Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 05:08:15 PM
I thought Aslan was the Narnian version of Jesus, and the "Emperor Beyond the Sea" was what they called God.

   Aslan is the Narnian embodiment of the Son, the "Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea" is the Narnian term for the Father. Iluvatar is God/the Most Holy Trinity, so the Father, Son, and Spirit seen in their Unity instead of their Trinity. Some statements by Tolkien suggest the 'Secret Fire' or 'Flame Imperishable' mentioned in a few places is the Holy Spirit, but aside from that, Tolkien keeps the distinction of the Divine Persons offscreen, as appropriate in a pre-Incarnation/revelation of the Trinity world.

Quote from: Rhedyn on January 27, 2021, 09:25:11 PM

Quote from: Brad on January 27, 2021, 08:28:22 PM70 year old Rambo and 30 year old Rambo have little in common and the younger one was killing the bad guys because they were bad.

Lol

Seriously, it's overt political calls to action every movie.

Rambo? Really!?

Hold on now, let me take a look here...

1.   The homeless are people too, and should be treated with human dignity and respect. They have a right to protest against unlawful detention and physical abuse by corrupt law enforcement officials.

2.   A political prisoner's civil rights were violated when he was unlawfully coerced without council present into going on a suicide mission by a corrupt right-wing faction of the U.S. military. They then then betrayed and left him to die when he uncovered that they had knowingly abandoned members of the U.S. military in their past war of imperialist aggression against the country's indigenous people of color.

3.   Bravely supporting an indigenous people's right to self-determination and freedom of expression against an Islamophobic policy of military aggression and systematic racism by Russia's unlawful interference in their country's ability to self-govern.

4.   A group of straight white Christians were made to give up their privilege and experience first-hand the violent oppression of the indigenous people to better understand the real harm of systematic genocide in Asia.

5.   The Human trafficking of young women of color by cisgender men is a real issue that needs to be addressed. This kind of sexual exploitation occurs disproportionately in underprivileged minority groups that are the most vulnerable to sexual predators.


Holy shit! Rhedyn is 100% right.

Political calls to action in every film!

QuoteAslan is the Narnian embodiment of the Son, the "Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea" is the Narnian term for the Father. Iluvatar is God/the Most Holy Trinity, so the Father, Son, and Spirit seen in their Unity instead of their Trinity. Some statements by Tolkien suggest the 'Secret Fire' or 'Flame Imperishable' mentioned in a few places is the Holy Spirit, but aside from that, Tolkien keeps the distinction of the Divine Persons offscreen, as appropriate in a pre-Incarnation/revelation of the Trinity world.

Indeed and dialogue between Finrod Felagund and human doomed-love-interest of his brother quite openly speculates about Incarnation as a way for Eru to enter the Arda which seemed impossible for Finrod.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on January 28, 2021, 04:48:41 PM

QuoteAnd tossing him beyond the walls of night isn't really death either, but that's a flexible concept when applied to gods anyway. And if you want to be really technical, there's the argument that the Valar aren't gods. Though that has more to do with Tolkien's Christian overlay than the polytheistic sources he draws upon.

I mean they are. The terms "gods" within Middle-Earth even in published material leads to Valar.
I mean god is flexible term TBH - if English language shifted bit differently - maybe angels would be called gods, while YHWH would be called AllFather or something.
It's not like inherently One God - Christian term.

But generally - death is flexible term in Middle-Earth as Ainur, Elven and Human souls (maybe I should say spirits about Ainur) are all immortal - so always something remains after destruction of body - Men are just doomed/gifted with inevitable physical death, and their souls return to Eru, Elves souls are bound to Arda, but their bodies can be destroyed and needs recorporation - and Ainurs lacks bodies unless they make some for themselves and they are more clothes than true bodies - disposable easily usually - unless you invest too much power in one and get stucked like Melkor, Sauron and Curunir - with their powers vaslty dimnished if body were to be destroyed as they invested power in physical form.

That was kind of the whole point when I raised the question -- the Valar are gods, for all practical purposes. But the term is avoided because Tolkien comes from a very Christian perspective, where there can only be one omnipotent god (or three, though the point of the trinity is they're still unitary). Not a pantheon, and certainly not the multiplicity of small gods like the nymphs of Greek myth. It's not, primarily, a matter of fundamental differences. It's a definitional one, one that says more about the definer than the role and nature of the defined. And by avoiding the term, Tolkien is telling us a lot about the lens he uses to view his own little creation.

