Last Alliance

mepbmlist
#1

Okay done the first draft of the module for this game now. I will post it
to the Website www.MiddleEarthGames.com and also send out to all the players
who requested information about the game and need a response by Monday.
Attached is the module for speed

1) whether or not you want to play and if so what side (and team if joining
with other players)
2) amendments that you think are appropriate

The Last Alliance

Amendments to the pdf that you will get:
To fit the FA restrictions (only 4 SNAs allowed)

Suggested ones to lose are:
Dwarves 6) Force March
Fire King lost 13) Train at 20
Dark Lord 27) Fearful hearts
Black Num 17) Ships at half cost - instead give them some extra ships

Nations had to be moved around to fit the game format. Check the House Rules
specifically on changes there as well.

What I need now is comments on the viability of the game and obvious errors
that you can spot. I will take comments until Monday then send out the new
version of the game set-up and work from there. If players can choose FP or
DS as a choice I will allocate randomly the nations that you will choose
(please tell me if you want to team-up and with whom).

Set-up price is going to be around �15 - depends on how much work we have to
do as this is very labour intensive. Thoughts very welcome. At present I
have around 35 players interested so I could work on getting two games
going. One fear is Sauron dying in an encounter - if so then if this
happens before turn 5 then I would be happy to return the set-up fee as
credit to your account and restart the game?

Thanks

Clint

···

****************************************************************
      Harlequin Games Middle Earth Games
pbm@harlequingames.com me@middleearthgames.com
www.harlequingames.com www.middleearthgames.com

               340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
           Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
                  Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
****************************************************************
        Middle Earth - Legends - Serim Ral
            CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
                   Battle of the Planets - Exile

#2

Yes I am still wishing to play this game. As to side I am joining with
Richard Devereux and will be on his side. I think he said we would be FP.

Regards

Mike Sankey (account 102292)

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Middle Earth PBM Games <me@MiddleEarthGames.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 5:03 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Last Alliance

Okay done the first draft of the module for this game now. I will post it
to the Website www.MiddleEarthGames.com and also send out to all the

players

who requested information about the game and need a response by Monday.
Attached is the module for speed

1) whether or not you want to play and if so what side (and team if

joining

with other players)
2) amendments that you think are appropriate

The Last Alliance

Amendments to the pdf that you will get:
To fit the FA restrictions (only 4 SNAs allowed)

Suggested ones to lose are:
Dwarves 6) Force March
Fire King lost 13) Train at 20
Dark Lord 27) Fearful hearts
Black Num 17) Ships at half cost - instead give them some extra ships

Nations had to be moved around to fit the game format. Check the House

Rules

specifically on changes there as well.

What I need now is comments on the viability of the game and obvious

errors

that you can spot. I will take comments until Monday then send out the

new

version of the game set-up and work from there. If players can choose FP

or

DS as a choice I will allocate randomly the nations that you will choose
(please tell me if you want to team-up and with whom).

Set-up price is going to be around �15 - depends on how much work we have

to

do as this is very labour intensive. Thoughts very welcome. At present I
have around 35 players interested so I could work on getting two games
going. One fear is Sauron dying in an encounter - if so then if this
happens before turn 5 then I would be happy to return the set-up fee as
credit to your account and restart the game?

Thanks

Clint

****************************************************************
      Harlequin Games Middle Earth Games
pbm@harlequingames.com me@middleearthgames.com
www.harlequingames.com www.middleearthgames.com

               340 North Road, Cardiff CF14 3BP
           Tel 029 2062 5665 12-6.30 Weekdays
                  Fax 029 2062 5532 24 hours
****************************************************************
        Middle Earth - Legends - Serim Ral
            CTF 2187 - Starquest - Crack of Doom
                   Battle of the Planets - Exile

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#3

All:

I already emailed Clint with a request to play on the FP team.

I have no idea who else is in the game. If any of my former teammates
is in the game and wants to be on the same side, please ask for an FP
position. If any wants to talk me into playing DS, please email me.
If anyone thinks I'm such a jerk that he doesn't want to play on the
same team, well, pick DS and don't tell me, OK?

