conclusive evidence that
> > Elminster was a clone of Gandalf. If he was a clone, he could have been
> > cloned from any of the other powerful wizards. Gandalf himself was most
> > likely cloned.
>
> Well, they're both old guys of mysterious and ancient origins
> who smoke pipes, wander around offering cryptic words of wisdom
> and yet are usually offstage doing something more important
> when Our Heroes could really do with the help. How many of
> those 'powerful wizards' you mention resemble Gandalf as closely
> in appearance, habits and behaviour? (Names, please.)
>
> (FWIW, in AD&D terms Gandalf is pretty clearly Chaotic Good.)
>
>
Allanon in the Shanharra Series (annoying bloody git that he was), and
Kulgan in "Magician" (Feist).
Gillian who plays far too long.
(I shall be generous and not add any from books with flowery scrolly
gold plate lettering on the front and half-stripped females being pawed
by Fabio-lookalikes.)
Geoffrey Brent
> Do you even know ANYTHING about how the FR setting came about? from you post
> id say not. Allow me to enlighten you.
[snip]
> They made contact with him and went to see this world he 'built'. 4 filled
> filing cabnets later of maps, NPCs, spells, monsters, histories and such all
> they had to do in essence was buy his work from him and edit it into a
> compleate setting.
>
> Hence FR was born.
>
> So this wasnt planned 'rip off' of Tolken, the FR setting. It just was more
> convient of TSR to buy this massively built RP setting then build their own
> from scratch.
The fact that they bought it from someone else rather than
writing it in-house has nothing to do with whether it is or
isn't derivative of Tolkien.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> Allanon in the Shanharra Series (annoying bloody git that he was), and
> Kulgan in "Magician" (Feist).
Allanon had some similarities to Gandalf (powerful magician,
been around forever, on the side of good but never manages
to be around when the heroes really need him ;-) but he's a
much more forbidding, unapproachable character. I can't
picture _him_ making fireworks for a hobbit's birthday party.
> (I shall be generous and not add any from books with flowery scrolly
> gold plate lettering on the front and half-stripped females being pawed
> by Fabio-lookalikes.)
Good thing, or we'd be here all day :-)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> > Note that many of the influential & popular portrayals of
> > Merlin appeared _after_ Gandalf, and if any 'borrowing'
> > took place it's more likely that _they_ borrowed from
> > Gandalf.
>
> I am quite sure that the Legends of Arthur were written long before Tokien
> was even born...
_Some_ versions of the Arthurian legends were written
well before Tolkien, obviously. ("L'Morte d'Arthur", for
instance.) But many others were written _after_ LotR -
e.g. "The Once and Future King". Obviously, if one's
going to claim that Gandalf was borrowed from Merlin,
one can only base that on the versions of Merlin that
appeared _before_ LotR. Which seem to bear less
resemblance to Gandalf than the ones that appear
afterwards...
Geoffrey Brent
Harlequin
'STOLE' many of his ideas from mythology of 1000's of years past. So its really a
moot point.
Harle
Lord_Anthrax
Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
> Strahd von Ravenloft
Just a minor nit. His name is actually Strahd von Zarovich.
Lord_Anthrax
Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
> Sorry, but Elminster seems more like a Gandalf clone to me _now_
> than he did before this list of 'differences'.
Elminster is a much more entertaining character IMNSHO. Sure, Gandalf
made the sun come out(not made it seem like the sun came out, he MADE
THE SUN COME UP), but El has a better sense of humor, he has a more
human grounding in the world(for instance, does Gandalf have anyone he
can call a lover?), he is a more approachable character by my estimation
and more enjoyable to read about.
Ah yes, and one other quite major difference between Gandalf and
Elminster. People are still writing stories about Elminster...
BTW, if you want to read some excellent books in which the Old Mage
plays a part, try the following:
Spellfire
Crown of Fire
Elminster-The Making of a Mage
All were written by Mr. Greenwood, incidentally. Some other books he
appears in include:
Curse of the Azure Bonds
Song of the Saurials(though I recommend reading The Wyvern's Spur before
reading this book)
Shadowdale
Tantras
Waterdeep
And you can also find a great many articles that involve him in back
issues of Dragon Magazine.
In closing, don't knock him till you try him. :)
Geoffrey Brent
> ALL fantasy in some way shape or form has some aspects of tolken. as tolken
> 'STOLE' many of his ideas from mythology of 1000's of years past. So its really a
> moot point.
It's a matter of degree. Being influenced by what's gone before
is unavoidable, but there's a difference between being _influenced_
by Tolkien and lifting large chunks of his work wholesale (hobbits,
orcs, Gandalf.)
If your work _is_ influenced by someone else's, it's usually considered
good form to acknowledge it. TSR obviously understood this, since
they _did_ acknowledge many other fantasy authors - so why did they
leave out Tolkien, of all people? I find it hard to believe that they all
just 'forgot' to mention him, so it looks like a fairly mean-spirited act.
There's also an important difference between borrowing ideas from
a large body of myth (which is what Tolkien did) and borrowing them
from individual writers (which is what AD&D did.)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> > Sorry, but Elminster seems more like a Gandalf clone to me _now_
> > than he did before this list of 'differences'.
>
> Elminster is a much more entertaining character IMNSHO. Sure, Gandalf
> made the sun come out(not made it seem like the sun came out, he MADE
> THE SUN COME UP),
Not as I remember it. The sun was already up; it was
just blotted out by that big ol' cloud of darkness (TM)
emanating from Mordor.
> but El has a better sense of humor,
Gandalf has a fairly visible sense of humour, IMHO - just
look at the joke he plays on Bilbo at their first meeting,
setting him up for more than a dozen unexpected guests.
Sure, he had a serious purpose in mind, but he wasn't
above getting a few laughs out of it. There are several
other instances in _The Hobbit_ where he demonstrates
that sense of humour. In LotR, his sense of humour is less
evident, but that's because all the way through he's dealing
with some very serious trouble.
> he has a more
> human grounding in the world(for instance, does Gandalf have anyone he
> can call a lover?), he is a more approachable character by my estimation
> and more enjoyable to read about.
Gandalf's approachable. Possibly one of the most approachable
people in Middle-Earth; he can talk to anybody from a king to
a hobbit child. This is a guy who makes fireworks for hobbit
birthday parties, remember? He certainly has no qualms about
intimidating people who need intimidating, but he doesn't do
that to his friends.
And no, he doesn't have a lover as far as I can tell, but
then Tolkien doesn't seem to have been very comfortable
writing about romance or female characters. The only
female character I can even remember from _The Hobbit_
is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins - hardly a major character -
and they were few and far between in LotR. (Apparently
Peter Jackson, who's currently working on the LotR movies,
has had disagreements with Tolkien's family over Jackson's
attempts to enlarge the female roles in the story.) In other
areas, Gandalf comes across as being quite human (particularly
when one remembers what he actually is...)
> Ah yes, and one other quite major difference between Gandalf and
> Elminster. People are still writing stories about Elminster...
And there are three major films featuring Gandalf coming out
soonish. What's your point? ;-)
> BTW, if you want to read some excellent books in which the Old Mage
> plays a part, try the following:
I'll keep them in mind. I have to admit that I'm badly prejudiced
against RPG-based fantasy. There've been some good pieces,
the best I've read being _Drachenfels_, but I got rather turned
off the idea by the Dragonlance novels and miscellaneous others.
Geoffrey Brent
Jamie Christie
> Harlequin wrote:
>
> > ALL fantasy in some way shape or form has some aspects of tolken. as
tolken
> > 'STOLE' many of his ideas from mythology of 1000's of years past. So its
really a
> > moot point.
>
> is unavoidable, but there's a difference between being _influenced_
> by Tolkien and lifting large chunks of his work wholesale (hobbits,
> orcs, Gandalf.)
>
> If your work _is_ influenced by someone else's, it's usually considered
> good form to acknowledge it. TSR obviously understood this, since
> they _did_ acknowledge many other fantasy authors - so why did they
> leave out Tolkien, of all people? I find it hard to believe that they all
> just 'forgot' to mention him, so it looks like a fairly mean-spirited act.
>
> There's also an important difference between borrowing ideas from
> a large body of myth (which is what Tolkien did) and borrowing them
> from individual writers (which is what AD&D did.)
