Sorceror (& Sword) and the LoTR

[Emily Care]

Interesting analysis all around...

Imagine if the One Ring were a person -- literally, a whore -- who Frodo had to escort to her doom, resisting her temptations all the way.  Look at Gollum's actions in that light.

In a Freudian sense, the ring is an obviously yonic symbol. (Sometimes a ring is just a ring, Em) It also can be seen to represent powers of creation.  Morgoth (I believe), Sauron and Saruman all create races in imitation of the elves, humans etc that were part of the original music of creation.   Technology--magical and otherwise--is seen as threatening and perverting the natural order.  Wielders of this power are vulnerable  to wielders of the natural power of creation: the womb, as in Eowyn's killing of the Nazgul. Tom Bombadill as true guardian of natural power is free of all desire for the Ring.  The hobbits in their agrarian utopia are also holders of the true creative power of nature, hence Galadriel's gift of the Malorn seed to Sam.  Galadriel herself wields both types of power--and her temptation to the greater perverted power is one of the most dramatic moments of the work.  She could have been a doubly creative powered woman--not the phallic, but the yonic woman....beautiful and terrible, indeed.

Anway,  how does this relate to Sorcerer?  Well, Ron's dabbling in male/female story-lines. And though I personally hold that gender differences are pretty much a bunch of socially programed hooey(contrary to my rhapsodizing above), it may be that this sort of symbolism could be useful in creating a satisfying narrative for a character or player of either gender.

--Emily Care

[talysman]

John (and Ron),

I've been thinking about this all night...
Gollum wasn't dedicated to himself.  Not in the least.  None of his actions are selfish or self-preserving or anything of the sort.
Gollum is dedicated to the One Ring -- the damn thing has a spirit about it, it's intelligent, after a fashion -- it's just like a person.

Imagine if the One Ring were a person -- literally, a whore -- who Frodo had to escort to her doom, resisting her temptations all the way.  Look at Gollum's actions in that light.

There they are, Gollum and the One Ring, down in the darkness for ages, the Ring whispering to him, he caressing her...and then she up and leaves with Bilbo, passes from him to Frodo, who wants to destroy her.
Gollum wants to be with his One Ring, his Precious; he wants to protect her and caress her -- not use her (as would Sauron), not destroy her (as would Frodo).

It's a sick, twisted relationship...but there it is.

Gollum isn't thinking about himself, he's thinking about his precious.

I agree with a lot of what you say here, but still, Gollum's relationship to his precious is a possessive one. I think it seems like a "twisted selflessness" because Gollum's desire has completely consumed his self. in a sense, Gollum became the Ring, which is why the two are unmade at the same time.

it's this destruction of self that masks Gollum's possessiveness, especially in contrast to Frodo's attitude towards the Ring. he either wants to destroy it (because of his devotion to the world) or use it (when he is tempted by the Ring.) ultimately, he succumbs to the selfish side.

and Sam, of course, has the devotion without the possessiveness, without the jealousy, which is why he is able to resist the Ring. (it's weird, but not only do some people forget Sam was a Ringbearer, I even hear people reject the possibility completely; they seem to block the scene where Sam is tempted by the Ring with delusions of becoming the greatest gardner ever...)

I think the part about the Humanity rolls is right on, although I'd say Gollum blew his last Humanity roll big-time.

[GreatWolf]

Talysman,

Interesting thoughts.  I also happen to think that it is interesting that, at the climax of LotR, two failed Humanity rolls ended up meaning victory for Good.  That's another part of LotR to remember:  that Evil defeats itself, and that the victory of Good can be won through Evil's self-defeat.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

[talysman]

Interesting thoughts.  I also happen to think that it is interesting that, at the climax of LotR, two failed Humanity rolls ended up meaning victory for Good.  That's another part of LotR to remember:  that Evil defeats itself, and that the victory of Good can be won through Evil's self-defeat.

an interesting way to put it... although you'd have to add that in Tolkein's world, Good couldn't just sit around and do nothing. Frodo failed, but he failed in the right place in the right time; so it was his efforts to do the right thing that helped defeat evil.

I think this all fits in with Tolkein's theme about the lowly, simple people being the true heroes. for all his kingly powers, Aragorn wouldn't have succeeded in his own trials if it weren't for Merry and Pippin.

