- 3,313
- 3,080
- Thread starter
- #161
To put it plainly, Aragorn has no real issue being this high up. It'd be a problem if I suggested Boromir scaled this high, but Aragorn genuinely has no issue with any of the fodder as an individual.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why do you only take these moments as being PIS and not, for example, Aragorn fending off the Nazgul, the singular moment with which you intend to scale him to Moon levelFinrod Felagund nearly died to orcs. Sauron struggled to defeat him
Sauron is genuinely driven back by Numenorean armies
Feanor was injured by orcs
LotR as a verse is full of these sorts of moments that we would consider PIS or just plain dumb from a scaling position. Aragorn isn't too affected by this, as note dbelow.
While I really don't intend to argue semantics with you here, that is in every definition of the word a parley. It's just not one that particularly benefits the Uruks.Your memory of the book is a bit off. The parley was not a real one (even the Uruks noted as such), Aragorn simply went outside, warned the army to F off or die, and then went back inside and charged out.
He actually does turn the tide of battle alongside the sallying defenders. Plus he literally slaughters Uruks every time he engages them in battle. He's never in danger. The real issue is that he's a guy with a sword. A strong guy with a sword, but there's only so many he can cut at a time.
You were arguing differently earlier though, and at present his scaling is meant to take him above the Balrog.Yes, the Balrog scales above Aragorn. This was never in contention. Aragorn scales above Nazgul who downscale from Balrog level characters.
So you're saying that specific weapons would lower the Witch King to roughly human level?This is an incredibly poor take. The weapon Merry has is literally enchanted to undo the Witch-King's protections and magics. It's only when he's stabbed with it that Eowyn can kill him.
Witch-King basically died to the fine print of Glorfindel's prophecy, and also was weakened cuz Merry had stabbed him with a blade of Westernesse, which had been specifically made to hurt himFighting against the Nazgul is, in my opinion, also not the best indicator of strength, given how the strongest one of them goes out.
"Out of the wreck rose the Black Rider, tall and threatening, towering above her. With a cry of hatred that stung the very ears like venom he let fall his mace. Her shield was shivered in many pieces, and her arm was broken; she stumbled to her knees. He bent over her like a cloud, and his eyes glittered; he raised his mace to kill.
But suddenly he too stumbled forward with a cry of bitter pain, and his stroke went wide, driving into the ground. Merry's sword had stabbed him from behind, shearing through the black mantle, and passing up beneath the hauberk had pierced the sinew behind his mighty knee.
'Éowyn! Éowyn!' cried Merry. Then tottering, struggling up, with her last strength she drove her sword between crown and mantle, as the great shoulders bowed before her. The sword broke sparkling into many shards. The crown rolled away with a clang. Éowyn fell forward upon her fallen foe. But lo! the mantle and hauberk were empty. Shapeless they lay now on the ground...; and a cry went up into the shuddering air, and faded to a shrill wailing..., a voice bodiless and thin that died, and was swallowed up, and was never heard again in that age of this world."
Not only does Eowyn, who I doubt is a moon buster, famously kill him, but even Merry manages to injure him significantly. I'm not saying that their ratings are unfair, but they are at the very least very inconsistent.
Statements. He has statements, notes, etc. Tolkien says the Dunedain might have defeated ALL NINE (cap for emphasis) NAZGUL if he had been there at Sarn Ford when they crossed.Why do you only take these moments as being PIS and not, for example, Aragorn fending off the Nazgul, the singular moment with which you intend to scale him to Moon level
It was quite literally not a parley. Even the Uruk realised it! It was a threat!While I really don't intend to argue semantics with you here, that is in every definition of the word a parley. It's just not one that particularly benefits the Uruks.
he leaps down to get to where he wanted to go. Aka, to the rest of the sallyIf he's never in danger he has no reason to not only dodge, but dodge with seriousness enough that it would be described as "leaping".
No. I noted that there is a weaker argument that you can say he could take a Balrog. I did not agree with it. He upscales from the Nazgul, who are weak enough that it takes 6, including the Witch-King, to successfully overwhelm Gandalf the Grey. He beats back 5, including the Nazgul. Sure he had fire, a weakness of there's, but this isn't the PJ Movies. Fire doesn't instantly ignite them, and they have fought past their fears in similar scenarios, such as when they entered the rivers around Rivendell (before being swept away thanks to G and E)You were arguing differently earlier though, and at present his scaling is meant to take him above the Balrog.
Yes. It was literally enchanted to undo the spells that constitute his flesh.So you're saying that specific weapons would lower the Witch King to roughly human level?