Mark Jaede

#4

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:

Okay done the first draft of the module for this game now.
I will post it to the Website www.MiddleEarthGames.com and also
send out to all the players who requested information about the game
and need a response by Monday. Attached is the module for speed

2) amendments that you think are appropriate

Having glanced over the module, I caught one thing I believe is
incorrect. The Ithil-Stone of the Palantir didn't AFAIK fall into the
hands of the Dark Servant untill the second time that Minas Ithil was
captured by Sauron.

The first time was 2nd Age 3429 to 3434, and from 3434 and untill
Third Age 2002 the city was again in the hands of the South
Kingdom/Gondor. It was during the last surprise attack that the stone
was captured by the Witch King, and returned to Sauron.

I don't have the LOTR with me (nor the Guide to Middle Earth), but
several online referances seems to indicate that it wasn't untill 3rd
Age 2002 that Sauron got his clammy hands on the stone :slight_smile:

(Can doublecheck when I get home tho).

#5

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:
> Okay done the first draft of the module for this game now.
> I will post it to the Website www.MiddleEarthGames.com and also
> send out to all the players who requested information about the game
> and need a response by Monday. Attached is the module for speed
>

> 2) amendments that you think are appropriate
>

Having glanced over the module, I caught one thing I believe is
incorrect. The Ithil-Stone of the Palantir didn't AFAIK fall into the
hands of the Dark Servant untill the second time that Minas Ithil was
captured by Sauron.

The first time was 2nd Age 3429 to 3434, and from 3434 and untill
Third Age 2002 the city was again in the hands of the South
Kingdom/Gondor. It was during the last surprise attack that the stone
was captured by the Witch King, and returned to Sauron.

I don't have the LOTR with me (nor the Guide to Middle Earth), but
several online referances seems to indicate that it wasn't untill 3rd
Age 2002 that Sauron got his clammy hands on the stone :slight_smile:

(Can doublecheck when I get home tho).

RD: As you say, the DS first took Minas Ithil in SA3429 and not re-inhabited
by the FP until the beginning of the Third Age. It would be remarkable if
Sauron failed to plunder Minas Ithil of its most valuable asset, the
palantir!

You're right, there's nothing to say that Sauron DID take the palantir on
the first occasion, but equally there is nothing to say he did not. And it
does make the game more interesting to put the palantir in DS hands!

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: <oysteint@ifi.uio.no>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 9:45 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#6

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games" <me@M...> wrote:

2) amendments that you think are appropriate

The Last Alliance

Another thing I think should be added (and to all MEPBM 3rd Age games
as well), but dunno if it's even feasable to do.

The Witch King was not killable by a man. Only a woman character
should be able to challenge and kill him in a duel. This was part of
his fate, and even Gandalf the white could barely block him, much less
destroy him untill Eowyn ran him through with a sword.

#7

--- oysteint@ifi.uio.no wrote: > --- In
mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games"

<me@M...> wrote:

> 2) amendments that you think are appropriate
>
> The Last Alliance

Another thing I think should be added (and to all
MEPBM 3rd Age games
as well), but dunno if it's even feasable to do.

The Witch King was not killable by a man. Only a
woman character
should be able to challenge and kill him in a duel.

The hobbit that knifed him from behind (and caused the
WK serious pain) was male. It was the weapon that
caused the damage. The line 'he can not be killed by a
man' was (I think) said when the free were chasing
Murazor after a bad DS defeat. A human mage told his
king not to bother chasing murazor down.

It also made the battle sound better - I was reminded
of hamlet (?) where the main guy says 'i can't be
killed of a man born of women', and his foe say 'lucky
me, I wasn't born normally, they had to cut me out'.
Hamlet showed honour in continuing to fight when he
realised that he had finally meet someone who could
kill him.

Ditto for Murazor in the LoTR.

This was part of
his fate,

actually i think fate (where the future is set) was
only for the elves. Humans were outside the original
plan of the world, and I don't think fate affected
them.

and even Gandalf the white could barely

block him, much less
destroy him untill Eowyn ran him through with a
sword.

