so with the forum being dead i thought id give us all something to discuss

so who is your favourite tolkien character out of the books, so we're not talking cards here

mine no surprises is Gandalf. from the moment he walked up bilbo's path in the hobbit he become the character i always go to when thinking of middle earth. he's also great from an RPG perspective, he comes and goes, stays where he wants, knows all peoples…and of course he's a wizard

he also has a sense of humour (of sorts) which i appreciate, and some of his lines are just epic (the one about bilbo not killing gollum is my favourite)

rich

Great idea Rich! My gut reaction is Erkenbrand, Aragorn, or Tom Bombadil (and that's limiting myself to TH and LotR). Narrowing from there will be pretty difficult, but I think tops would be Tom Bombadil (probably the worst choice Jackson made regarding characters to excise).

Really tough choice though, even beyond those three there are Bilbo, Sam, Dain, Thorin, Glorfindel, Eomer, Halbarad, and BEREGOND (excited for that card!!!). Going back in the ages there's Gil-galad, Manwe, and Orome. I don't know if Eru could be considered a "character" really, but he would hit the list too. So many likable characters with so much depth (regardless of what some on the board would say).

I'm with John, there are too many great characters!

But I think I have a soft spot for Sam. As far as minor characters, I like Elfhelm (see avatar) and Imrahil.

As a race, I do love Durin's Folk.

good choices both

if we're talking races id have to go back to basics again and say hobbits

i think my two choices come from fond readings of the hobbit when i was younger, though i love the shire and everything hobbity.

the 1st book of the fellowship is the one i re-read the most

rich

Does Bill the Pony count as a character?

starhawk77 said:

sure does- and a good one too

Beorn

Bilbo, the hobbit himself. He's just way too endearing!

mine is the guy I think his name is Bard the Bowman of Esgaroth … like there was a game character called Brand that is his grandson or something

Anyway, The story of him shooting the dragon in the hobbit while not as full on as the scouring of teh shire really shows Tolkiens complete disrespect, near hatred of politicians and army leaders.

I find it one of the rare moments in fantasy literature where there is a almost magical conversions of subtext and story to make a really fantastic moment.

All the violence all the famous generals (heroes) all the major plot interactions of armies and nations… it is in fact the single action of a lone, almost ignored .. single soldier that saves the town and is the true unsung hero. It is Bard that acting alone and beyond the call of duty that achieves teh impossible, an act of the every man.. the power of teh individual.

The implications that can be read though this part of the novel is deep and moving and to mind mind speaks a truth about war and politics, one that Tolkien got a very real lesson in with ww2 and angered him so much that it lead to the extremely unsubtle sequence were people turn their backs on Saroman and the act of not following orders and listening to politician leads to true peace in teh shire and teh insta nullification of his power….. this is teh same point.. but much more artfully presented.

IMO the single best moment of all 3 books.

Are we limiting this to Hobbit/LotR or is it just that people only have favs from those? Mine would be from Silmarillion.

I have always had a strange taste in favourite characters. Mine are Saruman and the Mouth of Sauron, hardly in the books either of them, but still! I like the fact that Saruman is this sort of offstage malevolent evil for a lot of the time, and he has a terrific name too. Mouth of Sauron is there for what, a page and a half? Just the ballsy attitude he has in treating all the heroes with complete disdain at the gates of Mordor. Classic!

@dam - from anything tolkien wrote

@spalanzani- i like those two as well…..mouth of sauron has that really eerie feel with him, imagine if they had won…..

The primary strength of Tolkien (for me and others I am sure) have always been the variety of characters. Some obvious, some probably not so. Mostly taken from a writer-reader perspective.

Gandalf. You would think it is easy to make a likable old wizard like him, but there are few (if any) other writers who achieved that.

Beorn. Very special, the way of life represented nicely there.

Boromir. Love the dilemma, love the humanity in the failure, love the redemption.

Sméagol/Gollum. The hate and pity aspect is perfect.

Túrin Turambar. Great and tragic, there are similarities to Aragorn's story, the latter being much more lucky, the former much more powerful.

Fingolfin. Sheer power gazing from almost every line he's in. How I wish Tolkien actually had finished the Silmarillion himself.

Glorfindel. Sort of a gateway to the great old days.

Gildor Inglorion. Again, just a few lines in the story and a very memorable character springs up.

Bilbo Baggins. The transition is close to unbelievable but just believable enough.

Treebeard. Ents rock (and stone).

Huan. Another strength, why not put in a real bad-arse dog, kicking Sauron's butt in the process, and of course dying emotionally as is the way with dogs.

Tom Bombadil. The best enigma there ever was.

lleimmoen said:

Fingolfin also gets my nod for favourite, dude at least went out like a champ, toe to toe with Morgoth.