[b_bankhead]

I just saw the DVD of LOTR last night and something occured to me. Notice how the most powerful or indeed 'High level' character in the movie are so delicately careful to avoid even TOUCHING  the ring (particularly Gandalf, when Bilbo leaves he lets the ring lay in the middle of the floor until Frodo comes and pics it up)
It seems than in Middle Earth vulnerability to corruption seems to be directly proportional to power level rather than inversely like the typical 'saving roll' mechanic were to suggest. Also it suggests a universe where good and evil are mingled properties not binary opposites.  Everyone in middle earth has some good and evil, and almost everyone is evil enough to be tempted by the ring.

Interestingly if we regard g&e as separate metrics then its possible to have a character with high numbers in both, someone who is capable of great good and great evil (pace, Boromir trying to steal the ring, then giving his life trying to save Merry and Pippin).

Indeed if we regard power as more or less inherently corrupting then meerly 'leveling up' would add to your 'evil' score at least to a small degree.

Hmm the closer I look at Lord of the Rings, the more I wonder if people who compare it to D&D ever really read it....

[Valamir]

The more times I watch that movie the more respect I have for the screen writers.  Being in the middle of rereading the "first" book I am once again confronted with what I've always hated most about the series.  "brevity is the soul of wit" is a motto completely lost on Tolkien.  

It truely is one of the most ultimately rare (and thus precious) things in the known universe...when the screen play is actually BETTER written than the literature its derived from.  So many scenes which drag on endlessly in page after page of tedious exposition are brilliantly and succinctly summarized in just a few frames on the screen.

The one you mentioned about Gandalf and the ring's power is one of them.

Another is the fact that in the book its 30 odd YEARS between Bilbao's disappearance at his birthday party and when Frodo finally leaves the shire.  Gandalf lingered for MONTHS after that party and there are several dozen visits by Gandalf between those times.  Pages upon pages on selling the damn house and preparations for moving into the new one.

In the scene in the movie where the hobbits hide off of the road from the black rider, the fear is palpable.  Even knowing that he doesn't find them I was still gripping the armrests.  In the book...no sense of danger, no sense of urgency, no sense of nothing.  Just "glad he didn't see us, whatever he was" and several PAGES about "oh yeah I saw him back in Hobbitton asking the Gaffer where you were".

Anyway...this post seemed to have drifted dangerously close to a rant.  The point I wanted to make was that several of the most powerful scenes in the movie (like the one you mentioned) are that powerful because the movie stripped away all the extraneous baggage and drove the core point home.  In the book that same scene...not nearly as compelling in its depiction of Gandalf's vulnerability.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ralph,

Yup, you guessed it, you're off topic. I'm pretty sure there are lots of forums, etc, out there in which such a post will yield 2285 enraged replies ...

Anyway, b_bankhead, you wrote,
"... the closer I look at Lord of the Rings, the more I wonder if people who compare it to D&D ever really read it...."

I don't think you need to wonder. The answer is, they haven't, and they don't. I first realized that when I attended my first science fiction and fantasy convention in the mid-80s. I was really looking forward to it ... and was horrified to meet hordes of people who used elf names and clearly had no, zero, zilch interest in discussing the literature. And the few who did were all about Mercedes Lackey.

I bought a few books, chatted a while with Gene Wolfe (a really nice guy who likes talking to his readers), left, and never returned.

I think this is relevant because one of the goals of Sorcerer as a game (and Elfs as well, in a different way) is to have content actually span across media, based on quality, rather than be focused and self-referential, based on topical/superficial or medium. My recent points about D&D fantasy are obviously related to this aim.

Best,
Ron

[Ace]

Ron there are moments in which I wished you and the rest of the Forge crew were writing the LOTR RPG

It might be darker than I would normally like but at least you would be on the clue train

[greyorm]

I don't know, Seth...which two Humanity rolls are you referring to (Frodo & Gollum)?  And how, exactly, does Evil defeat itself?

If you are talking about Gollum, he isn't actually "evil," unless you count selfishness as "Evil" (I don't...it's a step away, but not evil...Evil is active and horrible and tries to hurt and maim and cause suffering and pain for others)...evil and selfishness are the difference between being immoral and amoral.

