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)

Sounds good to me Rich, frankly I'm a little surprised that something of the sort hasn't occurred yet…

Boromir for me.

spalanzani said:

What a pity that Tolkien did not give more love to the evil characters. If his work was less good biased, I would like it even more.

klaymen_sk said:

i think this is where tolkien's beauty lies- in his evil characters. unlike many fantasy authors after him, tolkien made his evil characters lie 'in the dark' as it were….you never see sauron, and saruman is just a name up until his downfall in isengard in flotsam and jetsam (or is it the palantir?)…this way you can really feel their eyes on you as you walk with the company through the wilds, and in the case of saruman when you actually see him in the flesh, it makes it all the more ominous

rich

klaymen_sk said:

absolutely, while his work is very good he complete lack of even attempting to have motive for his villains makes hsi works very 2 dimensional .. as there is no depth to much of teh work. While teh hero toons are very well done, i find the entire "They're evil, thats why!!" explanation for everything to be ridiculous.

richsabre said:

Ted Sandyman said:

As I think another has mentioned somewhere, I really think that Lore Aragorn is meant to be "Strider" (it's the ART!!!)