For trucks sake, did you read none of the scaling revision? If you're going to argue against it, at least read it. The Nazgul have overcome similar weaknesses, as said weaknesses are more akin to fears. Rivers are a fear of there's. They do not suddenly melt in a river.Fire = Weakness = Doesn't matter, scale
What are you on about here? I am saying Merry doesn't scale to that level as he had the one of the few weapons that were specifically enchanted to undo the Witch-King's defenses. There is a difference between fire, a thing they fear somewhat but are able to overcome, and a weapon that is literally their bane!Sword made to beat them up = Weakness = Matters, do not scale. Unless, perhaps, we ought to scale Merry and Pippin to Moon level? He was able to plunge the sword into him, after all.
I can't emphasise this enough.I intend to leave it at this: I think this case is substantially less solid than you keep promising it to be, and I think you have to interpret things well out of line in order to say "At no point during 95% of the book was Aragorn in any danger, because he was an unkillable god nearly on par with actual gods, and all of the dodging and such was just for show".
Then clearly this much downscaling shouldn't be happening in the first place. Not to mention, a character who merely downscales from the statistics and also wields a sword that is way stronger should surely be of some help in a fight against it?Yes, the Balrog scales above Aragorn. This was never in contention. Aragorn scales above Nazgul who downscale from Balrog level characters.
This is an incredibly poor take. The weapon Merry has is literally enchanted to undo the Witch-King's protections and magics. It's only when he's stabbed with it that Eowyn can kill him.
Fair enough.Witch-King basically died to the fine print of Glorfindel's prophecy, and also was weakened cuz Merry had stabbed him with a blade of Westernesse, which had been specifically made to hurt him
Or, clearly this century-old book that is written to be in the style of millennia-old myths does not abide by perceived modern standards of consistency, and should not be treated as if it does.LotR as a verse is full of these sorts of moments that we would consider PIS or just plain dumb from a scaling position. Aragorn isn't too affected by this, as note dbelow.
Which is clearly contradicted by Gandalf's own statement that he and Glorfindel together couldn't.Statements. He has statements, notes, etc. Tolkien says the Dunedain might have defeated ALL NINE (cap for emphasis) NAZGUL if he had been there at Sarn Ford when they crossed.
So? He just drove them back, he didn't even injure a single one. Doing this by exploiting their fears is perfectly reasonable without warranting scaling (well, I guess speed scaling maybe, but I don't oppose that)For trucks sake, did you read none of the scaling revision? If you're going to argue against it, at least read it. The Nazgul have overcome similar weaknesses, as said weaknesses are more akin to fears. Rivers are a fear of there's. They do not suddenly melt in a river.
He doesn't have the sword yet.Then clearly this much downscaling shouldn't be happening in the first place. Not to mention, a character who merely downscales from the statistics and also wields a sword that is way stronger should surely be of some help in a fight against it?
Agreed.Fair enough.
Or, clearly this century-old book that is written to be in the style of millennia-old myths does not abide by perceived modern standards of consistency, and should not be treated as if it does.
Yeah. Imladris only had a few Elves at this point, but these were largely Noldor. The High Elves.Some more stuff:
‘Elrond received news that troubled him. Some of my kindred, journeying in your land beyond the Baranduin, learned that things were amiss, and sent messages as swiftly as they could. They said that the Nine were abroad, and that you were astray bearing a great burden without guidance, for Gandalf had not returned. There are few even in Rivendell that can ride openly against the Nine; but such as there were, Elrond sent out north, west, and south. It was thought that you might turn far aside to avoid pursuit, and become lost in the Wilderness."
- Elven warriors (not just Glor) being capable of matching the Nazgul, while extremely impressive, isn't unheard of.
Yes. Aragorn and Glorfindel can't. Not Aragorn and a group of Dunedain. Tolkien likes to give emphasise to numbers admittedly, but the crucial factor is that Aragorn would be present in the latter case.
Which is clearly contradicted by Gandalf's own statement that he and Glorfindel together couldn't.
Yes, but it's congruent with both the statement that the Witch-King considered him powerful due to the showing (in the Hunt for the Ring) and the fact that his presence alone would have allowed the defenders at Sarn Ford to fend off the Nine.So? He just drove them back, he didn't even injure a single one. Doing this by exploiting their fears is perfectly reasonable without warranting scaling (well, I guess speed scaling maybe, but I don't oppose that)
Thought you said he did? Alright. But if the Nazgul can threaten Gandalf, and Aragorn can threaten them (and is implied to be equal to several on his own, making him superior to the individuals) clearly the gap isn't so big.He doesn't have the sword yet.
... Which means, do not expect it to abide by modern "rules" of scaling. Characters hurting beings much stronger than them without downscaling isn't something too hard to find even in works that actually strive for consistency, let alone ones modeled after myth. Especially since I would argue that "the courage of good men being capable of triumphing even against the greatest of odds" is... probably one of LOTR's biggest themes.Agreed.