>
> Geoffrey Brent
>
If I were denied access to using the name hobbit as well as any of the other
countless thnigs they were denied from using by the estate of Tolkien I also
would be reluctant to admit that I used him as a reference point. This is
only a reflection of the rudeness and outright selfishness of the estate
that was shown toward TSR. Also if we can say that Tolkien lifted MUCH of
his work from history and mythology why can we not say that TSR (or the
realms creator in point) also lifted their ideas from history and mythology.
Whilst I admit that there are many similarities between the two I must say
that differences more than make up for this. I LOVE Tolkien, having read his
books as a small child (and also many re-reads since) but i also find the
TSR novels to be compelling reads in their own right. Frankly I think that
Geoffrey is being very childish in his approach to this argument and I have
also noticed several places where he (among others) have been incorrect in
their information provided to the group.
Maybe he and Lord_Anthrax should just whip em out and compare sizes as this
seems to have turned out to be more of a pissing contest than anything else.
just my 2 cents worth :)
J
Bruce D. Harding
>
> And no, he doesn't have a lover as far as I can tell, but
> then Tolkien doesn't seem to have been very comfortable
> writing about romance or female characters. The only
> female character I can even remember from _The Hobbit_
> is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins - hardly a major character -
> and they were few and far between in LotR.
I thought Eowyn was a very strong female character in LotR. Possibly stronger
than some of the males.
Geoffrey Brent
> If I were denied access to using the name hobbit as well as any of the other
> countless thnigs they were denied from using by the estate of Tolkien I also
> would be reluctant to admit that I used him as a reference point. This is
> only a reflection of the rudeness and outright selfishness of the estate
> that was shown toward TSR.
It's not "rude" or "selfish" to deny someone permission to use
your life's work in ways you don't think are appropriate. If
you've put a great deal of work into making something, you
are entitled to be protective of it - and if Tolkien's nearest and
dearest disapproved of AD&D's use of his creations, they were
more than entitled to say so.
(But they _could not_ have 'denied access' to the word 'hobbit'.
It's not legally protected, as I explained in another post, nor was
it then.)
IMHO, "rudeness" is far more clearly demonstrated by using
someone else's work and then failing to even credit them. There's
nothing _illegal_ about TSR's use of halflings in AD&D 1st and their
failure to acknowledge Tolkien for it, but it's unethical.
> Also if we can say that Tolkien lifted MUCH of
> his work from history and mythology why can we not say that TSR (or the
> realms creator in point) also lifted their ideas from history and mythology.
Indeed they did. But while some of Tolkien's material came
from mythology, some of it was his own creation, and TSR
lifted a large amount of Tolkien's own creation. It's _that_
that I have a problem with. The fact that they used elves is
fine - as other posters have pointed out already, AD&D's
elves aren't that similar to Tolkien's. (In fact, Tolkien's elves
don't adapt well to a roleplaying setting - they're stronger,
smarter, hardier and better-looking than humans, so why
would anybody want to play anything else? MERP had to
use a couple of kludges to restore some semblance of balance
when allowing people to play Tolkien-style elves.) But AD&D's
halflings are very clearly based on Tolkien's original work,
down to the division into three sub-races. _That_ is a problem.
> Whilst I admit that there are many similarities between the two I must say
> that differences more than make up for this. I LOVE Tolkien, having read his
> books as a small child (and also many re-reads since) but i also find the
> TSR novels to be compelling reads in their own right. Frankly I think that
> Geoffrey is being very childish in his approach to this argument and I have
> also noticed several places where he (among others) have been incorrect in
> their information provided to the group.
This is real life. People make mistakes from time to time,
me included. Where I've made mistakes and people have
pointed them out to me, I have acknowledged them and
apologised. If you know of any I haven't acknowledged
yet, feel free to point them out.
IMHO, "childish" is making widespread use of another man's
ideas but petulantly refusing to acknowledge his contribution
because of some squabble with his estate. Not even with the
man himself. Tolkien was _dead_ by the time of the dispute
with TSR. Don't you think denying a man the credit he was
due for something that happened *after his death* is just a
_little_ childish and spiteful?
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
Yes and no. She's certainly the _strongest_ female character
in LotR, by a long shot, and she was a step in the right direction.
But if you look at her motivation, it's love for Aragorn, eventually
replaced by love for Faramir - she's brave, and she's enough of a
warrior to destroy the Witch-King, but she's still defined by her
relationship with the male characters rather than as a character in
her own right. (I'm having trouble phrasing what I mean there, but
hopefully you understand what I'm saying.) She comes across a
bit like the stereotypical 'Bond girl' - smart, sassy, but dragged
along in the male hero's wake. Which is sad, because I thought
she was a more interesting character than Aragorn. (Never really
warmed to him, for some reason.)
And she's really the only one. Tolkien _tells_ us that Galadriel is
a powerful being, but he doesn't really give her much personality
Ditto, Goldberry. Arwen Undomiel and Rose exist _solely_ as
love interests for male characters, and Tolkien shies away from
writing much about them at all.
I'll be interested to see what Peter Jackson does with these
characters, though. I imagine we'll be seeing a lot more of
Eowyn. (Not like _that_, you perverts.)
Geoffrey Brent
Barbarian X
"Bruce D. Harding" <b...@inspire.net.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:3A095EF3...@inspire.net.nz...
> Geoffrey Brent wrote:
> But then how many strong female characters are there in fantasy that are
not
> motivated by love? I can think of one ( but then maybe I'm just reading
the wrong
> books)
Are you thinking of Paksenarion?
/S
Barbarian X
"Geoffrey Brent" <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:3A096796...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au...
> They're not that common, which is one of the reasons I don't
> read a great deal of fantasy these days. Genevieve Dieudonne,
> heroine of 'Drachenfels' and 'Anno Dracula', is one - she is
> certainly _capable_ of falling in love, and it's important to her,
> but it's not the _only motivation_ in her life. Neil Gaiman writes
> some very solid female characters, although his brand of 'fantasy'
> is a long way from swords-and-sorcery. Although I'm not a huge
> David Eddings fan, Polgara is a strong woman in her own right.
>
> Geoffrey Brent
Yes
Polgara of course
And Paksenarion (Elizabeth Moon)
Oh and of course (if they can be counted as fantasy) Anita Blake, toughest
woman on the planet ;) (from Laurell K Hamilton's books)
/S
Lord_Anthrax
Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
> Gandalf has a fairly visible sense of humour, IMHO - just
> look at the joke he plays on Bilbo at their first meeting,
> setting him up for more than a dozen unexpected guests.
That was supposed to be funny?
> Gandalf's approachable. Possibly one of the most approachable
> people in Middle-Earth; he can talk to anybody from a king to
> a hobbit child. This is a guy who makes fireworks for hobbit
> birthday parties, remember? He certainly has no qualms about
> intimidating people who need intimidating, but he doesn't do
> that to his friends.
El's approachable. Possibly one of the most approachable
people in Faerun; he can talk to anybody from a king to
a halfling child. This is a guy who disguised himself as a tankard to
get a laugh about a rather loud-mouthed thief, remember? He certainly
has no qualms about intimidating people who need intimidating, but he
doesn't do that to his friends. :)
> And no, he doesn't have a lover as far as I can tell, but
> then Tolkien doesn't seem to have been very comfortable
> writing about romance or female characters.
What about the events in the Silmarillion? There were some powerful
stories that revolved around love in that, IIRC.
> And there are three major films featuring Gandalf coming out
> soonish. What's your point? ;-)
That new material, and not film adaptations of old material, are still
being made. As for a film adaptation of some of the works on the Realms,
give it time. More likely it'd be Salvatore's work, but you never
know...
> I'll keep them in mind. I have to admit that I'm badly prejudiced
> against RPG-based fantasy. There've been some good pieces,
> the best I've read being _Drachenfels_, but I got rather turned
> off the idea by the Dragonlance novels and miscellaneous others.
Which reminds me, try the writings of R. A. Salvatore. He hasn't been on
the New York Times bestseller list for nothing, and the Realms is where
he cut his teeth, and got his first Hardcover(to my memory, the first
AD&D-based hardcover)novel from. See other posts in this NG for more.
Darren Toews
you're missing out on a lot of good stuff. Is it a blatant rip off? That's
debatable. I say no, but that's just my opinion. Are the setting and
characters every bit as interesting and entertaining? I say yes, despite
any similarities that may exist (and maybe in a way, because of them).
Bottom line, if you can't stand AD&D "ripping off" Tolkien, don't play their
games. It's that simple.
Darren
Horosco
news:3A09121F...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au...
> good form to acknowledge it. TSR obviously understood this, since
> they _did_ acknowledge many other fantasy authors - so why did they
> leave out Tolkien, of all people? I find it hard to believe that they all
> just 'forgot' to mention him, so it looks like a fairly mean-spirited act.