Here's an example of my reasoning about Gollum: At the foot of Mount Doom, Gollum attacks Frodo, chastising him for trying to destroy the ring.  But here's the thing, remember that the ring says to Gollum: 'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'
Shortly after that, Gollum begs Sam to let him live, just a little longer, so that he can finally die and become dust.

It's obvious to me that Gollum is planning his own demise, knows he goes away when the Ring goes away...that's not a very selfish thing at all.  Heck, it even seems he knows he's corrupt and miserable and but a shadow of a living thing...and he can't stand it any longer.

As well, does Evil really "defeat itself" in the novels?
Actually, does Evil ever really defeat itself?
I mean, do the good guys ever sit back and say, "Oh, crikey, we don't need to do anything because Evil will just take care of itself."

I doubt the Nazis & the Axis powers would have lost if the Allies hadn't intervened...mostly, I think this whole "Evil defeats itself" is one of the great modern myths of fantasy, and self-destructs upon actual inspection.

Tolkien, IMO, carefully avoids any such espousement, and shows that Evil is only destroyed through the efforts and sacrifices of the noble and virtuous.  Without action on the part of Good men, Sauron would have simply and ultimately prevailed...no karmic thumping of the Dark Lord whatsoever.

And back to the Humanity rolls...Humanity doesn't necessarily mean "good" in Sorcerer terms.  There are a number of Sorcerer ideas presented on this board which showcase how Humanity is not a measure of how good, or right, or nice you are...its a Premise-yardstick.  And check out Charnel Gods for another example (ie: the good you do for others -- regardless of your actual motivations or reasons!).

You could be a completely sick fuck, and yet have a high Humanity in Sorcerer terms.  Even so, I'm not certain I even agree that Gollum failed his last Humanity roll...his Humanity was dependent upon his Dedication to the One Ring. That dedication prevailed in the end, and ultimately destroyed Sauron.

However, if I recall the books correctly, Sam's dedication saved Frodo.  Forget the Dark Lord Sauron and all that crap, the important bit at the end wasn't his defeat: it was Sam's unwavering dedication to Frodo that ultimately saved his friend from damning himself with the Ring, even once Frodo had given into temptation and lost his dedication to the Fellowship and their cause.

I think maybe that is the really important bit right there to take away with you.

[Gordon C. Landis]

If I remember correctly, I'm cribbing this from an Ursula LeGuin comment about LotR, but it seems especially appropriate to a discussion of Sorcerer . . .  if you're willing to really stretch the use of demon, take a look at the various characters in terms of "light" and "dark" sides of a particular personality.  The easiest example is Theoden/Wormtounge, and Frodo/Gollum is pretty clear, but consider Gandalf/Saruman, and Aragorn/Boromir (later, Denethor).  The demon character exemplifies a corrupted version of the main character, and often directly or indirectly "tempts" that character to follow a darker path.  The issue in Sorcerer mechanics is having a way for the relationship to result in power for the main character, so I think we're talking an extensive mod of the rules here, but -

Pick one of the excellent angles on Humanity offered here already.  Each player creates two characters, one light (the main PC), one dark (the demon).  When players want more power (would normally summon a new demon), they trigger the creation of a new dark character (by the GM).  All the demon abilities and such are kinda screwed up, and this substantially transfers the summoning of new demons to the metagame . . . I'm not sure if, or how, it'd work.  But somehow, it feels like "the demon is another character who you can draw power from  - at a cost" could be a start.

And Ron - the phenomena you refer to in F/SF conventions is a familiar one.  I had the pleasure of attending a few Readercons (a quick check - yup, at the expected URL here) a decade or more back, when I lived on the East Coast.  As far as I can tell, this was organized as a direct response to the lack of actual discussion of the literature at your typical F/SF con.  And oddly enough, some of my fondest memories were the long, interesting small-group discussions with Gene Wolfe that convention allowed.  I also remember very interesting discussions with Chip Delany, though both he as a personality and the discussions themselves (filled with French deconstructionists and the like) were a bit overwhelming.

If there's a place in the "traditional" F/SF convention scene where Sorcerer and/or The Forge would get an enthusiastic reception, Readercon would be it . . .