Would those really be 5-C, though.Yeah. Imladris only had a few Elves at this point, but these were largely Noldor. The High Elves.
You have to admit it's still a pretty big inconsistency. There's also the fact that Aragorn might have been able to help not just because of his might but also leadership skills. Didn't they just kinda fold in fear when faced with the Nazgul?Yes. Aragorn and Glorfindel can't. Not Aragorn and a group of Dunedain. Tolkien likes to give emphasise to numbers admittedly, but the crucial factor is that Aragorn would be present in the latter case.
The wording is "The Riders were too swift to overtake, and too many to oppose. On foot even Glorfindel and Aragorn together could not withstand all the Nine at once."Plus the former is a mixed bag. As I noted in the original revision, the Nazgul's chief objective was to get passed them. The lines allow for it to be alternatively taken as the Nazgul simply getting passed them, just as much as it allows for it to be them being outright defeated.
Could I ask you to provide quotes for these so that I may look at the context?Yes, but it's congruent with both the statement that the Witch-King considered him powerful due to the showing (in the Hunt for the Ring) and the fact that his presence alone would have allowed the defenders at Sarn Ford to fend off the Nine.
YesThought you said he did? Alright. But if the Nazgul can threaten Gandalf, and Aragorn can threaten them (and is implied to be equal to several on his own, making him superior to the individuals) clearly the gap isn't so big.
Yes. It doesn't work with this wiki though. Unless you want to make the rating a "with the power of good" thing. Though considering how that worked with DBS and the "power of love", with this case being even less substantiated, I don't think that's a good idea.... Which means, do not expect it to abide by modern "rules" of scaling. Characters hurting beings much stronger than them without downscaling isn't something too hard to find even in works that actually strive for consistency, let alone ones modeled after myth. Especially since I would argue that "the courage of good men being capable of triumphing even against the greatest of odds" is... probably one of LOTR's biggest themes.
Possibly. Could be anywhere from High Noldorin fellas to Second Age ones, to Third Age ones. We don't know. We can't comment on this with the dirth of information. Heck, Glorfindel might have been there.Would those really be 5-C, though.
Lifting strength issue. They were swept away, not hurt. Plus it's literally a magical water attack.Also, how about the river.
No, there was a battle.You have to admit it's still a pretty big inconsistency. There's also the fact that Aragorn might have been able to help not just because of his might but also leadership skills. Didn't they just kinda fold in fear when faced with the Nazgul?
Should be there, but sure.The wording is "The Riders were too swift to overtake, and too many to oppose. On foot even Glorfindel and Aragorn together could not withstand all the Nine at once."
Could I ask you to provide quotes for these so that I may look at the context?
Then what is the issue? You haven't presented a real case beyond the initial rejection due to Aragorn either being threatened by orcs and uruks, or from him not scaling to the Nazgul.I'm not arguing that Aragorn is on-par with orcs or uruk-hai. That notion is equally as absurd as what you've currently presented. He is consistently portrayed as above them. But not to such an inseparable degree as you're presenting him.
Why? I genuinely cannot find a solid argument from either you or Armorchompy. Not to mention, both of you have repeatedly displayed that you do not know the events of the books in particularly great enough detail, let alone the wider Legendarium.I find the arguments to keep Aragorn downscaling from literally Maiar and Balrogs not substantial enough.
Ant, DDM, and Qrow had a look. As far as I'm aware, I only needed two staff.I'm casting my vote. You didn't have enough support to push it through to begin with, unless we take Antvasima saying "That seems fine to me then" in response to @DarkDragonMedeus saying he agreed as outright support. In any case, I urge DDM to take a closer look.
Ainur vary in strength, as do humans. Turin slays Glaurung. Hurin is stronger than Turin and slays dozens of troll guards to Gothmog, who himself is potentially a Greater Maiar. Elendil slays Sauron, who still has the One Ring.While Qrow is a good friend, they aren't evaluation staff. You need Thread Mods for that. Having known Ant for awhile, I don't take his one-line acknowledgement of DDM as actual acceptance, but you'd be forgiven in doing so, come to think of it. Either way, I've asked DDM to return, since both myself and Armor have concerns here.
As for your actual points: the issue is that Aragorn, while definitely superior to Uruk-hai, is shown far more on their level (albeit much higher) than literally the maiar and balrogs.
I have refuted every one of them, and a good few of them were flat out incorrect. Again, I find no ground for your complaints to remain standing on, I have answered all of them.Myself and Armor have shown instances that support this and provided interpretations that would further support this.
I... I can't even comment on this again. I have presented the cases. I am not repeating then again.Further, as said, the evidence for Aragorn scaling to such extremes is very light to begin with. So no offense to you but nothing from the wider Legendarium has been sufficient evidence for what you're proposing, as far as I can tell.