Out of curiosity, what published material uses the term "gods" to refer to the Valar? I'm massively out of date, since The Silmarillion is the only one of his posthumous works that I've read. I'd be interested in placing it. The terms Tolkien used shifted as his thinking evolved, for instance the drift away from "goblins" after The Hobbit. But such shifts tended to be deliberate, and have meaning, because Tolkien, even beyond basic linguistic concerns, was very careful and precise about the terms he used. I'd expect it would be from an early draft or letter.

And the Glorfindel question, or the two-world nature of elves, doesn't really apply to Morgoth. The Valar (and Maiar) were electively incarnate, and it's not clear they could really be destroyed, though certainly their material forms could be (cf. Sauron). It's a couple steps away from the spirit/soul question, into a more numinous realm.

Edit: @Armchair Gamer's summary of the nature of god and the trinity in Middle-Earth and Narnia is spot on.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 05:08:15 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 03:20:36 PM
It's not that dissimilar from Narnia. Both have traditional pagan mythological elements, seen through a Christian lens. Aslan isn't any more blatant than Illuvatar.

I thought Aslan was the Narnian version of Jesus, and the "Emperor Beyond the Sea" was what they called God.

Aslan is. Very blatantly so, just like Illuvatar is very blatantly a stand in for the one Christian god.

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 06:26:27 PM
Out of curiosity, what published material uses the term "gods" to refer to the Valar? I'm massively out of date, since The Silmarillion is the only one of his posthumous works that I've read. I'd be interested in placing it. The terms Tolkien used shifted as his thinking evolved, for instance the drift away from "goblins" after The Hobbit. But such shifts tended to be deliberate, and have meaning, because Tolkien, even beyond basic linguistic concerns, was very careful and precise about the terms he used. I'd expect it would be from an early draft or letter.

  It goes back to the earliest forms of the mythology included in The Book of Lost Tales, but the use of the term 'gods' for the Valar is still floating around as late as the drafts of the Ainulindale and Quenta Silmarillion included in Morgoth's Ring and The War of the Jewels. Thus, I wouldn't be surprised if the final scrubbing occurred around the time he was frantically trying to get the Silmarillion ready for publication, or was perhaps even edited by Christopher posthumously.

   But there are even references to created beings as 'gods' in some passages of Scripture, so the use of the term isn't as outre for Tolkien as one might think. There is, of course, an infinite gulf and fundamental difference between Eru/God and the Valar/any lesser thing that might be called a 'god'.

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 03:23:54 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on January 28, 2021, 02:55:04 PM

Quote from: Valatar on January 28, 2021, 03:11:35 AM
Alignment being a quantifiable, semi-permanent thing in D&D has always struck me as dumb; some random Drow grocery shopping probably shouldn't be radiating pure evil, unless they're shopping in a Whole Foods.

What kind of Drow does their own grocery shopping when there are so many slaves to do it for them?

5e Drow I guess.

Drizzt is more enlightened. He even refuses to shop at Waukeenmart, because some of their products are manufactured in Thayvian bloodshops.

Even the only good Drow never does his own shopping.

QuoteOut of curiosity, what published material uses the term "gods" to refer to the Valar? I'm massively out of date, since The Silmarillion is the only one of his posthumous works that I've read. I'd be interested in placing it. The terms Tolkien used shifted as his thinking evolved, for instance the drift away from "goblins" after The Hobbit. But such shifts tended to be deliberate, and have meaning, because Tolkien, even beyond basic linguistic concerns, was very careful and precise about the terms he used. I'd expect it would be from an early draft or letter.

In Silmarillion it's said Valars were called "gods" by man of Middle-Earth.
For me the Christian thing here is definitely that Valars are bound by Eru's rules, and they are obedient while even with common Overgod or Allfather trope in pagan religions, the lesser deities often did whatever they wanted, and whole system has way way less of clear objective morality included.
Nevertheless as nominalist I have no problem with calling Valars "gods" - words are well just a conventions, true meanings are what matters.

QuoteAnd the Glorfindel question, or the two-world nature of elves, doesn't really apply to Morgoth. The Valar (and Maiar) were electively incarnate, and it's not clear they could really be destroyed, though certainly their material forms could be (cf. Sauron). It's a couple steps away from the spirit/soul question, into a more numinous realm.