But there is another for whom I have a soft spot, namely Hurin, father of Turin. Last man standing in the last stand of the Men of Dor-lómin, most renowned deed of war the fathers of Men did for the Eldar. Taken prisoner to Angband and his line cursed by Morgoth, had to watch all the evil that befell the land, before he was finally released, only get to taste yet more woe. "Mightiest of the warriors of mortal Men." (Silm)

I am relatively new to the lore of Middle Earth (huge Star Wars Fan), but I am being drawn in deeper and deeper with each passing day. So far, only reading the Trilogy and it being a while since I read the Hobbit (though I want to reread it before the film) I'd say that I tend to like groups more than individuals:

I like the idea of the Dunedain/Rangers. Silent protectors that allow the innocent to live thier lives in peace and freedom.

My favorite race would be the elves. I would like to read more about the glory days.

I like the eagles, though I don't know much about them. Perhaps I will learn more when re-reading the Hobbit.

As far as individuals go, I like Strider more than Aragorn. Same person I know, but I just like the ranger version more than what he becomes. I like Sam as far as Hobbits go, as he is easy to root for and his devotion, loyalty, and bravery are admirable. My favorite individual so far would have to be Glorfindel. Not much is known relative to the others, but it must have been something to see him in action as a warrior. The lack of details leaves me asking for more, and I wish Peter Jackson had included him in that scene instead of Arwen at the river.

Ranger of the Force said:

I'm new(ish) also (abt. 4-5 years), but I thought I'd point out that the notion of LotR as a trilogy isn't really correct. It's meant as a single novel in 3 volumes (6 books). Some would say this is quibbling, but I think it's an important distinction. Anyway, welcome to the club!!! Eagles are great (so are the elves), and Glorfindel is spectacular!!!

Sam has got to be my favourite character from the books. Solid, loyal, brave, the list goes on. The most important character, in my opinion, has got to be Deagol surely. No Deagol = no ring = eventual total domination of Sauron.

Ted Sandyman said:

nice thoughts there ted, i enjoy these 'what if' scenarios…going along that reasoning it could be said every ringbearer had this importance, some positive, some negative

for instance the first ring bearer is sauron, obivously negative by making it in the first place…..but is it really though? putting a vast proportion of his power into one item that was his eventual downfall…..perhaps it was positive after all

then we have isildur who again was negative by claiming the ring as his own, instead of taking the opportunity to end it there and then

then deagol who as you say ted found the rings so positive

then we have smeagol who is a bit of a mixed bag (representing his nature after all). he did wrong by killing his friend, however he did effectively hide the ring from the world for many years after he hid in the misty mountains. he was of course eventually the one who destroyed the ring.

bilbo is positive…..he had the willpower to keep the ring and was the only one to hand it on willingly

frodo is again obviously positive

and lastly but certainly not least is a ringbearer many forget about -sam. you pick sam wisely ted, as he has always been the most powerful character in my eyes. his strength of will, courage and determination saves frodo more times than i can remember and without him sauron would have most certainly reclaimed the ring

rich

For me Hobbits from the Lord of the Rings (safe Sméagol), though I really liked them all I guess, never stood out above others, but the above posts got me excited about them as well; and their representitive cards in the game, actually. Sam could be a really interesting character, since we got Elladan and Elrohir and now Kili and Fili, do you guys think Frodo and Sam could combo as well - at least the one way, which would make sense?

lleimmoen said:

probably- though i think given we already have frodo, the text will be slightly different in sytle….perhaps on sam it could say

while frodo baggins is in play sam gamgee gains +1 willpower, defense, attack and hitpoints

exhaust sam gamgee to bring frodo baggins back from discard pile (limit once per game)

ive always thought that merry and pippin will have the elladan and elrohir more than sam and frodo, even though sam/frodo were much closer, i think their 'relationship' was more complex, especially with frodo's dwindling health, i see sam more as a carer, and of course frodo is technically his master

rich

richsabre said:

I was going to say I like lleimmoen's idea (Sam/Frodo combo-ing), but I think I like the Merry/Pippin idea even more!

John85 said:

well i think theyre both as valid as each other, and must be a delight for the designers (or perhaps a headache? )

i guess it depends on at what point you want to take the character from, and i guess we shall see more than one copy of the 4 hobbits. take the walk to breeland for example, all 4 are very much different compared to the events after moria, and are even more different after the end of the TT.

despite merry and pips comic portrayal in the films, ive always found merry to be more frodo-like, with pippin being the daft one. so again it depends on if they want to go down the 'bumbling idiot comedy duo' route like jackson did

richsabre said:

Definitely some major character development from volume to volume.

richsabre said:

I agree

richsabre said:

Let's hope not

on the note of the hobbits i have said, and still feel, that we shall be getting them in the numenor cycle. aside from my reasons for this, i think, just as we had alot of noldor player cards with the elrond family heros, we shall get much expansion on the hobbit race when we receive merry pippin and sam….which im really looking forward to.

rich

PS- what would people say to a weekly thread discussing tolkien lore…seeing as i dont have time for tolkienology….doesnt have to be me who runs it.

could be things like …..'what if X happened' or could saruman have taken down the balrog? what if he had been in gandalf's postion of leading the company….what descions would you have made in the company's place? (i really like that last one…i may do it tonight/monday)