So, will we ever get a Wizard type profession?

[Deadmanwalking]

I do have to point out that TOR mechanics solve the problem of Lightsabers better than most RPGs. Edge = 2, Injury = 30.

Actually...based on lightsaber duels and how they work, I'd say more like Edge 10. It's not like people actually get cut up every time they're being hard-pressed.

Still, yeah, high injury is definitely one of the better models for how lightsabers work.

[Glorelendil]

I do have to point out that TOR mechanics solve the problem of Lightsabers better than most RPGs. Edge = 2, Injury = 30.

Actually...based on lightsaber duels and how they work, I'd say more like Edge 10. It's not like people actually get cut up every time they're being hard-pressed.

Oh, right....would need to differentiate Lightsaber vs. Lightsaber from Lightsaber vs. Deli meat. I was thinking the latter case.

[Deadmanwalking]

Oh, right....would need to differentiate Lightsaber vs. Lightsaber from Lightsaber vs. Deli meat. I was thinking the latter case.

Ah! Gotcha. That makes good sense, then.

[Bradge]

Perhaps it may be helpful to bring up J.R.R. Tolkien's own views on the subject of magic in Middle Earth?

In "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien" (letter 155), Tolkien apparently apparently became concerned about his overly casual use of the word "magic" in his writings, and -- disagreeing with the lady Galadriel's explanation -- tried to explain Middle Earth magic more clearly.

Magia (true effects) and goeteia (illusions)
Morality of magic not intrinsic

I suppose that, for the purposes of the tale, some would say that there is a latent distinction such as once was called the distinction between magia and goeteia [this is defined in the O.E.D. as 'witchcraft or magic performed by the invocation and employment of evil spirits; necromancy'] Galadriel speaks of the 'deceits of the Enemy'. Well enough but magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goetia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives.

The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it specifically about it) domination of other 'free' wills. The Enemy's operation are by no means all goetic deceits, but 'magic' that produces real effects in the physical world. But his magia he uses to bulldoze both people and things, and his goeteia to terrify and subjugate.

Their magia the Elves and Gandalf use (sparingly): a magia, producing real results (like fire in a wet faggot) for specific beneficent purposes. Their goetic effects are entirely artistic and not intended to deceive: they never deceive Elves (but may deceive or bewilder unaware Men) since the difference is to them as clear as the difference to us between fiction, painting, and sculpture, and 'life'.

Magic was rarely used

Tolkien then pointed out that characters, whether good or evil, generally lived by ordinary (non-magical) means even if they were capable of magic. Regardless of the reasons why the elves or wizards chose restraint, Sauron chose mundane methods out of practicality. For magic was difficult, and slavery, machinery and other ordinary means were far easier ways to achieve the same results.

Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological one: the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such. It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills; but not of Sharkey and Sandyman's use of them

Magic is inherent, not lore

Tolkien's last clarification is that true magic wasn't learnable. It wasn't "lore." Rather it was "inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such." He noted that Aragorn's "'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes." But this was not an issue because Aragorn wasn't a pure Man. He was "at long remove one of the 'children of Lúthien'." However distant from this ancestry, Aragorn was part Elf, part Maiar, and part Man.

He also pointed out the seeming contradiction that the Numenorians used "spells" when making weapons. He didn't answer this contradiction. His letter cuts off. But others have noted that some Numenorians, the minority with royal ancestry, had elvish blood.

(As a sidenote, I -- not Tolkien -- will point out that the only sorcerers other than Sauron I recall implied in "The Lord of the Rings" or "The Silmarillion" were I believe "Black Numenorians," which was a term that referred not to skin color but rather to Numenorians who worshipped Morgoth. Sauron convinced many Numenorians to worship Morgoth during Sauron's imprisonment on Numenor before the island's downfall. Those Black Numenorians overseeing Numenor's conquests and ports in Middle Earth, such as Umbar, survived and continued to call themselves Numenorians. In contrast, those of Numenor who worshipped Eru, revered the Valar, remained friends with the Elves, and fled the island before it sank called themselves Dunadan afterwards. Some of the Black Numenorians retreated from the Dunadan to Harad and still existed even in the time of the War of the Ring. The Mouth of Sauron at the Black Gate was a Black Numenorean.)

[Deadmanwalking]

That last point regarding magic not being available to men seems disputed by, well, the whole existence of Beorn and Tolkien's comments regarding him. To quote Tolwen's post from earlier in the thread:

Beorn is dead; see vol. I p. 241. He appeared in The Hobbit. It was then the year Third Age 2940 (Shire-reckoning 1340). We are now in the years 3018-19 (1418-19). Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man.
—Letters (#144, to Naomi Mitchison from 25 April 1954

Cheers
Tolwen

That pretty clearly states Beorn as both a Man and at least something of a magician. So...his view on men using magic seem a bit less clear cut than you portray them as.