Perhaps, but your memory is clearly not perfect in regards to events. Between Anduril, the Daggers of Westernesse, fire vs the Nazgul, I'm not the most convinced.I'm not speaking on the movies, for the record, and I will ask that you stop insisting that I am: I have read the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit multiple times each. It has been almost a decade since the last time but I know which version of events I'm arguing about, thank you very much.
"The camp is attacked by night by five Riders; but they are driven off by Aragorn; and withdraw after wounding Frodo. The Witch-King now knows who is the Bearer, and is greatly puzzled that it should be a small creature, and not Aragorn, who seems to be a great power though apparently 'only a Ranger'. But the Bearer has been marked with the Knife and (he thinks) cannot last more than a day or two." - "The Hunt for the Ring"You have statements explicitly saying Aragorn is not at the level you're putting him at. If nothing else, it is too inconsistent. That's my final message unless someone finds the letter where Tolkien says "just kidding, gotcha pretty good".
Yeah, Aragorn scaling. Though the king of the dead stuff is movie only, Elendil did use it to either help mortally wound or kill Sauron in a mutual killing.The thread was long, but we're talking about Aragorn scaling? Well, he does have the Anduril, which was originally said to be Enduril. The sword his ancestor used to cut off Sauron's hand during that war. And it was also strong enough to kill the king of the dead. So I do have no issues with the tier with that sword.
That's more of a range issue. He only has a sword, so his attack potency can't really do much as he can only kill a few at a swing. This holds true even with Anduril. In fact, he has Anduril in the books after the first half of the Fellowship.However, I will note I my knowledge on the books is very minimal as it was a very ancient past that I have actually read the books. But as for is normal scaling, he is consistently the strongest human of his era and is portrayed as a one man army. But he still often needs to slay orcs one by one over time and not like he nukes the battlefield like Gandalf can. And he can still be cut by swords of some of the stronger orcs or Uruk-Hai. So looking back, I am a bit iffy about how strong he is normally without Anduril.
"The camp is attacked by night by five Riders; but they are driven off by Aragorn; and withdraw after wounding Frodo. The Witch-King now knows who is the Bearer, and is greatly puzzled that it should be a small creature, and not Aragorn, who seems to be a great power though apparently 'only a Ranger'. But the Bearer has been marked with the Knife and (he thinks) cannot last more than a day or two." - "The Hunt for the Ring"
Later, there is also the line
"Escaping a wound that would have been as deadly to him as the Mordor-knife to Frodo (as was proved in the end) he withdrew and hid for a while, out of doubt and fear both of Aragorn and especially of Frodo. But fear of Sauron, and the forces of Sauron's will was the stronger." - this regards the Witch-King's thoughts on the situation
- Note, he fears Frodo more, but it is due to this
- "He had been shaken by the fire of Gandalf, and began to perceive that the mission on which Sauron had sent him was one of great peril to himself both by the way, and on his return to his Master (if unsuccessful); and he had been doing ill, so far achieving nothing save rousing the power of the Wise and directing them to the Ring. But above all the timid and terrified Bearer had resisted him, had dared to strike at him with an enchanted sword made by his own enemies long ago for his destruction. Narrowly it has missed him. How he had come by it - save in the Barrows of Cardolan. Then he was in some way mightier than the Barrow-Wight; and he called on Elbereth, a name of terror to the Nazgûl. He was the in league with the High Elves of the Havens."
- Aragorn he fears for being a "great power", making him scalable. The fear is of Aragorn's might
- Frodo he fears for the unknown. He fears how Frodo resisted him despite being a timid and terrified thing, and for bearing a sword enchanted to specifically kill him (as Merry's own enchanted sword would help do later). He also fears Frodo for being in league with High Elves, for calling on the name of Elbereth, and for somehow beating a Barrow-Wight (although we know it's actually Tom Bombadil who did this)
"Anyway, a difference in the use of 'magic' in this story is that it is not to be come by by 'lore' or spells; but is in an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such. Aragorn's 'healing' might be regarded as 'magical', or at least a blend of magic with pharmacy and 'hypnotic' processes. But it is (in theory) reported by hobbits who have very little notions of philosophy and science; while A. is not a pure 'Man', but at long remove one of the 'children of Luthien'." (regarding healing, but is significant as it also speaks about the nature of Aragorn overall) - Letter 155
"Night was waning on the twenty-second day of September when drawing together again they came to Sarn Ford and the southernmost borders of the Shire. They found them guarded for the Rangers barred their way. But this was a task beyond the power of the Dúnedain; and maybe it would still have proved a even if their captain, Aragorn, had been with them." - Unfinished Tales: The Hunt for the Ring"
Here's the main statements I'm using for my case.These are the three of the statements from the wider Legendarium I am using.
