Hi, my User name is Robin Smallburrow, my real name is Tom Davie from Melbourne, Australia, I am new to this forum but not to Middle-earth - I have roleplayed in Middle-earth many years now, some of the members here may know me as a regular contributor to Other Minds Magazine & the fan modules website.

My particular interests in Middle earth roleplaying are Fourth Age and Magic - overall I have to say I am very impressed with the new game and I especially love the Hope/Shadow & Fellowship rules - I think this does capture Tolkien's own ideas.

However, why no general rules on Magic?? I don't mean by this access to spells for player characters, what I mean by this is how does magic work for Loremasters?? I think there does need to be a supplement on this aspect.

I know that many fans were disappointed with Decipher's attempt with LOTR RPG, but what it did do well was capture the essence of the magic in Middle-earth quite well in my view.

I will also of course be interested to see if TOR plan any supplements dealing with 'Middle-earth at other times'.

Robin Smallburrow
'The Forgotten Hobbit'

Welcome!

I think this is a fair question, although I think that in a setting with so little magic (and much of it the preserve of the bad guys) it's a reasonable, even good choice not to systematise it.

Can I turn your question around though? What would you use such a magic system for? What would it enable you to do as a Loremaster? If I understood that, it would give me a better idea of what you think may be missing.

I always thought that Pendragon RPG worked best in it's original no-magic system version... One of the reasons I don't care to play LotRo is the fact that magic and monsters seem to be everywhere

Thanks Thriddle,

I regard magic as one way of explaining how the world works (along with religion, and often the 2 go hand-in-hand). So, if you say to your players - "this door is shut by magic", or " Elves have a magical ability to do this", particularly observant players (such as myself) are going to ask How?

At the moment, to say that this is an inherent trait of the character (as per the examples given) is OK for player characters, but not enough for Loremasters. Thus on p.127 of the Adventurer's Book re Broken Spells:

...fragments of old spells that retain power to this day."

How do they retain power??? And where is 'The Subtle Magic of Middle-earth' (by which I mean the overall magical 'feel' of Middle-earth, a definite theme of Tolkien's) in this??

Remember that Gandalf himself says in The Fellowship of the Ring that he once knew every spell made in all the various tongues of Elves, Men & Orcs for doors - this passage suggests that magic (although uncommon) is present in most cultures.

While some information on magic would be useful, I am not sure it needs defined via rules and mechanics at this point of the game. I think it is enough for the characters in a TOR game to see things as "magic" but not fully understand how it works.

As for the Loremaster I don't think they need mechanics to aide in their storytelling. They can simply use small bits of magic as needed, describe the effects and gloss over the mechanics of how it came to be as the players have no reasonable way to know themselves.

Being a Middle-earth neophyte myself, is there a Tolkein resource that we can look to for how magic came to be in Middle-earth? I don't think we need much more than that at this point. More of a summary of magic in Middle-earth to get a Loremaster new to Middle-earth up to speed on how magic came to be or where the power is drawn from would be more than enough.

There's a nice collection of thoughts on this topic from John Kim here: Principles of Tolkein's Magic with links to three other pages on the topic which he has attempted to distil.

Robin, I'm not sure yet I understand the problem completely. Why should the players know how magic works? Come to that, why does the LM need to know? An example of play would be useful, because at the moment my LM reply to those questions is simply "you don't know", and that seems fine to me.

Also, it sounds a bit like there are two issues here. One is the lack of an underlying rationale for magic in the *setting*. The other is the lack of an overall mechanical approach to magic in the *game*. While I'd expect these two to be linked, it's not clear to me that they are one and the same question. Does make sense, and if so, is it one of these in particular that you're missing, or both?

Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. Tolkien wrote a lot about what we would label as "magic", but some of it is contradictory, though with experience and knowledge of the texts it is possible to extract an image that most likely fits to his LotR-era ideas of the cosmologic (and derived from that 'magic') construction of Arda and Middle-earth.

The bad news is that the this information is scattered over a number of books and that the vast majority (and most pivotal) of it is in sources that cannot be named in any license game (where only the 'Hobbit' and 'Lord of the Rings' sources are allowed).

The History of Middle-earth series is important (especially Vol. 10). In addition, The Road Goes Ever On and some Issues of Vinyar Tengwar (the periodical of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship, to whom C. Tolkien sometimes gives exclusive material from his father unpublished before) and the Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien provide valuable information.

As you see, the matter is far from easy and it needs some perseverance as well as knowledge of texts going far beyond the Hobbit and LotR to judge the matter. Unfortunately, the gaming license is - for these purposes - extremely constraining and obstructive. Decipher experienced that and I fear Cubicle 7 will feel it as well. All this can be circumvented of course, but it needs a lot of work and stamina to go through it.

