Is Order of the Stick a fanfic or an Original Work?

[Cap'n Gravelock]

This might offend some of you but one thing that bugs me is whether or not Order of the Stick is a kind of fanfic since it is created within the Dungeons & Dragons setting or is it an original work since the over world is original?

[Snails]

Are the Marvel Universe superheroes all a bunch of fanfic because DC did it first?

[snowblizz]

It's original work.

Fanfic broadly speaking is taking other's characters (plus your own ruthlessly Mary Sue chracter:smallwink:) and writing about them. When writing in settings you get a little more mixing of original work vs existing work but it wouldn't usually be perceived as fanfic per se. Professional authors writing lore for games for example aren't doing fanfic, they are doing paid original work within certain limits (usually).

D&D isn't a setting though. It's a rules scaffold that really has very little bearing on the settings (a sin lore). There are many settings using the D&D rules which are original work. Even more settings that bridge fanfic and original work and most likely a shedload of fanfic set in the previous.

I'll note that all of this will hinge a lot on how you define original work and fanfic etc etc. If you are getting paid to write for someone else it's not really fanfic is it e.g.? Brian Sanderson finishing the Wheel of Time series after Robert Jordan wasn't exactly fanfic either though for many readers it took on such aspects for some characters.

What I'm saying is it is going to depend on a lot of different things and something denoting fanfic in one place may not be fanfic in another.

[Cap'n Gravelock]

Are the Marvel Universe superheroes all a bunch of fanfic because DC did it first?

To be clear, is using D&D and Pathfinder races and classes in an original setting still considered fanfic?


It's original work.

Fanfic broadly speaking is taking other's characters (plus your own ruthlessly Mary Sue chracter:smallwink:) and writing about them. When writing in settings you get a little more mixing of original work vs existing work but it wouldn't usually be perceived as fanfic per se. Professional authors writing lore for games for example aren't doing fanfic, they are doing paid original work within certain limits (usually).

D&D isn't a setting though. It's a rules scaffold that really has very little bearing on the settings (a sin lore). There are many settings using the D&D rules which are original work. Even more settings that bridge fanfic and original work and most likely a shedload of fanfic set in the previous.

I'll note that all of this will hinge a lot on how you define original work and fanfic etc etc. If you are getting paid to write for someone else it's not really fanfic is it e.g.? Brian Sanderson finishing the Wheel of Time series after Robert Jordan wasn't exactly fanfic either though for many readers it took on such aspects for some characters.

What I'm saying is it is going to depend on a lot of different things and something denoting fanfic in one place may not be fanfic in another.

Thank you for the comprehensive answer.

[factotum]

D&D isn't a setting though. It's a rules scaffold that really has very little bearing on the settings (a sin lore). There are many settings using the D&D rules which are original work. Even more settings that bridge fanfic and original work and most likely a shedload of fanfic set in the previous.


This. If the Giant had used a pre-existing D&D setting like Greyhawk for his story then you might be able to consider OotS a fanfic, although even then I think that would be pushing it. As it stands, everything about the story is the Giant's own invention other than the laws the universe runs on, and even those he'll tweak to make for a better tale if he has to.

[Rogar Demonblud]

To be clear, is using D&D and Pathfinder races and classes in an original setting still considered fanfic?

No. For the most part, those are a few concepts and a load of crap from mythology and folklore. It's easier to argue that D&D is fanfic itself.

[2D8HP]

No. For the most part, those are a few concepts and a load of crap from mythology and folklore. It's easier to argue that D&D is fanfic itself.

Based on the accounts of it's earliest players (http://blogofholding.com/?series=mornard) pre-publication D&D began as a satire of fantasy fiction, though a different word than "satire" was used.

[Kish]

Some people write fantasy fiction.
Some people make a game based on fantasy fiction: fanfic.
Some giant makes a webcomic based on the game based on fantasy fiction: fanficfanfic.
Some people write fanfiction based on the webcomic based on the game based on fantasy fiction: They're dead, of course.

[D.One]

Some people write fantasy fiction.
Some people make a game based on fantasy fiction: fanfic.
Some giant makes a webcomic based on the game based on fantasy fiction: fanficfanfic.
Some people write fanfiction based on the webcomic based on the game based on fantasy fiction: They're dead, of course.