I think without the first attack by the hobbit, eowyn
would have lost. Her shield was knackered, and one arm
was broken.

if anything, I would say that only a magical weapon
could defeat murazor in battle.

thanks
din

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- Now showing: Dude Where's My Car, The Wedding Planner, Traffic..

#8

--- oysteint@ifi.uio.no wrote: > --- In
mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games"
> <me@M...> wrote:
>
> > 2) amendments that you think are appropriate
> >
> > The Last Alliance
>
>
> Another thing I think should be added (and to all
> MEPBM 3rd Age games
> as well), but dunno if it's even feasable to do.
>
> The Witch King was not killable by a man. Only a
> woman character
> should be able to challenge and kill him in a duel.

The hobbit that knifed him from behind (and caused the
WK serious pain) was male. It was the weapon that
caused the damage. The line 'he can not be killed by a
man' was (I think) said when the free were chasing
Murazor after a bad DS defeat. A human mage told his
king not to bother chasing murazor down.

It also made the battle sound better - I was reminded
of hamlet (?) where the main guy says 'i can't be
killed of a man born of women', and his foe say 'lucky
me, I wasn't born normally, they had to cut me out'.
Hamlet showed honour in continuing to fight when he
realised that he had finally meet someone who could
kill him.

RD: The play was Macbeth, not Hamlet. Macbeth had been told that he 'could
not be slain by any man of woman born.' Macbeth therefore went into battle
confident of his immunity - until he met his rival, Malcolm, who was 'not of
woman born' being, as you so delicately put it, cut out. Macbeth fought him
anyway and of course died.

That's Shakespeare's version, but in historical fact, Malcolm was a puppet
put on the throne of Scotland by the English army commanded by Earl Siward.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Din" <din_ohtar@yahoo.com.au>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance

Ditto for Murazor in the LoTR.

> This was part of
> his fate,

actually i think fate (where the future is set) was
only for the elves. Humans were outside the original
plan of the world, and I don't think fate affected
them.

and even Gandalf the white could barely
> block him, much less
> destroy him untill Eowyn ran him through with a
> sword.

I think without the first attack by the hobbit, eowyn
would have lost. Her shield was knackered, and one arm
was broken.

if anything, I would say that only a magical weapon
could defeat murazor in battle.

thanks
din

____________________________________________________________________________
_

http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- Now showing: Dude Where's My Car, The Wedding Planner, Traffic..

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#9

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Din <din_ohtar@y...> wrote:

>
> The Witch King was not killable by a man. Only a
> woman character
> should be able to challenge and kill him in a duel.

The hobbit that knifed him from behind (and caused the
WK serious pain) was male. It was the weapon that
caused the damage. The line 'he can not be killed by a
man' was (I think) said when the free were chasing
Murazor after a bad DS defeat. A human mage told his
king not to bother chasing murazor down.

Yes, but the hobbit also isn't a Man, he is a Hobbit. The prophecy can
be read both ways, that either Murazor can't be killed by a male, or
by a human.

Also if I don't recall wrong, it's Murazor himself which says it just
before Eowyn shows she is a woman, when she is protecting Theoden from
him.

While the last Gondorian king Eanur defeated the armies of the Witch
King after the sack of Fornost, Murazor never fought him during that
battle, and later challenged him to a duel in Minas Morgul, and killed
him there instead.

I think without the first attack by the hobbit, eowyn
would have lost. Her shield was knackered, and one arm
was broken.

if anything, I would say that only a magical weapon
could defeat murazor in battle.

I'd say only a female character, or a non-human (ie Noldo or Sinda
elf) can kill murazor. He can be defeated and wounded, just not slain
by a male human.

#10

Yes, but the hobbit also isn't a Man, he is a
Hobbit. The prophecy can
be read both ways, that either Murazor can't be
killed by a male, or
by a human.

I agree. I think it was meant to read 'can't be killed
by humans', which implied a higher order of person
needed to do it (actually eowyn didn't kill him,
shemerely broke his physical form - given enought
time, murazor would have returned)..