Best
Tolwen

EDIT: It is possible to make rules by just using the LotR and Hobbit, that would be sufficient for a game (e.g. mechanics and examples of what is possible - and what not), though using the other sources gives the understanding of how and why these things are possible and others not. In addition it gives the cosmologic basis of what is the definition of what 'evil' magic is in comparison to 'good' one (and what can be achieved by both).

Thanks thriddle and Tolwen! I don't mind doing my own homework and learning more to help make myself a better Loremaster. The link and references to works offer a good leaping point!

If you have any questions concerning specific points or hints where to look for what, just ask

Best
Tolwen

Although aimed at MERP, this has lots of useful discussion about necromancy which I think is relevant to this thread:

http://halloffire.org/wp-content/uploads/2...romancy-0.9.pdf

IMO The best source for Tolkien's own description of the mechanics of magic lie in his letters. The choicest bits are found in letters 131 and 145.

One interpretation of a Tolkien-based magical system might sound like this.

It's basic motive is immediacy; or to make the will more quickly affective in the World. The most important aspect lies in magic's inextricable link with language, and the rerlationship between langauge and reality. That said, there are two basic intentions: to affect the physical world and to affect subjectivity--what Tolkien terms in one letter magia and goetia respectively. Then there is methods for achieving the initention. Whereas intention is technically discussed in the letters, methods require plumbing the sources and narrative material, but here is an interesting selection: spells (the obvious), incantations, enchantments, songs of power, masks and seemings, technology (this is by the far the most interesting in IMO as this was the Enemy's primary magic for manipulating the physical world in a corruptive way, but also dwarves were great masters of technology as expressions of their 'magical' nature), and art (by far one of the most important for understanding elves)--and this is by no means exhaustive or definitive of method. After intention and method, there is purpose. I find that one the hardest to capture. Here are some thoughts based again on the narrative: rally heart's against despair, and counter the deceptions and devices of the Enemy.

Here are my thoughts translated into a game mechanics. (Though I must say I don't plan on introducing my system of magic into my campaigns despite the time I've spent devising one.)

First establish intention, whether or not to influence a subject (I.e., another person) or the physical world. What I thought of naming these were glamour and magic respectively. Choose a method tied to a common skill. For example, craft for creating an item, singing for songs of power and enchantments, awe and inspire, lore for spells, etc. (Let me offer a tangent. To call all Tolkien-style magical affects "spells" would not harmonize with the setting. Spells were one of many forms of magical affect. Better yet create a list of spells, enchantments, incantations, songs, crafts with each one tied to a specific common skill that determines the test involved.) Finally, declare the purpose and tie this to either Wisdom or Valour. At this point narrative would need to take over to detail how the desired magical affect is either an act of Wisdom or Valour. Finally, based on the purpose (whether an act of Wisdom or Valour) require a resistance roll using that characteristic. This resistance roll would determine whether or not the motive was flawed by Shadow. A failed test of Wisdom or Valour would be similar to a failed corruption test. Also, give each magical affect an associated drain on endurance, a cost of sorts. Also, I thought if a player-hero wanted to work a magical affect but could not create a narrative reason as either an act of Wisdom or Valour or it was clearly an act of self-gain, that would equate to an automatic failure of the resistance test and an accrual of Shadow.

These are just some thoughts from a mechanics standpoint. The books then offer numerous examples for creating a list of magical affects.

Best regards

Not really, remember that Gandalf is a powerful otherworldly being, a Maiar, probably equivalent to an angel. The Wizards of Middle Earth all were from the uttermost west, and whilst some magic may have been available in Middle Earth that was during the early ages of the world. By the end of the third age only scattered remains of active magic were around, most of the magic was the more subtle; the Elven and Dwarven affinities, the weapons and rings of power, the Nazgul.

E

A question for Tolkein scholars, since we seem to have some in the house!

When Tolkein says "tongues of...Orcs" in that quote, is it generally thought that he was referring to the Black Speech? While there are certainly spells in the latter, if the One Ring is any quide, my understanding is that Orkish speech is not quite the same thing. although Mordor Orcs use some of the Black Speech in their dialect.

Not really. Orcish was a variety of dialects that differed to such an extent, that it was hard to communicate for tribes from different regions. In the end, in the Northwest they used a brutalized form of Westron for overall communication. Therefore it is fully justified to speak of "tongues (e.g. plural) of orcs".

The Black Speech was an attempt by Sauron to make a language for all his servants, and he failed utterly in that. In the Third Age, only the Nazgûl retained its mastery. Orcs used some loanwords from it in their language(s), but that was it.

Tolkiens tells us all this in detail:

Thanks, that's about how I remembered it. Good to know my mind isn't completely going!