Gordon

[Manu]

Reading all the above posts, it occured to me that, and this nicely ties in with the dysfunctional relationship model of Sorcerer, what really matters about the Ring, and about human relationships, is LOVE.

Is your love a blinding fury, that consumes you, and drives you to terrible, selfish evil to acquire the object of your lust, or is it TRUE, untainted love, where you're willing to see this object of love disappear in the horizon for its own good? Even it it hurts like Hell?

This way, you only acquire a Binding when you let the relationship turn dysfunctional and fucked up. At no point in LOTR one of the characters can say "the Ring made me do it" - the Ring -maybe- has that power, but can it really be seen operating? Gandalf chooses to avoid it, the Nazgul chose their enslavement, etc...The key here is that only the ones whose love is pure can be free, and act as such. Free yourself from the object of your desire, and find freedom and redemption...Mmm, very psychoanalytic...gotta re-read my Lacan books.

Gollum is all devoted to the Ring, and because he spent so much time bathing in his power, is going through a major "break up blues" when Bilbo steals it. But he finally realizes what a scorned lover he is, what a parody of a free being he has become. Does he realize that Frodo, the newest whore lover, has fallen victim to the ultimate jealousy ? no matter, for he finally sees that the Ring can only generate scorned lovers, jealous exes, can only generate envy and never satisfaction; The whore could only satisfy one lover at a time, and hence generates much more envy and hatred than -temporary- relief; Frodo is no better than Gollum on the edge of the pit, and I believe Gollum goes into the fire with the Ring willing to sacrifice himself to destroy the whore, out of LOVE, for the whore never loves back. The only way to freedom...

So, Humanity= freedom from desire? Now, THAT would be a f*cking scary way to see it...or just = disinterested love...

Just my two cents, I'm currently going through an entire re-evaluation of LOTR, reading all I can find about it; Currently reading an intriguing french thesis about being attracted to Evil itself in LOTR...not for the power it confers !

[Irmo]

I don't know, Seth...which two Humanity rolls are you referring to (Frodo & Gollum)?  And how, exactly, does Evil defeat itself?

If you are talking about Gollum, he isn't actually "evil," unless you count selfishness as "Evil" (I don't...it's a step away, but not evil...Evil is active and horrible and tries to hurt and maim and cause suffering and pain for others)...evil and selfishness are the difference between being immoral and amoral.

Here's an example of my reasoning about Gollum: At the foot of Mount Doom, Gollum attacks Frodo, chastising him for trying to destroy the ring.  But here's the thing, remember that the ring says to Gollum: 'Begone, and trouble me no more! If you touch me ever again, you shall be cast yourself into the Fire of Doom.'
Shortly after that, Gollum begs Sam to let him live, just a little longer, so that he can finally die and become dust.

It's obvious to me that Gollum is planning his own demise, knows he goes away when the Ring goes away...that's not a very selfish thing at all.  Heck, it even seems he knows he's corrupt and miserable and but a shadow of a living thing...and he can't stand it any longer.

As well, does Evil really "defeat itself" in the novels?
Actually, does Evil ever really defeat itself?
I mean, do the good guys ever sit back and say, "Oh, crikey, we don't need to do anything because Evil will just take care of itself."

I doubt the Nazis & the Axis powers would have lost if the Allies hadn't intervened...mostly, I think this whole "Evil defeats itself" is one of the great modern myths of fantasy, and self-destructs upon actual inspection.

Tolkien, IMO, carefully avoids any such espousement, and shows that Evil is only destroyed through the efforts and sacrifices of the noble and virtuous.  Without action on the part of Good men, Sauron would have simply and ultimately prevailed...no karmic thumping of the Dark Lord whatsoever.

Quite the contrary, Tolkien states repeatedly in his letters that evil in the end labors in vain, and that evil acts in the end only foster the case of good. In the Silmarillion, the circumstances of the flight of the Noldor were deplorable, but they brought the Noldor back to Middle-Earth, thereby restoring Eru's plans for them to be teachers for the secondborn. Earendil sought Valinor in vain, but the attack of the sons of Feanor on the havens, as Tolkien puts it himself, brings the solution: Elwing rejoins him with the Silmaril, which ensures they find their way. Quite contrary to your statements, Tolkien states in the very beginning of the Silmarillion that evil cannot, ever, prevail, but will only reveal itself to be another means for Eru's plans to come true. Since evil essentially is interference with the natural order of the world, but the natural order of the world has been laid down by Eru, the one-god, evil can never hope to finally succeed but WILL in the end be defeated. Anything else would be doubting the omnipotence of God, which is something Tolkien couldn't be further from doing.