Exactly. It was a mean-spirited act of Tolkien's kids for throwing the
hissy fit they did.
Horosco
news:8ubt8m$o5i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3A0918FA...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au>,
> > Gandalf has a fairly visible sense of humour, IMHO - just
> > look at the joke he plays on Bilbo at their first meeting,
> > setting him up for more than a dozen unexpected guests.
>
> That was supposed to be funny?
I certainly laughed at it. I mean, here you have a hobbit constantly
running back and forth from one room to the door, gasping with each step, to
open the door to yet *another* dwarf, with yet *another* color hood. At
first, he keeps up the appearance that he's ok with it, but as each one
comes in, his face falls a little. After that, he has to run around
fetching food and other things for all his guests. I couldn't keep from
chuckling out loud.
http://www.ozplanet.net/~simonsson62/
<z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
>There's also an important difference between borrowing ideas from
>a large body of myth (which is what Tolkien did) and borrowing them
>from individual writers (which is what AD&D did.)
So who`s to say where they borrowed it from..? Did they take their
inspiration from mythology or did they allow their inspiration to be
filtered through Tolkien`s writings? Since the source is the same,
it`s impossible to say for sure. Probably both, since AD&D took
inspiration from lots of different sources.
I think we should remember that AD&D originally had a "toy box"
approach to fantasy. There was a little bit of everything in there,
even monsters and creatures from such diverse sources as norse
mythology, russian mythology, the Cthulhu mythos and Fritz Leiber`s
books. Take a look at the magic weapons and artifacts in the old
books. You should be able to trace some of them back to their original
sources.
You weren`t really supposed to include all of this in your campaigns,
but rather pick and choose and tailor it to your tastes. There are
some aspects of mainstream AD&D that strongly remind you of Tolkien
and Middle Earth (the dwarves, elves, etc), but I personally think
that the game has developed a fairly strong identity of it`s own
during these years (monsters, cultures, religions, classes, etc). It`s
not up there with RuneQuest and Glorantha, but it`s getting there. :)
</Anders Simonsson>
http://www.ozplanet.net/~simonsson62/
---
"What?! Boo is outraged! See his fury! It`s small,
so look close. Trust me, it`s there."
- Minsc from Baldur`s Gate 2.
Mark Blunden
news:3A0931AB...@inspire.net.nz...
> Geoffrey Brent wrote:
>
> >
> > And no, he doesn't have a lover as far as I can tell, but
> > then Tolkien doesn't seem to have been very comfortable
> > female character I can even remember from _The Hobbit_
> > is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins - hardly a major character -
> > and they were few and far between in LotR.
I remember that when I was very young and reading LotR for the first time, I
took Merry to be a female character (just how the name sounded, I think) and
didn't realise my mistake until the next time I read it, years later. That
mental image still colours my reading of the books today, and I have to
consciously keep in mind that he's male.
> I thought Eowyn was a very strong female character in LotR. Possibly
> stronger than some of the males.
She's a good character, but when reading the books from a modern
perspective, the way she's portrayed just highlights how male-dominated her
society is. That's understandable considering the time in which the books
were written, but it is jarring sometimes.
--
Mark.
mar...@bigfoot.com
* There are scenes in this story which may not be suitable for adults
Vences Barrufet
Newsbeitrag news:3A06B401...@club-internet.fr...
> All right I probably won't have much friends after this post but here's
> a thing that bothered me a bit.
>
> Well, I've been wandering around this NG and few sites about the
> forgotten realms for few months now.
> And actually I do like the DND rules and all the technical stuff (stats,
> charts ...).
> I really do think that it's the best way to turn a fantasy world into a
> mathematical system so as to be "role-played".
> Even the way the classes are described and regulated seems good.
>
> So I can hear you saying "What's the problem dude".
>
> For me the problem comes from the "forgotten realms" and all the things
> that deal with the world that this term describe.
>
> So I can hear you saying "Why dude ?? ".
>
> Here's the big thing :
> I come from the Tolkien's "School".
> And everyone of you should be agree with the fact that the world
> described in his books ( since 1937 !!!!) has never been equalled.
> This man has established the tension Dwarfs/Elven,
wrong this happens in nordic mythology already
he has invented the
> Elvish language,
One of thousands. this was a hobby in the last centuries, to invent a
language. Every linguist made such works. Not specifically Elven Language.
But similar.
he used maps ( prooving that his world was concrete ),
Thats IMHO logic. But look at it, not very realistic!
> and so on....
> So I can understand that if you have to create a fantasy world you
> "have" to deal with the Tolkien's mythology but there are different way
> to do it .
> Wether you accept it and credit Tolkien's work or you try to hide the
> (massive) influence.
>
> So, about the realms in BG1.
> Here's one of the sad thing : the Halflings.
> It's clear that this race is only the realms' version for the Hobbits so
> why aren't they called Hobbits ??
> The text given in the "character creation" section to describe the
> Halflings is almost the same than in "The Hobbit" (1st Chapter) and "The
> Lord Of the Ring" (prologue) !!
Can you spell licence problems!
> Even the sub-races are similar to the three kind of hobbit that are
> described in Tolkien's books (before they setlled in the Shire
> -->Harfoots, Stoors, Fallohides).
> And Tolkien is not even in the credits
>
Why should he? In his books I can't read any credit on Nordic Mythology
either.
> But the most pitfull thing (sorry if my words are hard) is as you can
> guess the Elminster dude.
> This guy is just a vulgar clone of the great Gandalf !!!
Sorry to bother you. Yes he has some similarities. But he is only the Alter
Ego of Ed Greenwood, the creator of Forgotten Realms. An powerfull mages are
often described like Gandalf. And before Tolkien wrote even a word.
> Not only he is an old powerfull wizard (this can be forgiven for most
> wizards are old in the fairy tales) but his behaviour concerning the
> world that surround him is deeply Gandalf-like.
> Remember that Gandalf get involved in the Middle Hearth story only to
> fight against Sauron : once in "The Hobbit" and of course in "The
> Lord..." but most of the time he just wanders on the Middle Hearth
> coming where he is unexpected (like Bilbo's house) doing few things
> (the meeting Bilbo/Thorin & Cie) and going away when he seems to be
> needed (just before Mirkwood).
Your problem is that you're too focused on LoR. Hey, I like the story, but
there are others even better than that: Elric, Dying Earth and Earthsea only
to mention a few.
> So even if BG1 was (and is still) a great game, I've been really
> astonished when I first met Elminster.
>
> Once again I'm sorry if my words were hard and I hope there's no harm
> done.
None done. And my words are only my opinion pal. I hope you don't take any
offence too.
> I didn't mean to make a kind of deathmatch : Gandalf VS Elminster, It
> was just a way to say that its' sad that Tolkien's work has been
> revisited and not improved.
> It was also a way to show that TSR (or whoever) want to make Tolkien
> Stuff without Tolkien's name (which means more money and less work).
>
> Anyway I wait for your advices and arguments if you want to.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
br
Vences
Derville
> "Bruce D. Harding" wrote:
> > I thought Eowyn was a very strong female character in LotR.
Possibly stronger
> > than some of the males.
>
> in LotR, by a long shot, and she was a step in the right direction.
> But if you look at her motivation, it's love for Aragorn, eventually
> replaced by love for Faramir - she's brave, and she's enough of a
> warrior to destroy the Witch-King, but she's still defined by her
> relationship with the male characters rather than as a character in
> her own right. (I'm having trouble phrasing what I mean there, but
> hopefully you understand what I'm saying.) She comes across a
> bit like the stereotypical 'Bond girl' - smart, sassy, but dragged
> along in the male hero's wake. Which is sad, because I thought
> she was a more interesting character than Aragorn. (Never really
> warmed to him, for some reason.)
>
> And she's really the only one. Tolkien _tells_ us that Galadriel is
> a powerful being, but he doesn't really give her much personality
> Ditto, Goldberry. Arwen Undomiel and Rose exist _solely_ as
> love interests for male characters, and Tolkien shies away from
> writing much about them at all.
I know that there have been claims from some academics that Tolkien
was a bit of a mysoginist, but I think we ought to add in Luthien
Tinuviel to the list (Beren's other half, with a bit of their story in
the Silmarillion). She was every bit as heroic as Beren, if not more
so when you read the way she risked life and limb in their travels,
and she made possibly the biggest decision of any immortal at the very
end, but I'll not spoil it too much here ;-).