Also if I don't recall wrong, it's Murazor himself
which says it just
before Eowyn shows she is a woman, when she is
protecting Theoden from
him.

True. But the original line came from a early battle
in the north. The WK army was completly defeated, and
Murazor was fleeing. I'll let other work out the sage
who made the prediction.

While the last Gondorian king Eanur defeated the
armies of the Witch
King after the sack of Fornost, Murazor never fought
him during that
battle, and later challenged him to a duel in Minas
Morgul, and killed
him there instead.

While my memory isn't the best in my old age, i'm sure
that the line was first spoken in the north. But the
above was true.

I'd say only a female character, or a non-human (ie
Noldo or Sinda
elf) can kill murazor. He can be defeated and
wounded, just not slain
by a male human.

thanks
din

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- Now showing: Dude Where's My Car, The Wedding Planner, Traffic..

#11

We could consider "challenge kill" in this context as "badly wounded
enough that it'll take him a few decades to pull his little wraithy
bits together again, so he's out of action for the duration of the game."

Tony Z
Rationalizations 'R Us

···

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 08:52:51AM -0000, oysteint@ifi.uio.no wrote:

Another thing I think should be added (and to all MEPBM 3rd Age games
as well), but dunno if it's even feasable to do.

The Witch King was not killable by a man. Only a woman character
should be able to challenge and kill him in a duel. This was part of
his fate, and even Gandalf the white could barely block him, much less
destroy him untill Eowyn ran him through with a sword.

--
"The King with half the East at heel is marched from lands of morning;
His fighters drink the rivers up, their shafts benight the air,
And he that stays will die for naught, and home there's no returning."
The Spartans on the sea-wet rock sat down and combed their hair.--A.E. Housman

#12

That's correct.

Clint----- Original Message -----

···

From: Din <din_ohtar@yahoo.com.au>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance

--- oysteint@ifi.uio.no wrote: > --- In
mepbmlist@y..., "Middle Earth PBM Games"
> <me@M...> wrote:
>
> > 2) amendments that you think are appropriate
> >
> > The Last Alliance
>
>
> Another thing I think should be added (and to all
> MEPBM 3rd Age games
> as well), but dunno if it's even feasable to do.
>
> The Witch King was not killable by a man. Only a
> woman character
> should be able to challenge and kill him in a duel.

The hobbit that knifed him from behind (and caused the
WK serious pain) was male. It was the weapon that
caused the damage. The line 'he can not be killed by a
man' was (I think) said when the free were chasing
Murazor after a bad DS defeat. A human mage told his
king not to bother chasing murazor down.

It also made the battle sound better - I was reminded
of hamlet (?) where the main guy says 'i can't be
killed of a man born of women', and his foe say 'lucky
me, I wasn't born normally, they had to cut me out'.
Hamlet showed honour in continuing to fight when he
realised that he had finally meet someone who could
kill him.

Ditto for Murazor in the LoTR.

> This was part of
> his fate,

actually i think fate (where the future is set) was
only for the elves. Humans were outside the original
plan of the world, and I don't think fate affected
them.

and even Gandalf the white could barely
> block him, much less
> destroy him untill Eowyn ran him through with a
> sword.

I think without the first attack by the hobbit, eowyn
would have lost. Her shield was knackered, and one arm
was broken.

if anything, I would say that only a magical weapon
could defeat murazor in battle.

thanks
din

____________________________________________________________________________
_

http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- Now showing: Dude Where's My Car, The Wedding Planner, Traffic..

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#13

Don't want to go there really. "Realism" vs fantasy and what we can rule
on. I would prefer to keep house rules to a minimum here.

Clint

···

> >
> > The Witch King was not killable by a man. Only a
> > woman character
> > should be able to challenge and kill him in a duel.
>
> The hobbit that knifed him from behind (and caused the
> WK serious pain) was male. It was the weapon that
> caused the damage. The line 'he can not be killed by a
> man' was (I think) said when the free were chasing
> Murazor after a bad DS defeat. A human mage told his
> king not to bother chasing murazor down.
>

Yes, but the hobbit also isn't a Man, he is a Hobbit. The prophecy can
be read both ways, that either Murazor can't be killed by a male, or
by a human.