Outside of that, we have the instance where Aragorn drove off Five of the Nazgul, with the later line "On foot even Glorfindel and Aragorn together could not withstand all the Nine at once." implying the pair could likely withstand some of the Nine, with the inclusion of Aragorn implying he is a decent power even compared to Glorfindel, otherwise he would not be worth mentioning (like the Hobbits).
Then I have gathered the lack of anti-feats surrounding Aragorn. He slaughters fodder, and is never truly endangered by them.
There is also the fact that he willingly accepts the idea of fighting a Balrog and Saruman of Many Colours. I'm against confidence scaling, I'm just mentioning these since they're mildly relevant.
All in all, the statements I gather put Aragorn in the same ballpark as the Nazgul, who aren't even that exceptionally powerful for LotR.
Fair enough.Though the king of the dead stuff is movie only, Elendil did use it to either help mortally wound or kill Sauron in a mutual killing.
I'm aware, but the thing is Anduril is like a magical sword made of this magical supermetal. Much like how someone could kill Marvel Heralds with an Adamantium Sword. And not saying they need AoE to be Tier 7 with normal swords either though.That's more of a range issue. He only has a sword, so his attack potency can't really do much as he can only kill a few at a swing. This holds true even with Anduril. In fact, he has Anduril in the books after the first half of the Fellowship.
Thank you. I'll wait for Bambu's response.But anyway, I don't have anything against Aragorn being comparable to Nazgul given the statements above.
... So it's an anti-feat.
What I mean is that sometimes feats that look like they should lead to downscaling don't.Yes. It doesn't work with this wiki though. Unless you want to make the rating a "with the power of good" thing. Though considering how that worked with DBS and the "power of love", with this case being even less substantiated, I don't think that's a good idea.
Glorfindel is only one of them, there's four at absolute minimum given his wording.Possibly. Could be anywhere from High Noldorin fellas to Second Age ones, to Third Age ones. We don't know. We can't comment on this with the dirth of information. Heck, Glorfindel might have been there.
I think it's just the river going really strong, it seems like they just unleashed it rather than empowered it beyond its limits. But while it's true that it's LS, I think it does kinda shown that they aren't meant to be that strong. But, fair enough.Lifting strength issue. They were swept away, not hurt. Plus it's literally a magical water attack.
This really seems to me like his leadership would matter just as much as his strength (and as you've mentioned numbers matter a lot to Tolkien), and he seems pretty unsure about the whole thing even then. I'm not a death of the author sorta guy but I don't think this is a decisive enough statement to hold much meaning.No, there was a battle.
"They found them guarded for the Rangers barred their way. But this was a task beyond the power of the Dúnedain; and maybe it would still have proved a even if their captain, Aragorn, had been with them. But he was away to the north, upon the East Road near Bree; and the hearts even of the Dúnedain misgave them. Some fled northward, hoping to bear news to Aragorn, but they were pursued and slain or driven away into the wild. Some still dared to bar the ford, and held it while day lasted, but at night the Lord of Morgul swept them away, and the Black Riders passed into the Shire"
A good number stayed and fought, effectively even (which is noteworthy), but the Witch-King overcame them at night.
They still make it pretty clear that they couldn't stop them."The Riders made straight for you, as soon as you fled. They did not need the guidance of their horses any longer: you had become visible to them, being already on the threshold of their world. And also the Ring drew them. Your friends sprang aside, off the road, or they would have been ridden down. They knew that nothing could save you, if the white horse could not. The Riders were too swift to overtake, and too many to oppose. On foot even Glorfindel and Aragorn together could not withstand all the Nine at once"
Looking at it again, the emphasise on this point.
I have said that Nazgul individually downscale by a significant margin. They are consistently a threat to Glorfindel and Gandalf in groups. They still need to be roughly comparable... So it's an anti-feat.
This is meaningless.What I mean is that sometimes feats that look like they should lead to downscaling don't.
Yes, they could be four First Age Noldor, Four Second Age Noldor, we don't know. This line gets us nowhere as we don't know.Glorfindel is only one of them, there's four at absolute minimum given his wording.
Please note againI think it's just the river going really strong, it seems like they just unleashed it rather than empowered it beyond its limits. But while it's true that it's LS, I think it does kinda shown that they aren't meant to be that strong. But, fair enough.
The power of the Dunedain is the thing Tolkien emphasised here, and the coupled line that the Witch-King saw Aragorn as a "great power" confirms this.This really seems to me like his leadership would matter just as much as his strength (and as you've mentioned numbers matter a lot to Tolkien), and he seems pretty unsure about the whole thing even then. I'm not a death of the author sorta guy but I don't think this is a decisive enough statement to hold much meaning.