And on Galadriel, although she never really did too much directly, her
influence extended well beyond Lorien. I'm thinking of the way Sam
and Frodo kept thinking of her when they used her gifts later on, basi
cally keeping Galadriel in the reader's mind. And who remembers her
hen-pecked husband Celeborn (although Galadriel was of the more
prestigeous lineage, she was certainly portrayed as being far more
important than her husband).
And as a final thought, here on the real planet Earth, men have been
the superior sex (sorry, can't think of the PC way of saying this) for
many centuries, by and large. It's basically been the past century or
so when women have really seen any great forms of emancipation. Now
if we're dealing with a swords and sorcery type Tolkien world, then
I'd venture to suggest that it's perfectly reasonable for women to be
subservient to the men who go out and work the fields or go out to war
(especially among people such as the Rohirrim). Just my anti-feminist
2d.
--
P.
(Remove 'your.inhibitions' to reply)
Read the alt.games.baldurs-gate Usage FAQ:
www.demonspawn.net/bg/usage.htm
Bruce D. Harding
> Yes and no. She's certainly the _strongest_ female character
> in LotR, by a long shot, and she was a step in the right direction.
> But if you look at her motivation, it's love for Aragorn, eventually
> replaced by love for Faramir - she's brave, and she's enough of a
> warrior to destroy the Witch-King, but she's still defined by her
> relationship with the male characters rather than as a character in
> her own right. (I'm having trouble phrasing what I mean there, but
> hopefully you understand what I'm saying.) She comes across a
> bit like the stereotypical 'Bond girl' - smart, sassy, but dragged
> along in the male hero's wake. Which is sad, because I thought
> she was a more interesting character than Aragorn. (Never really
> warmed to him, for some reason.)
>
But then how many strong female characters are there in fantasy that are not
Geoffrey Brent
> But then how many strong female characters are there in fantasy that are not
> motivated by love? I can think of one ( but then maybe I'm just reading the wrong
> books)
They're not that common, which is one of the reasons I don't
Waldoou812
the first 10, and in defense of Gary Gygax, I was under the impression (please
correct me if I'm wrong) that the Tolkien estate specifically prohibited him
from using the term "hobbits" (in the first place), and wasn't too cooperative
with regards to the rest of it either.
The view I saw in the first ten posts was that TSR was wholly and completely in
the wrong, while it may be that there's another side to this story.
Waldo
Luke Goaman-Dodson
Brent wrote in the log:
> Note that many of the influential & popular portrayals of
> Merlin appeared _after_ Gandalf, and if any 'borrowing'
> took place it's more likely that _they_ borrowed from
> Gandalf. What similarities do you see between pre-
> Tolkien portrayals of Merlin, and Tolkien's Gandalf, beyond
> "powerful wizard on the side of good"? Gandalf doesn't
> strike me as the sort of person to be seduced by Nimue,
> or to spend his life in service to one particular king; he's
> too much of a wanderer.
The idea of a wizened old magician has been around FAR before even the
Arthurian tales. Cathbhadh the Druid, for example. He is portrayed in the
Ulster Cycle as being quite old, as well as being the adiviser and father of
King Conchobhar the Creepy (title my own invention :).
Tolkien was an enthusiast in Arthurian myths (translating one of them
himself), and I wouldn't be surprised if Merlin was the sole basis of
Gandalf.
--
Belzub the ChaosWurm - cynical Celtic British home-educated eco-veggie nerdy
anti-capitalist wannabe wizard.
--------------PRETENTIOUS QUOTE BIT--------------
|"I'm not paranoid - everyone *is* out to get me!"|
|"You say 'Evil' like it's a bad thing" |
-------------------------------------------------
Luke Goaman-Dodson
Brent wrote in the log:
> _Some_ versions of the Arthurian legends were written
> well before Tolkien, obviously. ("L'Morte d'Arthur", for
> instance.) But many others were written _after_ LotR -
> e.g. "The Once and Future King". Obviously, if one's
> going to claim that Gandalf was borrowed from Merlin,
> one can only base that on the versions of Merlin that
> appeared _before_ LotR. Which seem to bear less
> resemblance to Gandalf than the ones that appear
> afterwards...
Just to point something out, Elminster is an anagram of Merlin with the
letters S, T, and E added. Probably Greenwood thought of a guy called
Merlinster and took it from there.
Luke Goaman-Dodson
Lord_Anthrax wrote in the log:
> (for instance, does Gandalf have anyone he
> can call a lover?)
Does *anyone* in Tolkien's work have anyone they can call a lover? :)
Homosexual innuendo theories aside, most of the females in Tolkien's cycle
are kind of goddess-thingies, rather than "real" people.
Lord_Anthrax
Luke Goaman-Dodson <bel...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Does *anyone* in Tolkien's work have anyone they can call a lover? :)
> Homosexual innuendo theories aside, most of the females in Tolkien's
> cycle are kind of goddess-thingies, rather than "real" people.
Point taken. :) BTW, peeps who think some of Tolkien's chars are gay
because of the way they speak to one another need to have their heads
examined. It's the use of language, and speaks of an older sentiment,
much like how Melville wrote about Ishmael and Queequeg's friendship in
Moby Dick.
Horosco
news:3A0B4A6C...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au...
> refusing to
> credit him because of events he wasn't part of is just silly.
I'm not really sure it's something to be upset about. Just about everyone
that has ever played D&D knows that it was inspired by Tolkien's writings.
And since just about everyone knows, there's not really any need to say it.
The ones that don't know will be told by the ones that do know.
Geoffrey Brent
>
> The way I see it, if all you like is Tolkien and accept no substitutes,
> you're missing out on a lot of good stuff.
Since this is a follow-up to my post, I assume you're
talking to me - in which case, you've badly misread
what I've been saying :-) I like Tolkien, but I don't
worship the man. There are other fantasy authors who
I also respect, and I'd be equally irritated to see
_their_ ideas being 'borrowed' without acknowledgement.
> Is it a blatant rip off? That's
> debatable. I say no, but that's just my opinion. Are the setting and
> characters every bit as interesting and entertaining? I say yes, despite
> any similarities that may exist (and maybe in a way, because of them).
The problem's not that they used Tolkien's ideas,
just that they didn't acknowledge them. In my line
of work I routinely use the ideas of other people -
saves 'reinventing the wheel' - but if I fail to
give credit where credit is due it's taken very
seriously. It's not like it would have cost them
_money_ to credit JRRT.
> Bottom line, if you can't stand AD&D "ripping off" Tolkien, don't play their
> games. It's that simple.
As it happens, I don't (excepting the computer games),
but that has more to do with my quibbles with the game
_system_ (see my previous rant on the problem with
character classes) and marketing tactics, which are
waaay off topic.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> > If your work _is_ influenced by someone else's, it's usually considered
> > good form to acknowledge it. TSR obviously understood this, since
> > they _did_ acknowledge many other fantasy authors - so why did they
> > leave out Tolkien, of all people? I find it hard to believe that they all
> > just 'forgot' to mention him, so it looks like a fairly mean-spirited act.
>
> Exactly. It was a mean-spirited act of Tolkien's kids for throwing the
> hissy fit they did.
Quite possibly so. Without hearing their version of
_why_ they objected, I can't be certain of the rights
and wrongs, but it's entirely possible that they were
mean, nasty, horrible people who just wanted to ruin
everybody's fun.
But that's *irrelevant*. It was _not_ Tolkien who threw
the hissy fit, and cheating him of the credit he's due
because of something that happened *after his death* is
plain childish. (IIRC, a couple of years later Gygax
also tried to cut Arneson out of his share of the profits
from D&D. Maybe Tolkien's kids actually had a good reason
for not wanting to see Gygax using their father's work?)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
>
> Sorry, but I wasn't about to read all 72 postings on this thread. Just read
> the first 10, and in defense of Gary Gygax, I was under the impression (please
> correct me if I'm wrong) that the Tolkien estate specifically prohibited him
> from using the term "hobbits" (in the first place), and wasn't too cooperative
> with regards to the rest of it either.
As far as I can make out, they didn't like him using the
word "hobbits", said so, and _threatened_ legal action -
but wouldn't have been able to actually _bring_ a successful
action. Why they took such a dislike to the man I have no
idea (though I'll note they're far from the only ones to do
so) - but my main point is that what _they_ did, after
Tolkien's death, does not reflect on him and refusing to
credit him because of events he wasn't part of is just silly.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
>
> In article <3A08CF2D...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au>,
> Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
>
> > Strahd von Ravenloft
>
> Just a minor nit. His name is actually Strahd von Zarovich.