Also if I don't recall wrong, it's Murazor himself which says it just
before Eowyn shows she is a woman, when she is protecting Theoden from
him.

While the last Gondorian king Eanur defeated the armies of the Witch
King after the sack of Fornost, Murazor never fought him during that
battle, and later challenged him to a duel in Minas Morgul, and killed
him there instead.

> I think without the first attack by the hobbit, eowyn
> would have lost. Her shield was knackered, and one arm
> was broken.
>
> if anything, I would say that only a magical weapon
> could defeat murazor in battle.
>

I'd say only a female character, or a non-human (ie Noldo or Sinda
elf) can kill murazor. He can be defeated and wounded, just not slain
by a male human.

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#14

Richard John Devereux wrote:

You're right, there's nothing to say that Sauron DID take the palantir on
the first occasion, but equally there is nothing to say he did not. >

Tolkein is quite clear that the stone was taken in TA 2002, not before.

-ED \1/

#15

Richard John Devereux wrote:
>
>
> You're right, there's nothing to say that Sauron DID take the palantir

on

> the first occasion, but equally there is nothing to say he did not. >
Tolkein is quite clear that the stone was taken in TA 2002, not before.

RD: Can you give me the quote please, and where to find it?

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward A. Dimmick" <dukefenton@earthlink.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance

-ED \1/

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#16

--- "Edward A. Dimmick" <dukefenton@earthlink.net>
wrote: > Richard John Devereux wrote:

>
>
> You're right, there's nothing to say that Sauron
DID take the palantir on
> the first occasion, but equally there is nothing
to say he did not. >
Tolkein is quite clear that the stone was taken in
TA 2002, not before.

what does that dead bloke know. :slight_smile:

He changed his mind so many times i'm starting to
think that since Galadriel had permission to go to
middle earth (and the noldor didn't), then the ban by
the valar on her didn't apply.

:slight_smile:
din

···

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Movies
- Now showing: Dude Where's My Car, The Wedding Planner, Traffic..

#17

Richard John Devereux wrote:

> Tolkein is quite clear that the stone was taken in TA 2002, not before.

RD: Can you give me the quote please, and where to find it?

"Return of the King" Appendix B

-ED \1/

#18

> > Tolkein is quite clear that the stone was taken in TA 2002, not

before.

>
> RD: Can you give me the quote please, and where to find it?
>
"Return of the King" Appendix B

-ED \1/

RD: Thanks. The entry reads: '2002: Fall of Minas Ithil, afterwards known
as Minas Morgul. The palantir is captured.'

With respect, this does NOT say that the palantir was not captured and then
recaptured on an earlier occasion.

Also from Appendix B, SA 3429: 'Sauron attacks Gondor, takes Minas Ithil and
burns the White Tree. Isildur escapes down Anduin and goes to Elendil in
the north. Anarion defends Minas Anor and Osgiliath.'

There is no mention of the palantir at this point. It might, possibly, have
been rescued by Isildur or Anarion but this is not stated. What IS stated
is that Isildur rescued a seedling of the White Tree. If he had rescued the
palantir as well surely Tolkien would have mentioned it?

Therefore, my interpretation is as follows: Sauron captured the palantir
when he took Minas Ithil in SA 3429. When the FP broke into Mordor after
the Battle of Dagorlad SA 3434, Sauron was besieged in Barad-dur and Minas
Ithil was abandoned to the FP who then recovered the palantir.

I admit, this interpretation rests more on what Tolkien did not say rather
than what he did say, but I submit this interpretation is just as likely (if
not more so) as that the FP rescued the palantir in SA 3429.

Finally giving the DS a palantir in LA seems like a good idea in the
interests of game balance. Therefore, with respect, I'm not going to change
anything unless it can be PROVED to be wrong.

Regards,

Richard.