So in that case there would appear to be a clear implication from the original quote that Orcs (at least at some point, though maybe not in the Third Age, as you say) used spells. Otherwise, why would there be any spells in Orcish tongues?

Interesting. I don't know of any explicit mention of this - do you?

I would say that Gandalf's statement refers *specifically* to the Third Age. As an Istar, he first appeared in Middle-earth around TA 1000. The pivotal point is that the Istari had only extremely faint memories of the Far West, so that wouldn't remember anything specific from their times as non-Istari. In addition, they - likely - also had no first-hand experience from Middle-earth before their Istar time, since they were with the Valar before Morgoth created Orcs and therefore knew them only from hearsay (so to say) until they encountered them in the Third Age. In any case, their extremely dimmed memories from these times wouldn't help them in any case.

Anyway, we know that the Istari had to re-build their knowledge almost from scratch (as far as such advanced lore like culture-specific knowledge is concerned). Therefore it is IMO unlikely that they knew these things from pre-Third Age experience.

Therefore I am in favor of Gandalf referring to his experience *as Gandalf* (not the Maia he was in Aman or before) here. At the time of his statement he had about 2000 years of experience in these matters, so he most likely had plenty of opportunity to get his lore.

Best
Tolwen

Interesting, thanks. And apologies for putting words in your mouth. It was Eldath who commented about pre-Third Age magic, not you.

There are some writings about magic, based on Tolkien's writing, collected in Other Hands magazine, Issue 27 (google it online, all issues are downloadable, lots of good Tolkien stuff).

I also recommend Issue 11 and the article on Unati and Axani (boundaries of the possible and the moral) as well.

Rob

All of this is available within Other Minds Magazine (see my signature). All of the old 'Other Hands' Issues (Hardcopies from the 1990s) were digitalized and made available in OM, Issue 10.



Best
Tolwen

Sort of, I did mention the possibility of magics being likely more common in earlier ages, remember I did say by the end of the third age rather than pre-third age. The Istari arrived about 1050, almost two thousand years before events of the Hobbit and though they probably had no knowledge of Middle Earth specifics it is probable that they learnt a great deal in the early days. It is entirely likely that they could and likely did learn many things which pre-dated their arrival.

Lastly, remember that it was written to highlight the slow reduction of magic in the world that he once knew all the spells in all the languages of elves men and orcs, but by the time of the Fellowship he had forgotten many.

E

Yep. Of course the UT passage does go into this kind of detail. Therefore there's some (or more) leeway with respect to the time of the actual usage of these spells that Gandalf had learned in Middle-earth.

You're right of course that it is likely that the use of magics has declined toward the end of the Third Age, though for the bad guys the often cited argument of danger does not count. So, it would be logical to assume that on the baddies' side, magic was still practiced since it gives a clear advantage (the late effects like Shadow accumulation do not count here in light of the immediate gains *g*).

When magic (in the way of spells like for the standard Fantasy RPG's) should have declined, I have no problem with that for sure. But since we speak of a world with a high degree of detail, I'd demand a high standard in the way of the inner logic why this decline has taken place. From my many long years of gaming in Middle-earth I can say, it is the most difficult task for sure

Best
Tolwen

Have you ever read Larry Niven's When the Magic Goes Away? His world has a limited amount of mana that powers magic. It simply gets used up like any other resource. It lingers longer in remote places where there haven't been people to use it...

No I haven't, but your short description gives a good image how it works. The question is whether the 'magic' in Tolkien's Arda works along similar principles. This can only be decided by delving into his other posthumously published works (Letters, UT, HoMe etc.) where he has touched the topic of 'magic'. Over the years I have read a lot of that and I am doubtful whether the magic in Arda can be represented in the way of a resource that is "used up" over time and usage.

Best
Tolwen

One way to think about magic in Tolkien's Middle-earth is his statement, "To make the will more quickly affective." As Arda-marred passes into the Third Age, more of the it's governance is dictated by the natural laws enacted by the Powers of Arda. That is, the realization of the Vision disclosed after the Song of Creation is accomplished more and more through natural processes put in place by the Powers and less and less by direct intervention, I.e., the great labors of the ages before the Sun and Moon. Magic (defined as the ability to make the will immediately affective) is less the means for the completion of the Vision of Iluvatar as time passes.

This is rendered more true after the Downfall of Numenor. The Powers lay down their mandate from Eru to redress the folly and pride of the Numenoreans. Middle-earth and Aman are sundered from each other as Arda-marred is folded back on itself to create a globed world similar to ours. Aman is no longer contained within the globe boundaries of this world. Where the Powers represent the perfect manifestation of magic as the immediacy of intention, magic is in some sense sundered from the world that now is; and, hence, it begins to fade. Better said, magic is slowly being replaced as the process for realizing the Vision of Iluvatar. The process replacing magic is that of natural laws, something just as powerful but less immediate; hence, it is different from magic.