"maybe it still" is a clear sign of possibility. Not a great chance, but it's still possible. Something especially worth noting since Gandalf couldn't even handle 6. And yes, numbers is king, but the Witch-King broke all the remaining Dunedain simply by attacking at night, at his strongest. The presence of Aragorn somehow makes it possible for them to withstand the Nazgul, including the Witch-King, who is too much for the remaining Dunedain to even countenance at his full might.They still make it pretty clear that they couldn't stop them.
I have repeated this several times! Aragorn does not scale to the Balrog! He upscales from the Nazgul! It takes 6 Nazgul to threaten a Balrog level character!I could go on to challenge the rest of what you typed out, you make a good case, but I think your insistence that you've shot down all arguments is quite silly given that the biggest of them, Gandalf stating that he is in no question comparable to the Balrog, remains standing.
I'm sorry, but I genuinely see every argument you and Bambu have presented as non-issues at best. At this point, I am genuinely just repeating my points, as for instanceMeanwhile, all of the feats are just characters stating that he might be capable of fighting the Nazgul, or just keeping up with them once (while exploiting one of their greatest fears, and without ever inflicting any damage).
I LITERALLY COVERED THIS IN THE SCALING REVISION. (again, caps for emphasis)Here's something I found in Tolkien's Letters, 210.
"Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here. It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness."
This seems like it'd deserve a Varies rating of some sort here. If you don't fear them then they aren't as good at threatening you. And Aragorn seemed pretty good at not being afraid.
And Aragorn is superior to them individually, so at worst, Balrog = Gandalf >> Nazgul < Aragorn, which still leads Aragorn to not be much weaker than the Balrog. Like, there isn't really any other way to consider it, that is how things are by your scaling. Hell by the profile he's even superior to the Witch-King.I have said that Nazgul individually downscale by a significant margin. They are consistently a threat to Glorfindel and Gandalf in groups. They still need to be roughly comparable
It says it's "under his power", but that means he can command it, not that it's literally his power going into it, in fact I'd say it implies the opposite. Regardless, I'm willing to drop this just because it's a more secondary thing."‘Elrond commanded it,’ answered Gandalf. ‘The river of this valley is under his power, and it will rise in anger when he has great need to bar the Ford. As soon as the captain of the Ringwraiths rode into the water the flood was released. If I may say so, I added a few touches of my own: you may not have noticed, but some of the waves took the form of great white horses with shining white riders; and there were many rolling and grinding boulders. For a moment I was afraid that we had let loose too fierce a wrath, and the flood would get out of hand and wash you all away. There is great vigour in the waters that come down from the snows of the Misty Mountains.’ "
On the regards of that, nothing in the statement implies the King actually considers Aragorn a threat: "The camp is attacked by night by five Riders; but they are driven off by Aragorn; and withdraw after wounding Frodo. The Witch-King now knows who is the Bearer, and is greatly puzzled that it should be a small creature, and not Aragorn, who seems to be a great power though apparently 'only a Ranger'. But the Bearer has been marked with the Knife and (he thinks) cannot last more than a day or two."the coupled line that the Witch-King saw Aragorn as a "great power" confirms this.
Regardless of whether it doesn't work with other scenes, it absolutely throws the Aragorn - Nazgul scaling into question. Even if you're not going to use it for the profiles it's doubtlessly something Tolkien believed in and that clearly affected his portrayal of Aragorn's fight vs the Rangers. You yourself admitted that he isn't one for powerscaling consistency.The line makes no sense in the published work, which is the primary canon. They are a genuine danger to the likes of Glorfindel and Gandalf, which contradicts this letter!
Yes, the Witch-King isn't that strong in the first key. He's weaker than either Gandalf or Glorfindel individually.And Aragorn is superior to them individually, so at worst, Balrog = Gandalf >> Nazgul < Aragorn, which still leads Aragorn to not be much weaker than the Balrog. Like, there isn't really any other way to consider it, that is how things are by your scaling. Hell by the profile he's even superior to the Witch-King.
5v1 is easier than a 6v1Hell, if we compare Gandalf the Grey and Aragorn's respective performances against the Nazgul, Aragorn does better, given that Gandalf was forced to retreat, while Aragorn stood his ground, albeit against I think one less?
Calls Aragorn a great power, he feared Aragorn, etc.On the regards of that, nothing in the statement implies the King actually considers Aragorn a threat: "The camp is attacked by night by five Riders; but they are driven off by Aragorn; and withdraw after wounding Frodo. The Witch-King now knows who is the Bearer, and is greatly puzzled that it should be a small creature, and not Aragorn, who seems to be a great power though apparently 'only a Ranger'. But the Bearer has been marked with the Knife and (he thinks) cannot last more than a day or two."
Strong, despite being a MERE RANGER! (cap for emph). I refuse to do another grammar breakdown in detail like I did with "limitless expansions in space", but the point is that he views Aragorn as a "great power" DESPTIE being a "mere ranger".He recognizes that he's very strong for what he thinks is a mere ranger, nothing more. Nowhere is it implied that he's actually concerned about that power or think that it rivals his own.