So it is. It's been a long time since I played that
module. :-)
Geoffrey Brent
Waldoou812
>of him giving up the good fight.
"Many colored," not white.
Waldo
Geoffrey Brent
> I know that there have been claims from some academics that Tolkien
> was a bit of a mysoginist, but I think we ought to add in Luthien
> Tinuviel to the list (Beren's other half, with a bit of their story in
> the Silmarillion). She was every bit as heroic as Beren, if not more
> so when you read the way she risked life and limb in their travels,
> and she made possibly the biggest decision of any immortal at the very
> end, but I'll not spoil it too much here ;-).
I wasn't going to get into the Silmarillion, but since
you brought it up :-) As with Eowyn, Luthien Tinuviel
has plenty of courage, and for that matter 'good stats'.
In those things, she's certainly on a par with the male
characters. (As is Galadriel, more on her in a moment.)
But if you look at what Luthien _does_, and why, it's
the same as Eowyn - she acts for the sake of her beloved.
To demonstrate the difference: if Aragorn didn't have
Arwen, if Sam didn't have Rose, if Gandalf didn't have
Shadowfax, if Beren didn't have Luthien... they'd still
have done much the same things they ended up doing. But
when a _female_ character falls in love (sweet, sweet
love), she seems to end up entirely motivated by that
love. Eowyn does what she does because she wants to get
Aragorn's attention. (And as soon as she wins Faramir's
love, she gives up the whole fightin' business.) Luthien
shows great courage and loyalty in coming to Beren's aid,
but she's not the one steering the boat.
> And on Galadriel, although she never really did too much directly, her
> influence extended well beyond Lorien. I'm thinking of the way Sam
> and Frodo kept thinking of her when they used her gifts later on, basi
> cally keeping Galadriel in the reader's mind. And who remembers her
> hen-pecked husband Celeborn (although Galadriel was of the more
> prestigeous lineage, she was certainly portrayed as being far more
> important than her husband).
According to what Tolkien tells us, she's very powerful.
She protects a large area from the bad guys, she gives
Our Heroes all sorts of neat stuff, and she gives them
advice. But being powerful isn't the same as being a
strong character - she plays a rather passive role in
the whole story, IMHO.
I don't mean to single Tolkien out as a misogynist. He's
better in that regard than C.S. Lewis (who writes more
active, adventurous female characters - but then tells
them that they should leave the fighting to the guys, and
turns on Susan for the heinous sin of growing up and taking
an interest in boys and clothes...) And for a really extreme
example, John Norman writes women who are _supposedly_
intelligent, beautiful and lethal, but turn to mush as soon
as they have a strong man to put them in their place.
Tolkien's women are not bad by the standards of the fantasy
stuff I've read, but then fantasy doesn't set the bar very
high in that regard - one reason why I tend to read other
genres these days.
Bringing this very slightly back on topic, this is one
thing in which Black Isle do pretty well IMHO. Their
female characters are just as substantial as the male
ones, and _both_ show some signs of family ties. (I'm
thinking particularly of Cernd and Keldorn's quests, here.)
> And as a final thought, here on the real planet Earth, men have been
> the superior sex (sorry, can't think of the PC way of saying this) for
> many centuries, by and large. It's basically been the past century or
> so when women have really seen any great forms of emancipation.
This is not as true as people tend to think. In fact,
in Anglo-Saxon society women had the same rights under
law as the men (until the Norman Conquest came along
and ruined things.) Elizabeth I was a strong and
independent woman who put herself on as high a level as
any man, largely by _not_ letting her love life be her
guiding influence. Viking women were in a similar situation
to Anglo-Saxon women, and in rare cases they _did_ fight.
I've heard a claim, from reasonably reputable people,
that the Vikings had a very odd little custom when it
came to blood-feuds. If a man was killed, it was usually
his brother's job to avenge him. But if he didn't have
any brothers left, a sister could take on the job - she
legally _became_ a man, shared the male quarters, and in
some cases could even marry a woman. I've never been able
to discover whether this story is actually true - it sounds
a little bizarre, but it'd certainly be fun in a fantasy
setting.
> Now
> if we're dealing with a swords and sorcery type Tolkien world, then
> I'd venture to suggest that it's perfectly reasonable for women to be
> subservient to the men who go out and work the fields or go out to war
> (especially among people such as the Rohirrim). Just my anti-feminist
> 2d.
If we can cope with a world that includes dragons, magical
swords, undead soldiers, immortals, and good always triumphing
over evil in the end, I think we can stretch our imagination
to allow for a few free-willed female characters :-) The whole
point of fantasy is that it _doesn't_ have to be too much like
the real world - you can come up with a fantasy that you find
enjoyable. And me, I like free-willed women. If a woman told
me that she'd be unable to function without me, that everything
she did was for my sake, I wouldn't consider that romantic. I'd
find it rather creepy and unpleasant.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> Does *anyone* in Tolkien's work have anyone they can call a lover? :)
>
> Homosexual innuendo theories aside, most of the females in Tolkien's cycle
> are kind of goddess-thingies, rather than "real" people.
Yup. There's the Impossibly Beautiful Object Of Desire
(Arwen Evenstar), the Feisty Lass Who Tags Along In The
Wake Of The Male Hero (Eowyn), the Both Of The Above
(Luthien) and the Very Minor Role (Rose, Lobelia.)
Geoffrey Brent
Derville
> Derville wrote:
> > I know that there have been claims from some academics that
Tolkien
> > was a bit of a mysoginist, but I think we ought to add in Luthien
> > Tinuviel to the list (Beren's other half, with a bit of their
story in
> > the Silmarillion). She was every bit as heroic as Beren, if not
more
> > so when you read the way she risked life and limb in their
travels,
> > and she made possibly the biggest decision of any immortal at the
very
> > end, but I'll not spoil it too much here ;-).
>
> I wasn't going to get into the Silmarillion, but since
> you brought it up :-) As with Eowyn, Luthien Tinuviel
> has plenty of courage, and for that matter 'good stats'.
> In those things, she's certainly on a par with the male
> characters. (As is Galadriel, more on her in a moment.)
> But if you look at what Luthien _does_, and why, it's
> the same as Eowyn - she acts for the sake of her beloved.
I tend to separate Luthien somewhat there because I see her and Beren
both being completely smitten with the other, and do what they do as a
result of their all-consuming love for one another. However, on the
idea of acting in the name of a beloved, that still means essentially
that they have an underlying motive which drives them onward, just as
Aragorn has his motive to reclaim the crown and save the world and
appear as the most self-satisfying, smug critter in the novel (don't
you just hate these people without fatal character flaws? ;-)).
> To demonstrate the difference: if Aragorn didn't have
> Arwen, if Sam didn't have Rose, if Gandalf didn't have
> Shadowfax, if Beren didn't have Luthien... they'd still
> have done much the same things they ended up doing. But
> when a _female_ character falls in love (sweet, sweet
> love), she seems to end up entirely motivated by that
> love. Eowyn does what she does because she wants to get
> Aragorn's attention. (And as soon as she wins Faramir's
> love, she gives up the whole fightin' business.) Luthien
> shows great courage and loyalty in coming to Beren's aid,
> but she's not the one steering the boat.
Yes, that's pretty much true. I guess my next argument would be: what
other themes could be introduced, other than love, to effectively
bring a few female characters into the plot? But if we closely look
at any character's motivation, they can all be consensed down to one
fundamental theme. For Dwarves it's generally gold (or ale ;-)), for
elves there's a great hatred of anything which affects their lovely
forest homes. Humans are pretty much the exception here, since they
were split between good and evil when they first appeared on Middle
Earth, and as a result seem to have the most complex set of goals,
although many of them could be boiled down to the idea of
self-preservatrion and individual advancement.
> > And on Galadriel, although she never really did too much directly,
her
> > influence extended well beyond Lorien. I'm thinking of the way
Sam
> > and Frodo kept thinking of her when they used her gifts later on,
basi
> > cally keeping Galadriel in the reader's mind. And who remembers
her
> > hen-pecked husband Celeborn (although Galadriel was of the more
> > prestigeous lineage, she was certainly portrayed as being far more
> > important than her husband).
>
> According to what Tolkien tells us, she's very powerful.
> She protects a large area from the bad guys, she gives
> Our Heroes all sorts of neat stuff, and she gives them
> advice. But being powerful isn't the same as being a
> strong character - she plays a rather passive role in
> the whole story, IMHO.