Material form of both Ainurs and Children of Iluvatar and other beings like dwarves can be destroyed almost always. That's nature of matter. Even Valar physical form could be destroyed if you had enough guns. Sauron was physically destroyed at least thrice - after fall of Numenor, then killed by Gil-Galad and Anandil, then destroyed as Ring's destruction made him too weak to keep body.
Difference was Ainurs could incarnate on their own will and they were not essentially bound to their bodies (though having bodies cost them power) while Children of Iluvatar were unable to do so - elves needed Mandos powers to get new meatsuits, human souls left Arda.

I love Race as Class and even more, specific classes for specific races. I don't enjoy the idea that any race can be any class because even if there are Orc mages and Elf mages, I want them to be wildly different.

As for SJWs & WotC, they can both fuck off into meaningless oblivion.

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 28, 2021, 10:18:10 PM
As for SJWs & WotC, they can both fuck off into meaningless oblivion.

I think we can all agree on that.

As interesting as all the pedantry over who used "race" for what and when throughout history, it's all just masturbatory as regards the original point.

Race is inextricably tied to fantasy through the influence of Tolkien in our time in history.

Species is inextricably linked to scientific classification in our time in history.

One of these terms is going to fit better with fantasy, and one with science fiction. Can you spot which one?

Anyway, warforged are a "race" just like all the other ones. Talking animals? That's not even a thing for a PC.

Terms like "heritage" are just people tip-toeing around the squeaky wheels in the hobby and making themselves look foolish while doing so. If the central issue with "race" is uh.. "species essentialism", then there is no fixing this until we do away with all racial modifiers and differences. For people who are concerned with "race" because it shares three letters with "racism", then might I suggest that they similarly paint over the name of a certain African country on their maps.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on January 28, 2021, 11:57:11 PMIf the central issue with "race" is uh.. "species essentialism", then there is no fixing this until we do away with all racial modifiers and differences.

Or at least do away with identical-and-obligatory-by-race sets of modifiers and differences. If individuals get to customize the options a particular racial/species/ethnic background makes available, so that no PC of Group X is necessarily imbued with the same X, Y, Z characteristics, then this in principle should suffice. (Barbarians of Lemuria actually does this already; every background option has a list of available boons and flaws from which the PC must choose at least one, but they aren't required to take more than that.)

Whether this is worth the disadvantages this creates (making preset templates more time-consuming to implement, making tactical planning a little trickier, hitting the GM with some extra setting design to fit outlier oddities into the gameworld) is a question each group will have to answer for itself, I think.

Philosophically speaking, is that really addressing the "problem"? The races still have different inherent traits.

QuoteI love Race as Class and even more, specific classes for specific races. I don't enjoy the idea that any race can be any class because even if there are Orc mages and Elf mages, I want them to be wildly different.

There was a game that had tank, archer and mage classes separate for 3 races - elves, mages and dwarves. But I personally have no such desires. Differences between species are IMHO better made on special racial features, or like in Warhammer.

QuotePhilosophically speaking, is that really addressing the "problem"? The races still have different inherent traits.

But you are not stuck with one trait, but you choose like two good traits and one bad trait that are uniquely orcish and elvish but as there is list of 50 each, they do not define each elf and orc.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 29, 2021, 12:53:11 AM

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on January 28, 2021, 11:57:11 PMIf the central issue with "race" is uh.. "species essentialism", then there is no fixing this until we do away with all racial modifiers and differences.

Or at least do away with identical-and-obligatory-by-race sets of modifiers and differences. If individuals get to customize the options a particular racial/species/ethnic background makes available, so that no PC of Group X is necessarily imbued with the same X, Y, Z characteristics, then this in principle should suffice. (Barbarians of Lemuria actually does this already; every background option has a list of available boons and flaws from which the PC must choose at least one, but they aren't required to take more than that.)

Whether this is worth the disadvantages this creates (making preset templates more time-consuming to implement, making tactical planning a little trickier, hitting the GM with some extra setting design to fit outlier oddities into the gameworld) is a question each group will have to answer for itself, I think.

Uh, didn't we have that in 2E onward? Where the various subflavors of elves and dwarves could get different stat modifiers and abilities? PF has alternate racial trait rules as well.