The Wizards are not magic-users per se. They are the direct intervention of the Powers in the only means possible given this new reality just described. The best way to understand the Wizards, I think is as divine intervention suited to the exigencies of the Third Age. The Wizards are themselves numbered among Powers albeit of a lesser order. But, they must operate (affect their will) within a world where the Powers no longer act in their unveiled majesty. From a gaming perspective, then, this makes the Wizards a problematic source for deriving what magic a character is capable of. They can provide us insight into how magic works within the boundaries and limitations of the Third Age; and this is very important.

It is possible, imperfectly and tenuous at best, to put magic on a timeline. In the ages before the Sun and Moon, magic was a thing of the Powers in shaping the world. During the First Age of the Sun and Moon, the Firstborn were the primary shapers of the world (think here not only of the physical and natural but cultural and socio-economic). By the Second Age, the Second of Iluvatar's children are the primary works of magic--it is the age of Numenor; and it is the might and splendor of it's culture that shapes the world. Come the Third Age, magic is fading to be replaced by natural laws. Dwarves and Ents, being the adopted children of Iluvatar also work magic, but you will notice that they have not defined ages as have the Powers, Elves and Men; and, in turn, they are subject to the fate proscribed for magic by the actions of the other three.

This all seems really academic after previewing it, but IMO it helps make sense why TOR may not have a magic system like DD, RM or MERP, etc. Granted, this is one of many possible reasons I imagine. But I like what TOR does with Middle-earth and magic precisely because it seems to follow what we know of Tolkien's conceptions.

My take on the "Why no magic rules" issue:

I don't miss the rules one tiny bit. Not for the Players (they shouldn't have rules to play wizards any way IMO) and not for myslef (I don't need rules to play nasty/benign NPC Spell-users).

But I do miss GUIDELINES!!

Maybe it's because my Tolkien Lore is not as high as other users on this Forum? Maybe it's just because I as a DM/LM like to read and be inspired by Gaming Books?

Regardless of the reason I would have like the game to discuss Magic more. In general terms. It doesn't have to be rules per se. Only design discussion and LM advise on how to handle NPCs using magic.

Pendragon is often used as an example when comparing this game to something else I have noticed. And I recall the First Pendragon Rulebook I ever read. It had zero Rules for Magic. But IT DID HAVE a section about Magic just the same, discussing how the GM could/should use it in game. How magic should be depicted, what atmosphere it should contain, the doom the gloom, the smell and feel of it.

Such a section is completely missing from TOR IMO.

/wolf

I agree with you completely Wolf. It would have been nice to have a section on the LB that gave guidance on how the designers of TOR preferred magic portrayed. When I think of future releases, I wonder if there will be more information about magic. Then I start to wonder if the way I'm portraying it in my campaign will even jive with what may be released in teh future.

Maybe someone can start a post about describing the taste and feel of magic in Wilderland at the end of the Third Age. It would be nice to have a wide a range of perspectives on which to draw.

So far, it seems most of the posts deal with the question of magical systems and house rules for introducing magic. I know mine do. But, there is not too much on, "How magic should be depicted, what atmosphere it should contain, the doom the gloom, the smell and feel of it."

I really like that idea!

I third this opinion, or something like that! That's kind of why up-thread I was quizzing Robin about what he was really missing. My preferences are very much as Wolf has outlined them - I don't need a system, but I would love some principles to work by.

This sounds quite a nice approach. Magic (users) without rules to play them (either PC's or NPC's)
For baddies, it might not be bad though to have some guidelines to use them (and their magic abilities) as - rare - major antagonists. The Mouth of Sauron, the Witch-king (plus perhaps others of the Nine before they became Nazgûl) are examples of men who learned sorcery (e.g. evil magics) and used them to further their goals.

Even if such things are not made available to PC's, it might not be a bad idea to have guidelines for the use of such evil magic. It helps to estimate what these abilities can do - and what not. That way, the GM/LM is better able to judge in his campaign what is fair game according to the rules.

Best
Tolwen

Thanks to Ghostwolf & others for putting a bit more clearly what I was trying to say (I think) - I heartily concur that guidelines for Loremasters is what I really wanted - then I can at least answer any pesky queries from players (why can't I play a magician etc.) about why magic 'works' the way it does (or doesn't!)

Robin S.

Thanks, Rob. You're too kind!

But just to be clear for others, 'Únati and Axani' is in Other Minds issue 11, not Other Hands.
(Can't get clearer than a direct hyperlink, eh?)

Cheers!
--Os.

Nice article, Neville! Thanks for writing it.