As for the specific example with Gollum, yes, the Ring does send Gollum away. But the key is that Gollum doesn't obey. Evil defeats itself because Gollum has already been too thoroughly corrupted. The Ring is obviously aware that it can control Frodo, it has no need for Gollum anymore. But Gollum still wants his precious. If I remember correctly from the "Letters", Tolkien explicitly states that while Gollum had a chance at redemption, he didn't take it.

Tolkien likewise disagrees with you on the issue of selfishness. Selfishness and possessiveness are what, in his works, time and again, leads to tragedy and evil deeds. Miriel's selfishness in refusing to live. Feanor's selfishness in refusing to give away the Silmarils. The Teleri's refusal to aid. Thingol's unwillingness to give away his daughter, and his desire for the Silmaril. Turgon's unwillingness to leave Gondolin. The Dwarves' hunger for Mithril etc.

Tolkien is quite radical in his moral views. He states in one letter that, if someone were to steal something from him, he would retroactively declare it a gift to the thief, to spare him of the spiritual consequences.

[Mike Holmes]

Well said, Irmo. I completely agree.

And here's the slamdunk at the end. Who destroys the one ring?

Mike

[catenwolde]

Although it will be a short while yet before I can comment on the specifics of Sorceror adaptations to Tolkein's work, I must say that the response to my original query has at the very least proved that the Sorceror gamers here are a thoughtful bunch - I've thoroughly enjoyed seeing the observations and friendly debate that has arisen here, on a very complex subject that is all too often overlooked.

So, in short, thank you to everyone.

"Irmo" has very succinctly pointed out the world view, or rather the cosmological view, that Tolkein establishes in the Simarillion, and carries to fruition in the LoTR.  As he points out, the key lies in the single vision of the all-powerful creator leading to a good and noble end, despite the actions of selfish, vain, or evil creatures within or without the world.  I hadn't known of Tolkein's statement about thievery, however!  I wonder what his comments would be about his progeny's handling of his estate...

At an rate, to build upon "Irmo's" observations, there is a fascinating dichotomy to Tolkein's works which to a very great extent reflects the period and literature which he studied, that of early Anglo-Saxon England.  Tolkein professed to be attempting to build a mythological background for an England that had forgotten its past, but both that past and Tolkein himself were caught between a passionate view of mankind's struggle on earth and the belief in an all-powerful god that would see mankind through to a better end.  The structure of Beowulf as we now possess it is rife with these issues, for instance, struggling at all points to meld a passionate tale of honor, violence, and pride with a new-come Christian view of the world where the meek rather than the bold are ultimately blessed.  I believe that Tolkein inherited much of this view himself, and clearly had a dichotomous love for both the passions of the old ways and the faith of the new.  I have suspected for some time that his mournful history of the glory, vanity, and passing of the elves in all their glory is really a reflection of his yearning for the Anglo-Saxon past.  As to whether one could read a Norman tale into that of the Numenoreans, proud and warlike, yet the best of whom carry on the "old ways", I will leave to others to ponder.

Just a few thoughts to contribute to the debate - thank you all again, and more later!

Regards,

Christopher

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

In one's own forum, as opposed to the general forums at the Forge, the moderator has a full and free hand to employ whatever local policies they want.

Therefore, I say - I'm kicking all this "Tolkien meant" and "Tolkien said" hoo-ha straight outta here. We were talking about Sorcerer and The Lord of the Rings.

Several portions of the thread have been fascinating to me, and several have not (notably all the sexual-psych and any mention whatsoever of Tolkien as a person or the Silmarillion). And currently, I see it degenerating into dick-swinging about who knows how much about Tolkien, and that's stopping now.

My forum, my way (unlike the general forums, as I say). Closin' this one, thanks for playing.

Best,
Ron