#19

Richard John Devereux wrote:

RD: Thanks. The entry reads: '2002: Fall of Minas Ithil, afterwards known
as Minas Morgul. The palantir is captured.'

With respect, this does NOT say that the palantir was not captured and then
recaptured on an earlier occasion.

Presumably if it had been, Tolkein would have said so. The capture of a
palantir is a significant event. Why would it be mentioned on one
occasion and not another?

I admit, this interpretation rests more on what Tolkien did not say rather
than what he did say, but I submit this interpretation is just as likely (if
not more so) as that the FP rescued the palantir in SA 3429.

So we can assume Galdriel has a bastard child somewhere. I mean, just
because it's not mentioned doesn't make it untrue, does it? There is
nothing (and I mean *nothing*) to indicate that Sauron took the palantir
in the first capture of Minas Ithil. One could just as easily take
hundreds of liberties with the histories based on nothing more than "we
don't know that it couldn't have happened." Is that really what you
want? Aren't you the one who said 'where will it end' when people
started asking to incorporate things which most certainly ARE in the
record?

Might I suggest you start with what is 'known' before taking flights of
fancy with Tolkein's work?

Finally giving the DS a palantir in LA seems like a good idea in the
interests of game balance. Therefore, with respect, I'm not going to change
anything unless it can be PROVED to be wrong.

Uh-huh. Nice open-minded attitude there.

-ED \1/

#20

Richard John Devereux wrote:
>
>
> RD: Thanks. The entry reads: '2002: Fall of Minas Ithil, afterwards

known

> as Minas Morgul. The palantir is captured.'
>
> With respect, this does NOT say that the palantir was not captured and

then

> recaptured on an earlier occasion.
>
Presumably if it had been, Tolkein would have said so. The capture of a
palantir is a significant event. Why would it be mentioned on one
occasion and not another?

RD: Have you ever looked at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? Some of the entries
are full of detail, others are sparse, and some years are omitted
altogether. I suggest this is the historical precedent for the Tale of
Years in appendix B. Tolkien wrote about SA only in the broadest of
outlines with an occaisonal story thrown in. In contrast, TA is relatively
well documented. Tolkien had no need to mention the fate of the palantir
when Sauron stormed Minas Ithil as it had no bearing on the (brief!) story
he was telling.

> I admit, this interpretation rests more on what Tolkien did not say

rather

> than what he did say, but I submit this interpretation is just as likely

(if

> not more so) as that the FP rescued the palantir in SA 3429.
>
So we can assume Galdriel has a bastard child somewhere. I mean, just
because it's not mentioned doesn't make it untrue, does it?

RD: If it would make an interesting scenario why not? Soap writers do this
all the time.

There is
nothing (and I mean *nothing*) to indicate that Sauron took the palantir
in the first capture of Minas Ithil.

RD: There is equally nothing (and I mean NOTHING) to say that he did not.

One could just as easily take
hundreds of liberties with the histories based on nothing more than "we
don't know that it couldn't have happened." Is that really what you
want? Aren't you the one who said 'where will it end' when people
started asking to incorporate things which most certainly ARE in the
record?

Might I suggest you start with what is 'known' before taking flights of
fancy with Tolkein's work?

RD: I HAVE started with what is known. It is NOT known, one way or the
other, whether Sauron captured the palantir in SA or whether one of
Elendil's sons rescued it. I consider it more likely that Sauron captured
it. You obviously disagree. I suggest we agree to disagree. Nobody else
has joined the discussion which suggests nobody else is bothered.

> Finally giving the DS a palantir in LA seems like a good idea in the
> interests of game balance. Therefore, with respect, I'm not going to

change

> anything unless it can be PROVED to be wrong.
>
Uh-huh. Nice open-minded attitude there.

-ED \1/

RD: Yeah pal, I AM being open-minded. You want me to change something, and
I'm asking you for proof, which you have failed to provide. I rest my case.
I'm not going to debate this any more unless anybody comes up with some
fresh evidence. I'm obviously not going to convince you so there's no point
arguing further.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward A. Dimmick" <dukefenton@earthlink.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Re: Last Alliance

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/