This isn't an avenue to go down unless you want to override the hierarchy of canon. The published material is agreed to be the chief canon. Supplementary material is fine as long as it doesn't go against the chief canon.Regardless of whether it doesn't work with other scenes, it absolutely throws the Aragorn - Nazgul scaling into question. Even if you're not going to use it for the profiles it's doubtlessly something Tolkien believed in and that clearly affected his portrayal of Aragorn's fight vs the Rangers. You yourself admitted that he isn't one for powerscaling consistency.
I'm gonna be honest I just don't think that the Nazgul should scale then, if they're that much weaker. You've said it yourself, Tolkien values numbers a lot, being capable of threatening someone in a 6v1 despite even your strongest member being that much weaker should just not be used for scaling.It's like this Balrog = Gandalf >>Aragorn>Witch-King (first key)>> Nazgul
I mean, the Witch-King was in the group that Aragorn fought, so that doesn't matter, he'd scale to that level anyways.The Nazgul downscale HEAVILY. They are in the same ballpark, but the Witch-King seems to be the main force that makes them so deadly. The others can still be a threat, but the Witch-King's prese
Not to a level where a significantly inferior character manages to keep up in a 5v1, while a much stronger one loses the 6v1.5v1 is easier than a 6v1
And your breakdown is based on this quote, which I don't think holds up.Aka, he sees Aragorn as a danger. I quite literally broke this down above.
... Yes, that's what I said. He's surprised that he's not holding the ring despite him being the strongest person of the group. He's not necessarily acknowledging that he's capable of threatening him, those are different things.Strong, despite being a MERE RANGER! (cap for emph). I refuse to do another grammar breakdown in detail like I did with "limitless expansions in space", but the point is that he views Aragorn as a "great power" DESPTIE being a "mere ranger".
I don't care about the "hierarchy of canon", if you're not just straight-up invoking Death of the Author, which would invalidate all the letters, not just the bits that are contradicted, then my reasoning holds up.This isn't an avenue to go down unless you want to override the hierarchy of canon. The published material is agreed to be the chief canon. Supplementary material is fine as long as it doesn't go against the chief canon.
Then that's a Nazgul issue not an Aragorn one, and the individual Nazgul still endanger powerful individuals.I'm gonna be honest I just don't think that the Nazgul should scale then, if they're that much weaker. You've said it yourself, Tolkien values numbers a lot, being capable of threatening someone in a 6v1 despite even your strongest member being that much weaker should just not be used for scaling.
I mean, the Witch-King was in the group that Aragorn fought, so that doesn't matter.
Oh for pete's sake, you're focusing on one part of the line and not the other. The line says he fears Aragorn and views him as powerful! Seriously, this is just getting frustrating.Not to a level where a significantly inferior character manages to keep up in a 5v1, while a much stronger one loses the 6v1.
And your breakdown is based on this quote, which I don't think holds up.
... Yes, that's what I said. He's surprised that he's not holding the ring despite him being the strongest person of the group. He's not necessarily acknowledging that he's capable of threatening him, those are different things.
Quite literally made my point. You argument doesn't work as it contradicts the canon, and causes us to accept cases of outliers.I don't care about the "hierarchy of canon", if you're not just straight-up invoking Death of the Author, which would invalidate all the letters, than my reasoning holds up.
I made an argument, actually tackle it rather than try to walk circles around it by pointing at unrelated parts of the verse.
It's two sides of the same issues, both Aragorn's scaling to the Nazgul is questionable and the Nazgul's scaling to the level they're at is questionable. This compounds into an extremely doubtful rating.Then that's a Nazgul issue not an Aragorn one, and the individual Nazgul still endanger powerful individuals.
When does it say he fears him? Please point me to the specific words that you are gleaning this from, because I don't see it. He literally just says that Aragorn "seems to be a great power" with no further elaboration. There is zero implication of fear there.Oh for pete's sake, you're focusing on one part of the line and not the other. The line says he fears Aragorn and views him as powerful! Seriously, this is just getting frustrating.
The "evidence" is "Tolkien clearly thinks that Aragorn's courage weakening the Nazgul is the reason he managed to fight them.", I don't care if you're saying that that mechanic doesn't work when looking at LotR as a whole, it's obvious that in this specific scene, that mechanism is in play. Overall portrayal of the verse doesn't affect that, he wrote that one scene with that specific intent and that's what matters most.You need to present evidence that we should disregard the primary material for a secondary one.
No, Aragorn would scale regardless of the Nazgul due to the Witch-King. This would only bring him down a bit.It's two sides of the same issues, both Aragorn's scaling to the Nazgul is questionable and the Nazgul's scaling to the level they're at is questionable. This compounds into an extremely doubtful rating.