Yes, but to give an example, I think of her in the same way as Sauron.
Galadriel isn't mentioned much directly, but, as with Sauron, her
presence is referred to and seems to be hovering above the characters
as they travel. And at the other end of the scale we have ol'
meathead Boromir, who is very strong as a character (100% commitment,
kind of in the Minsc mould), but his involvement is limited, giving
him a less than powerful presence throughout the story.
> I don't mean to single Tolkien out as a misogynist. He's
> better in that regard than C.S. Lewis (who writes more
> active, adventurous female characters - but then tells
> them that they should leave the fighting to the guys, and
> turns on Susan for the heinous sin of growing up and taking
> an interest in boys and clothes...) And for a really extreme
> example, John Norman writes women who are _supposedly_
> intelligent, beautiful and lethal, but turn to mush as soon
> as they have a strong man to put them in their place.
> Tolkien's women are not bad by the standards of the fantasy
> stuff I've read, but then fantasy doesn't set the bar very
> high in that regard - one reason why I tend to read other
> genres these days.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Tolkien is all that deserving of the
title of mysoginist (having read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, I'd
put Ken Kesey further up the list for that award). I was just
repeating what some people have criticised Tolkien for being. And as
I mentioned, I tended to rationalise that by looking at women in that
type of society (which I see you now pull to bits ;-)).
> Bringing this very slightly back on topic, this is one
> thing in which Black Isle do pretty well IMHO. Their
> female characters are just as substantial as the male
> ones, and _both_ show some signs of family ties. (I'm
> thinking particularly of Cernd and Keldorn's quests, here.)
Well, Cernd's wife (and Jan's ex fancy bit) both hooked up with a
right couple of losers who knocked them about, which doesn't say much
for their judgement. But if we're talking female game characters
here, then I just need mention Annah from Torment, who was as well
developed (no, not in THAT way. Filthy minds) a female character as I
can remember seeing in a computer game, unless one chooses to make
their protagonist a female.
> > And as a final thought, here on the real planet Earth, men have
been
> > the superior sex (sorry, can't think of the PC way of saying this)
for
> > many centuries, by and large. It's basically been the past
century or
> > so when women have really seen any great forms of emancipation.
>
> This is not as true as people tend to think. In fact,
> in Anglo-Saxon society women had the same rights under
> law as the men (until the Norman Conquest came along
> and ruined things.) Elizabeth I was a strong and
> independent woman who put herself on as high a level as
> any man, largely by _not_ letting her love life be her
> guiding influence. Viking women were in a similar situation
> to Anglo-Saxon women, and in rare cases they _did_ fight.
I'm not sure how much power even Lizzy had when she was on the throne,
but if I may, I'll rephrase my statement to say men were _generally_
more powerful than women in the past. And I'm suitably scared about
the thought of being charged by a group of Nordic women waving sharp
instruments of torture.
> I've heard a claim, from reasonably reputable people,
> that the Vikings had a very odd little custom when it
> came to blood-feuds. If a man was killed, it was usually
> his brother's job to avenge him. But if he didn't have
> any brothers left, a sister could take on the job - she
> legally _became_ a man, shared the male quarters, and in
> some cases could even marry a woman. I've never been able
> to discover whether this story is actually true - it sounds
> a little bizarre, but it'd certainly be fun in a fantasy
> setting.
Hehe, I could just see the look on Sarevok's face when you burst in
and say to him "I'm the daddy now!". I'm not sure if someone was
pulling your leg on that story - although I can't disprove it, it just
sounds very, well, weird, especially the idea of 2 women marrying
because she was treated as a man for purposes for wreaking vengeance.
> > Now
> > if we're dealing with a swords and sorcery type Tolkien world,
then
> > I'd venture to suggest that it's perfectly reasonable for women to
be
> > subservient to the men who go out and work the fields or go out to
war
> > (especially among people such as the Rohirrim). Just my
anti-feminist
> > 2d.
>
> If we can cope with a world that includes dragons, magical
> swords, undead soldiers, immortals, and good always triumphing
> over evil in the end, I think we can stretch our imagination
> to allow for a few free-willed female characters :-)
Yeah, but I want more realism in games ;-) <ducks flames from women
out there>
> The whole
> point of fantasy is that it _doesn't_ have to be too much like
> the real world - you can come up with a fantasy that you find
> enjoyable. And me, I like free-willed women. If a woman told
> me that she'd be unable to function without me, that everything
> she did was for my sake, I wouldn't consider that romantic. I'd
> find it rather creepy and unpleasant.
>
> Geoffrey Brent
That's true, but some of us wouldn't mind hearing women at least say
that they would like to have us in their lives (violins play as P***'s
love life is played out in all its glory). Still, I think it's fair
to say that a lot of games have a fallback on this historical
viewpoint of women being inferior to not put as much effort into
developing female characters. And I agree with you, it is nice to see
a woman assume a role equally as powerful as a man (I suppose Bodhi
almost satisfies this), although I end to think that the computer
games industry will not lead the field in this respect (let's stick to
the movies, with strong female characters a-plenty, such as..... erm,
I'll get back to you on that ;-)).
Luke Goaman-Dodson
wrote in the log:
> I'm not really sure it's something to be upset about. Just about everyone
> that has ever played D&D knows that it was inspired by Tolkien's writings.
D&D has been influenced by nearly everything - D&D trolls are from Poul
Anderson's books, the magic system (which is shite, BTW) is taken from Jack
Vance's Dying Earth, along with all the minor influences that aren't
noticable at first.
Gert-Jan Spoel
: Horosco wrote:
: You can't copyright a word,
Like Windows you mean ? Or Pentium. Or even Apple.
I bet you will have a few lawyers at your office if you try to use those
names.
--
Gert-Jan
"Some people say I must be a horrible person, but that is not true. I have
the heart of Prince Charming. In my fridge."
Ykalon Dragon
Depends. If you are making windows I'm sure Microsoft would lose a
lawsuit even if your company was named Windows. But no matter what
business you are in you can probably not name your company Apple (not to
be confused with the record company Little big Apple) or Microsoft.
Ykalon Dragon
>
> "Geoffrey Brent" <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote in message
> news:3A079D72...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au...
> : Horosco wrote:
> : You can't copyright a word,
>
> Like Windows you mean ? Or Pentium. Or even Apple.
>
> I bet you will have a few lawyers at your office if you try to use those
> names.
>
> --
> Gert-Jan
>
> "Some people say I must be a horrible person, but that is not true. I have
> the heart of Prince Charming. In my fridge."
BTW Intel named it Pentium because they couldn't copyright numbers, they
tried to get a copyright on 586 originally.
Geoffrey Brent
> I tend to separate Luthien somewhat there because I see her and Beren
> both being completely smitten with the other, and do what they do as a
> result of their all-consuming love for one another.
Agreed. They are somewhat the Romeo & Juliet of Tolkien's
work :-)
> However, on the
> idea of acting in the name of a beloved, that still means essentially
> that they have an underlying motive which drives them onward, just as
> Aragorn has his motive to reclaim the crown and save the world and
> appear as the most self-satisfying, smug critter in the novel (don't
> you just hate these people without fatal character flaws? ;-)).
As I said, I never really warmed to Aragorn. It didn't
help that I had a dream one night where I was part of
the story, and discovered that he'd betrayed us all to
Sauron. I've always had weird dreams :-)
> Yes, that's pretty much true. I guess my next argument would be: what
> other themes could be introduced, other than love, to effectively
> bring a few female characters into the plot? But if we closely look
> at any character's motivation, they can all be consensed down to one
> fundamental theme. For Dwarves it's generally gold (or ale ;-)), for
> elves there's a great hatred of anything which affects their lovely
> forest homes. Humans are pretty much the exception here, since they
> were split between good and evil when they first appeared on Middle
> Earth, and as a result seem to have the most complex set of goals,
> although many of them could be boiled down to the idea of
> self-preservatrion and individual advancement.
Female characters can be motivated by the same themes
as males. I don't claim that men and women are mentally
_identical_, but the differences aren't as huge as people
love to make out. Love's important, both for men and
women, but it's not the only thing. Loyalty to friends,
devotion to the cause of justice and freedom, vanity,
or sheer accident.
> > According to what Tolkien tells us, she's very powerful.
> > She protects a large area from the bad guys, she gives
> > Our Heroes all sorts of neat stuff, and she gives them
> > advice. But being powerful isn't the same as being a
> > strong character - she plays a rather passive role in
> > the whole story, IMHO.