[Bradge]

That pretty clearly states Beorn as both a Man and at least something of a magician. So...his view on men using magic seem a bit less clear cut than you portray them as.

Keep in mind that Tolkien wrote the above clarification on magic precisely in reaction and dismay at the confusion caused by his overly casual use of the term "magic" (in his opinion) when he wrote. I would say that, in this case, the author is trying to clarify something he felt wasn't accurately communicated, but which he intended and believed to be the case. It isn't me portraying Tolkien any particular way. It is Tolkien.

Also noteworthy is that Tolkien's clarification on magic (#155) occurred later in time than his mention of Beorn in the letter (#144) cited above.

I should point out too that, like Beorn, Dunadan and Numenorians are Men. But Dunadan and Numenorians are not pure Men. It is possible Beorn isn't either. Even Gandalf isn't sure about Beorn's ancestry when he talks about him in "The Hobbit."

It is also clear that gifts from the Valar and/or Eru can be given or withdrawn. Once received, those gifts are innate -- such as the initial ability of Numenorians to choose when to die instead of dying involuntarily and unexpectedly. But that gift can be taken away, as it was for Numenorians later in history, or given back anew, as it was for Aragorn.

Beorn's ability could be a gift of the Valar or Eru, and so became innate for him.

In any case, the description of Beorn's ability as being triggered by anger seems to imply an inherent ability. Moreover it echoes the mythos of Nordic berserker warriors, who were described as divinely favored, pelt-wearing men -- "Odin's special warriors" -- who were seized with "demoniacal frenzy" and "go berserk" ("hamask," which literally means "change form"). They were not viewed as spell casters or scholars of lore.

To me, Beorn seems to be a magician by nature, not scholarship. I don't see him as a contradiction of Tolkien's own understanding of Middle Earth magic.

[Glorelendil]

It's possible that a member of any of the mannish cultures has a trace of Numenorean/Elvish blood, so that even if one were to adopt that interpretation, there is an easy out for allowing magic use.

I like the distinction between magic and illusion, by the way.

[Bradge]

It's possible that a member of any of the mannish cultures has a trace of Numenorean/Elvish blood, so that even if one were to adopt that interpretation, there is an easy out for allowing magic use.

Honestly, that is true. The Dunadan in later years weren't obsessed with racial purity (hence Faramir and Eowyn), though they were in earlier years. And there is no record of the attitudes of Black Numenoreans on the subject. Perhaps they grew lax too about who they'd mate with. It would be a matter of speculation.

But not all Dunadan or Black Numenoreans would have Elvish blood. Only a minority, those with royal ancestry, would have some. Those who are pure Men would have no magic.

And magic isn't common among the Dunadan. Aragorn's healing ability is considered so exceptional that it is a mark of his high royal lineage, and though Numenorians are said to have enchanted weapons it is unclear whether any Dunadan retained that ability or lost it over time. Their best weapons mentioned in "The Lord of the Rings" are of Elven workmanship.

Likewise, Beorn is seen as an unusual case as well.

Magic seems exceptionally rare among Men, to the point of being virtually non-existent.

[Michebugio]

Magic is inherent, not lore

Tolkien's last clarification is that true magic wasn't learnable. It wasn't "lore." Rather it was "inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such." He noted that Aragorn's "'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes." But this was not an issue because Aragorn wasn't a pure Man. He was "at long remove one of the 'children of Lúthien'." However distant from this ancestry, Aragorn was part Elf, part Maiar, and part Man.

I think that this considerations alone could well deny any idea of a spellcasting profession, as it has been said many times in this topic. The problem is not making magic available to characters: the point is that they simply don't learn it, so a Calling (or a profession, as for this topic's title) would be by far inappropriate given the nature of magic in Middle Earth.
And even if magic, albeit inherent to higher Men and Elves, could still be developed a bit more by members of those folks through study and application, we simply don't have any evidence of this in the books.

But magic-using Cultures? Yes, definitely - and we already have some.

[zedturtle]

I, like many of you, do not feel there is room within Middle Earth for a professional order of magic users (or wizards or sorcerers or whatever you'd like to call them). But I do feel there is plenty of room within Middle Earth for what we call magic (though the practitioners of the same might use other terms). Not all of this should be in the hands of the heroes (lest it loose its mystery), but the arguement that "no true man" may wield magic becomes a "no true Scotsman" fallacy very quickly, once we consider both the source material and the game material.

We know from the source material that Dalemen, dwarves, elves, Beorn, and high men of Gondor (including both Denethor and Faramir and other men who made the staffs) have abilities that we might regard as magical. We know from the rules that Woodmen are also able to generate magical effects (as well as the others already listed).

Being a game (and being a game about heroes, who are the exception to the rule) means that we might wish to take a more permissive role rather than a more restrictive one. That's what my (eternally, it seems) in-progress rules try to do... provide things that LMs can allow for this heroes who he or she believes would have those abilities and have them structured such that they fit within the game and don't break it.