Read the statements above. I'm not posting them for the fifth time. I'm getting frustrated because you don't seem to be fully reading the statements I send. Look at the statement I sent to DDM and read the bulletpoints.When does it say he fears him? Please point me to the specific words that you are gleaning this from, because I don't see it. He literally just says that Aragorn "seems to be a great power" with no further elaboration. There is zero implication of fear there.
We don't accept contradictory evidence that is against the primary canon, it is the same for every verse. This is a dead end topic.The "evidence" is "Tolkien clearly thinks that Aragorn's courage weakening the Nazgul is the reason he managed to fight them.", I don't care if you're saying that that mechanic doesn't work when looking at LotR as a whole, it's obvious that in this specific scene, that mechanism is in play. Overall portrayal of the verse doesn't affect that.
The Witch-King scaling is even more questionable than to the other Nazgul, so this does matter.No, Aragorn would scale regardless of the Nazgul due to the Witch-King. This would only bring him down a bit.
I don't think that other quote carries any weight. Aragorn was extremely effective in using fire to fend them off, which is canonically something that they fear. That doesn't inherently imply that he was capable of hurting them.Read the statements above. I'm not posting them for the fifth time. I'm getting frustrated because you don't seem to be fully reading the statements I send. Look at the statement I sent to DDM and read the bulletpoints.
Except I'm NOT saying that we should accept this as canon, read the actual message (which i admittedly edited it a bit to elaborate while you were replying to it) and recognize that the logic is different.We don't accept contradictory evidence that is against the primary canon, it is the same for every verse. This is a dead end topic.
We fundamentally disagree here, and I'm tired of repeating myself.The Witch-King scaling is even more questionable than to the other Nazgul, so this does matter.
To repeat myself, read the scaling revision and earlier points. I'm tired of repeating myself.I don't think that other quote carries any weight. Aragorn was extremely effective in using fire to fend them off, which is canonically something that they fear. That doesn't inherently imply that he was capable of hurting them.
Keep in mind: "Even as he swooned he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood in either hand."
Aragorn used fire in both hands, which means that he never actually even used weaponry against the Nazgul. Literally any pain or damage that they might have potentially suffered in the fight came solely from the fire, and they have absolutely no reason to fear him without it.
Your message makes no sense. We don't just accept intent as a sole reason for a downgrade, otherwise Namor and Adam Warlock would scale to Hulk and Thor! This is a dead end point regardless!Except I'm NOT saying that we should accept this as canon, read the actual message (which i admittedly edited it a bit to elaborate while you were replying to it) and recognize that the logic is different.
Perhaps, but their points really don't convince me in any way. I've already had DDM come and have a look, and he said my statements are fine.Could we compromise and give Aragorn a “possibly far higher” rating to Aragorn or would that be unviable
It's not just about intent. Tolkien basically straight-up says that the Nazgul were not capable of exercising their full power when fighting Aragorn. Now I can agree that he may have not been thinking about their greater role in the story when he wrote that fight, but that doesn't mean that that mechanism isn't in place in the very same fight in which it's happening!Your message makes no sense. We don't just accept intent as a sole reason for a downgrade, otherwise Namor and Adam Warlock would scale to Hulk and Thor! This is a dead end point regardless!
Listen, I definitely agree that this has gone circular but just responding to arguments with "oh I addressed this before, clearly you didn't read that!" just makes you look like you're not listening. Yes, you obviously made your arguments. That doesn't mean that my own are immediately invalid, powerscaling is a subjective thing and I don't find most of your points very convincing.I'll be honest here, this has thus far been a very frustrating back and forth
You both brough up uruks and orcs being capable of hurting Aragorn
You both accuse me of scaling Aragorn to a Balrog
- I showed this to be false
You want to use intent as a reason for downgrade
- He is not on the same level, just the same tier, just like Saruman and Gandalf the Grey, despite the two being greatly apart in scaling. Same with Glorfindel's first and second keys
You have both brought up fire as a weakness
- No. No verse accepts this as its own worthwhile reasoning
You both view Witch-King scaling as faulty
- Nazgul have overcome such fears in moments where they are near their target. See the flood for example, or any river they ever cross! Heck, if it's just because of fire, then the Dunedain would have beaten them at Sarn Ford!
This is all on top of bringing in incorrect information! Forgive me, but this is incredibly frustrating at this point! We've cycled through all these points repeatedly now!
- Why? I'm not copypasting again, but the statements literally says the Witch-King views him as powerful and fears him!
I'm fine with this, for the record. I recognize that there's a scaling throughline I just don't agree with it.Could we compromise and give Aragorn a “possibly far higher” rating to Aragorn or would that be unviable