>
> Yes, but to give an example, I think of her in the same way as Sauron.
> Galadriel isn't mentioned much directly, but, as with Sauron, her
> presence is referred to and seems to be hovering above the characters
> as they travel.
That's true - we certainly get an impression of her
power as far as "very influential" goes, but I don't
get much impression of the personality behind it.
"Welcome to the forest, lads. You're going now? I
made you some sandwiches^Wuseful magical items to take
with you. Maybe I'll show up at the end of Book Three
and hint at how much I had to do with your success."
Eowyn is the only female character who really rises
above 'supporting cast' and gives us a glimpse of a
personality.
> And at the other end of the scale we have ol'
> meathead Boromir, who is very strong as a character (100% commitment,
> kind of in the Minsc mould), but his involvement is limited, giving
> him a less than powerful presence throughout the story.
I wouldn't have called Boromir a meathead. He's stubborn,
and he screws up, but overall I don't think he's stupid.
Bright people can make mistakes too, as demonstrated by
Saruman.
> Well, Cernd's wife (and Jan's ex fancy bit) both hooked up with a
> right couple of losers who knocked them about, which doesn't say much
> for their judgement. But if we're talking female game characters
> here, then I just need mention Annah from Torment, who was as well
> developed (no, not in THAT way. Filthy minds) a female character as I
> can remember seeing in a computer game, unless one chooses to make
> their protagonist a female.
I did like Annah. As good as BGII is, PST had a certain
magic to it that I haven't found anywhere else.
> > This is not as true as people tend to think. In fact,
> > in Anglo-Saxon society women had the same rights under
> > law as the men (until the Norman Conquest came along
> > and ruined things.) Elizabeth I was a strong and
> > independent woman who put herself on as high a level as
> > any man, largely by _not_ letting her love life be her
> > guiding influence. Viking women were in a similar situation
> > to Anglo-Saxon women, and in rare cases they _did_ fight.
>
> I'm not sure how much power even Lizzy had when she was on the throne,
> but if I may, I'll rephrase my statement to say men were _generally_
> more powerful than women in the past.
No argument there. But remember that the people who
go out adventuring are already exceptions. Most people
have steady jobs and don't go around picking fights
with monsters that can flatten entire towns :-)
FWIW, Elizabeth I had a _lot_ of power as Queen (if you
haven't seen it, 'Elizabeth' is not a bad movie.) There
were certainly people who tried to use her gender against
her, but she was an intelligent and ruthless woman and
knew how to play politics. She ruled England for many
years without screwing it up, which is more than can be
said for some of the Kings :-)
> Hehe, I could just see the look on Sarevok's face when you burst in
> and say to him "I'm the daddy now!". I'm not sure if someone was
> pulling your leg on that story - although I can't disprove it, it just
> sounds very, well, weird, especially the idea of 2 women marrying
> because she was treated as a man for purposes for wreaking vengeance.
I have my doubts about it too, which is why I don't tell
it as fact, but it's a wonderful story :-)
> > The whole
> > point of fantasy is that it _doesn't_ have to be too much like
> > the real world - you can come up with a fantasy that you find
> > enjoyable. And me, I like free-willed women. If a woman told
> > me that she'd be unable to function without me, that everything
> > she did was for my sake, I wouldn't consider that romantic. I'd
> > find it rather creepy and unpleasant.
>
> That's true, but some of us wouldn't mind hearing women at least say
> that they would like to have us in their lives
Oh, no argument there. I like women very much and am
entirely in favour of having that sentiment returned.
But when a woman _needs_ to be in a relationship with
a man to feel that her life has any worth, that's not
a good thing. (And the other way around, too.) My
experience has been that the people who are luckiest
in love are the ones who've learnt that being single
is survivable.
> developing female characters. And I agree with you, it is nice to see
> a woman assume a role equally as powerful as a man (I suppose Bodhi
> almost satisfies this),
Yes, although there's also the "vampire chicks are
sexy" factor at work there (IMHO, the _biggest_ mistake
Black Isle made was not including a Bodhi Romance
subplot ;-)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
>
> "Geoffrey Brent" <z221...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote in message
> news:3A079D72...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au...
> : Horosco wrote:
> : You can't copyright a word,
>
> Like Windows you mean ? Or Pentium. Or even Apple.
None of those words are protected by copyright law.
> I bet you will have a few lawyers at your office if you try to use those
> names.
Yes, because they are TRADEMARKED. Trademarks are very
different from copyright. If Tolkien or his estate had
decided to trademark 'hobbit', then they would indeed
be able to take legal action against RPGs using the word
without permission. But they didn't.
Note that although 'Apple' is a trademark of Apple Computers,
it only protects against certain uses of the word. 'Harry's
Apple Orchard' isn't an infringement, but 'Apple Computer
Supplies' would be (unless Apple had actually licensed it.)
Likewise, 'McDonald's Auto Barn' is fine, but 'McDonald's
Restaurant' will get you into serious trouble.
Getting copyright protection is relatively simple. In most
cases, it arises automatically. You don't even need to include
a copyright notice on your material to get that protection,
although it's a good idea - IIRC it increases the damages you
can win for infringement.
Getting a trademark is much tougher, and best left to rich
people with lots of lawyers. IIRC registering a TM can cost
hundreds of thousands of dollars US. You also have to defend
a trademark or risk losing it - this is one reason why
McDonalds & Disney are so vigorous in prosecuting infringements.
And you have to include trademark notices (which is why you'll
see things like 'Dungeons and Dragons (TM)'.) If you want to
know more about the different, look for an intellectual property
FAQ on the Web - there are a few good ones around, and they also
cover things like patents (another ball game again.)
Geoffrey Brent
companies like McDonalds are so obnoxious about cracking
down on
Geoffrey Brent
> > "Some people say I must be a horrible person, but that is not true. I have
> > the heart of Prince Charming. In my fridge."
>
> BTW Intel named it Pentium because they couldn't copyright numbers, they
> tried to get a copyright on 586 originally.
Unless Intel's IP lawyers don't know the first thing about
their job, they were probably trying to _trademark_ it.
Geoffrey Brent
Henry
Derville
You're very right there. I can only guess that by doing things this
way, it illustrates that men and women are, in fact, somewhat
different on their motivations, even if they both end up doing similar
actions. The problem is that women are motivated by love so often,
and men by power, or revenge, or loyalty, or just about anything else
(even love, but only on rare occasions ;-)).
> > Yes, but to give an example, I think of her in the same way as
Sauron.
> > Galadriel isn't mentioned much directly, but, as with Sauron, her
> > presence is referred to and seems to be hovering above the
characters
> > as they travel.
>
> That's true - we certainly get an impression of her
> power as far as "very influential" goes, but I don't
> get much impression of the personality behind it.
> "Welcome to the forest, lads. You're going now? I
> made you some sandwiches^Wuseful magical items to take
> with you. Maybe I'll show up at the end of Book Three
> and hint at how much I had to do with your success."
> Eowyn is the only female character who really rises
> above 'supporting cast' and gives us a glimpse of a
> personality.
I think that's the way with a lot of Tolkien's characters. He may
concentrate on some particular story at times (Beren and Luthien, for
example), while at other times we have Arthur the dwarf, son of Peter,
son of Paul, who kills a balrog and then gets eaten by a dragon.
There was an awful lot of this in the Silmarillion, which left me
thinking just who this named character was to warant a mention (along
with his family tree). Perhaps Tolkien should have taken a leaf out
of BG's book here and just called them "Bandit - uninjured" ;-).
> > And at the other end of the scale we have ol'
> > meathead Boromir, who is very strong as a character (100%
commitment,
> > kind of in the Minsc mould), but his involvement is limited,
giving
> > him a less than powerful presence throughout the story.
>
> I wouldn't have called Boromir a meathead. He's stubborn,
> and he screws up, but overall I don't think he's stupid.
> Bright people can make mistakes too, as demonstrated by
> Saruman.
Well, I may have been a bit harsh there, but he's more a Conan type
figure to me. I can't recall him making any big decisions regarding
anything other than fight or run (apart from trying to steal the Ring,
of course), so I found it hard to really empathise with his character.
Probably his most poignant contribution was the description of his
body sailing down the Anduin in the boat after his death.
> > I'm not sure how much power even Lizzy had when she was on the
throne,
> > but if I may, I'll rephrase my statement to say men were
_generally_
> > more powerful than women in the past.
>
> No argument there. But remember that the people who
> go out adventuring are already exceptions. Most people
> have steady jobs and don't go around picking fights
> with monsters that can flatten entire towns :-)
>
> FWIW, Elizabeth I had a _lot_ of power as Queen (if you
> haven't seen it, 'Elizabeth' is not a bad movie.) There
> were certainly people who tried to use her gender against
> her, but she was an intelligent and ruthless woman and
> knew how to play politics. She ruled England for many
> years without screwing it up, which is more than can be
> said for some of the Kings :-)
I've seen bits of that film, and some of the very good History of
Britain programme on TV at the moment. She certainly managed to grab
the country by the scruff of the neck (funny how her and Victoria were
two women, who between them had more backbone than most every King of
England put together). Certainly to listen to how she's described,
her outlook on life was very masculine in nature, being very decisive
and taking tough decisions. And there weren't all that many Kings who
messed up, but the problem was that our failures never did things by
halves, or we could be ruling the entire world by now :-).
> > > The whole
> > > point of fantasy is that it _doesn't_ have to be too much like
> > > the real world - you can come up with a fantasy that you find
> > > enjoyable. And me, I like free-willed women. If a woman told
> > > me that she'd be unable to function without me, that everything
> > > she did was for my sake, I wouldn't consider that romantic. I'd
> > > find it rather creepy and unpleasant.
> >
> > That's true, but some of us wouldn't mind hearing women at least
say
> > that they would like to have us in their lives
>
> Oh, no argument there. I like women very much and am
> entirely in favour of having that sentiment returned.
> But when a woman _needs_ to be in a relationship with
> a man to feel that her life has any worth, that's not
> a good thing. (And the other way around, too.) My
> experience has been that the people who are luckiest
> in love are the ones who've learnt that being single
> is survivable.
Indeed. Apart from anything else, it allows people to actually
develop friendly relations with the opposite sex. There seems to be
an awful problem in our society on the issue of "liking", where some
people assume that the two sexes only want one another for purposes of
procreation, rather than the goold old Platonic relationship. But
hey, I'm rambling OT here. Luckily I've still got a few female
friends, all I need now is a female girlfriend ;-)
> > developing female characters. And I agree with you, it is nice to
see
> > a woman assume a role equally as powerful as a man (I suppose
Bodhi
> > almost satisfies this),
>
> Yes, although there's also the "vampire chicks are
> sexy" factor at work there (IMHO, the _biggest_ mistake
> Black Isle made was not including a Bodhi Romance
> subplot ;-)
>
> Geoffrey Brent
I don't know what it is about vamps, but they certainly make a good
target for the outlet of lusty thoughts ;-). And when you see the
state of Buffy the vampire slayer, I can see an argument for widening
my scope to include the undead, as long as they're less lippy than
that woman (apologies to Buffy fans out there, but my loyalties lie
elsewhere when it comes to attractive female TV stars).
Geoffrey Brent
> > Female characters can be motivated by the same themes
> > as males. I don't claim that men and women are mentally
> > _identical_, but the differences aren't as huge as people
> > love to make out. Love's important, both for men and
> > women, but it's not the only thing. Loyalty to friends,
> > devotion to the cause of justice and freedom, vanity,
> > or sheer accident.
>
> You're very right there. I can only guess that by doing things this
> way, it illustrates that men and women are, in fact, somewhat
> different on their motivations, even if they both end up doing similar
> actions. The problem is that women are motivated by love so often,
> and men by power, or revenge, or loyalty, or just about anything else
> (even love, but only on rare occasions ;-)).
In fantasy fiction, yes. In real life, the differences
are less important than the similarities. About the only
form of 'realism' I absolutely _insist_ on in fiction is
in characterisation, and if a book doesn't have any 'real
women' in it I'm not likely to enjoy it much. (There have
been exceptions - LotR among them - but only a few.)
> Well, I may have been a bit harsh there, but he's more a Conan type
> figure to me. I can't recall him making any big decisions regarding
> anything other than fight or run (apart from trying to steal the Ring,
> of course), so I found it hard to really empathise with his character.
He certainly wasn't a major character - he was really a
bit of a 'fifth wheel' all along. ("We gotta have nine,
because the other guys have nine!") So he didn't get much
characterisation. But IMHO he's more like Anomen than Minsc :-)
Geoffrey Brent
Derville
> Derville wrote:
>
> > You're very right there. I can only guess that by doing things
this
> > way, it illustrates that men and women are, in fact, somewhat
> > different on their motivations, even if they both end up doing
similar
> > actions. The problem is that women are motivated by love so
often,
> > and men by power, or revenge, or loyalty, or just about anything
else
> > (even love, but only on rare occasions ;-)).
>
> are less important than the similarities. About the only
> form of 'realism' I absolutely _insist_ on in fiction is
> in characterisation, and if a book doesn't have any 'real
> women' in it I'm not likely to enjoy it much. (There have
> been exceptions - LotR among them - but only a few.)
"Real women", if you'll pardon my saying it, is a very subjective
term. I take it you mean that the women should fit with contemporary
society (no feminists in 55BC or things like that)? The other way I
interpret that is that you want to see women given 'meatier' roles in
stories, which it's worth pointing out here that I wouldn't mind
seeing myself, so as to deliver more of a balance between the sexes.
So, am I close with either of those guesses?
> > Well, I may have been a bit harsh there, but he's more a Conan
type
> > figure to me. I can't recall him making any big decisions
regarding
> > anything other than fight or run (apart from trying to steal the
Ring,
> > of course), so I found it hard to really empathise with his
character.
>
> He certainly wasn't a major character - he was really a
> bit of a 'fifth wheel' all along. ("We gotta have nine,
> because the other guys have nine!") So he didn't get much
> characterisation. But IMHO he's more like Anomen than Minsc :-)
>
> Geoffrey Brent
Well, let's not include the hamster here ;-). Boromir was a nobleman
by birth, but he was built more along the lines of the wandering
butt-kicker, defending his homeland from the evil which threatened. I
suppose there's a bit of the Keldorn in him in that respect. Perhaps
Lawful Good but Thick as Two Short Planks would describe his
alignment? But if he was Anomen, he could cast hold hobbit and then
walk up to Frodo and grab the Ring ;-)
Barbarian X
"Derville" <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:8upc8r$blu$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Oh, no argument there. I like women very much and am
> > entirely in favour of having that sentiment returned.
> > But when a woman _needs_ to be in a relationship with
> > a man to feel that her life has any worth, that's not
> > a good thing. (And the other way around, too.) My
> > experience has been that the people who are luckiest
> > in love are the ones who've learnt that being single
> > is survivable.
>
> Indeed. Apart from anything else, it allows people to actually
> develop friendly relations with the opposite sex. There seems to be
> an awful problem in our society on the issue of "liking", where some
> people assume that the two sexes only want one another for purposes of
> procreation, rather than the goold old Platonic relationship. But
> hey, I'm rambling OT here. Luckily I've still got a few female
> friends, all I need now is a female girlfriend ;-)
>
...Which brings me back to the game...
I don't know about anyone else but to me Viconia seems to be the healthiest
choice for a relationship, even for a Lawful Good character like my "Pally".
Aerie has such bad self esteem that it would be totally wrong to take
advantage of her (it FEELS like I am doing that anyway) and the same for
Jaheira: She is definitely on Rebounce Extreme! It does not feel right to
get involved with her until she gets her feelings for Khalid sorted out.
Viconia, despite her horrible childhood and her terrible experiences seems
much healthier mentally than the other two together...
/S
Ps. So all you have now is Male girlfriends? (Sorry couldn't resist... :P )
Graeme Dice
>
> "Derville" <ph...@your.inhibitions.gledson.fsnet.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:8upc8r$blu$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
<snip>
> >
>
> ...Which brings me back to the game...
> I don't know about anyone else but to me Viconia seems to be the healthiest
> choice for a relationship, even for a Lawful Good character like my "Pally".
>
> Aerie has such bad self esteem that it would be totally wrong to take
> advantage of her (it FEELS like I am doing that anyway) and the same for
> Jaheira: She is definitely on Rebounce Extreme! It does not feel right to
> get involved with her until she gets her feelings for Khalid sorted out.
> Viconia, despite her horrible childhood and her terrible experiences seems
> much healthier mentally than the other two together...
By the time you've played for a 81 days of game time, and Jaheira is
still unsure of how your relationship should proceed, I'd say that she's
taking her time.
Graeme Dice
--
"It's like comparing a cool theme park to a padded white cell."
---PREDATOR, commenting on Star Wars and Star Trek