I'm DMing a game based on a fanfiction based on the webcomic based on the game based on fantasy fiction. Does that means I'm a kind of Lich? :smallbiggrin:

[Kaytara]

Ah - a complex question to which there can be no simple answer. You see, to ask whether something qualifies as fanfiction is in essence to question whether it meets the arbitrary criteria for a derivative nature accompanied by a simultaneous lack of backing from a major studio or connection to a larger commercial project. While we consider the reusing of assets from pre-existing stories to be typically fanfiction, public works such as reimaginings of stories in the public domain, or even remakes of older movies, are typically exempt from the label - it is not enough that the work be simply derivative, but also that the creator possesses a certain amateur status within their industry. At the same time, this line is blurred by works that initially start out as 'fanfiction' only to gain greater commercial success later on, often after a cursory reskinning to render their assets less recognisable. There can be no question that playing with your own characters in another creator's playground is considered fanfiction within such circles; for example, if one should choose to rewrite the Star Wars trilogy entirely with original characters, but keep the 'rules' of the universe such as the existence of the Force, the Sith and the Jedi intact, it would be considered a fanfiction, would it not? Compared to that, Rich's rendering of his own original characters constrained by the Dungeons & Dragons rulebook does not seem particularly different, even if he chose to omit the classic DnD setting of the Forgotten Realms from his narrative altogether, while still retaining smaller pieces of the setting such as the playable races, the deities, and their relationship to one another. Perhaps, then, we should be asking ourselves what makes a work so derivative as to qualify as fanfiction, yet it is a query that would lead us nowhere, for there is no threshold we can imagine that would not serve a purely arbitrary nature. As it stands, all artistic works draw on the larger cultural background with which they were created rather than flounder in a vacuum. It is simply a question of whether the influence of other works in a given narrative is more or less overt. The more stringent-minded of you may hold the view that everything that offends existing copyright laws in the absence of a license agreement qualifies as fanfiction, while the more radical-minded may choose to believe that all modern stories are merely retreading structures that were formulated and canonised long before us, in the age of the Romans and the Greeks. So indeed, who is to say if something is truly fanfiction or not?

https://i.imgur.com/WD0dGX5.png






Tl;dr: It kind of is, but the definition of fanfiction is so blurry and complicated that you could make the case either way.

[Fyraltari]

If you make money out of it, it's not fanfiction.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Thanks for the laugh, Kaytara.

[wumpus]

To be clear, is using D&D and Pathfinder races and classes in an original setting still considered fanfic?

Thank you for the comprehensive answer.

Generally speaking, fanfic also typically involves someone else's characters (you could include Merlin but not Frodo). D&D and Pathfinder are sufficiently cliched and non-specific enough to allow original works, I'd call anything in a world that included either Jedi or Hogwarts (even for unnamed characters who never went to the place) fanfic.

In reality, the real difference is how you publish. If people pay for your work (even if you have to found ookadook to do it) it isn't really fanfic anymore. If you can support your own website it really isn't fanfic (unless you haven't bothered to file off the serial numbers. Obvious fanfic is still fanfic).

If you thought "Memory of Light" was murky, how about "Tales of the Vulgar Unicorn". Back in the eighties (or earlier?), Robert Aspirn started a series about a place called "Thieve's World" that various (pro/published) authors could write about, and were published as collections of short stories (I think only in mass market paperback, but I could be wrong). I'm guessing it worked its way from "side job for a pro" to "licensed page fillers" as the characters became established and the rules prevented any character growth/change.

[Mandor]

Generally speaking, fanfic also typically involves someone else's characters (you could include Merlin but not Frodo). D&D and Pathfinder are sufficiently cliched and non-specific enough to allow original works, I'd call anything in a world that included either Jedi or Hogwarts (even for unnamed characters who never went to the place) fanfic.

In reality, the real difference is how you publish. If people pay for your work (even if you have to found ookadook to do it) it isn't really fanfic anymore. If you can support your own website it really isn't fanfic (unless you haven't bothered to file off the serial numbers. Obvious fanfic is still fanfic).

If you thought "Memory of Light" was murky, how about "Tales of the Vulgar Unicorn". Back in the eighties (or earlier?), Robert Aspirn started a series about a place called "Thieve's World" that various (pro/published) authors could write about, and were published as collections of short stories (I think only in mass market paperback, but I could be wrong). I'm guessing it worked its way from "side job for a pro" to "licensed page fillers" as the characters became established and the rules prevented any character growth/change.Oh man, I'd forgotten about Thieve's World. The first several books were actually REALLY fun reads. But it totally devolved into a competition for who could present the city with the most apocolyptic doom to hang over it and whose character was more badass than what other characters.

[Reddish Mage]

Tl;dr: It kind of is, but the definition of fanfiction is so blurry and complicated that you could make the case either way.

For something to be fanfiction there has to be an actual work of fiction its based on. D&D 3.5 is just a bunch of rule books. Rich crafts his own world and references the rules.

Sure there are questions about what it means to be "a work of fiction" or a "story" but a saying a bunch of rulebooks is a story is stretching it.

Asking if 50 Shades of Grey is fanfiction is complicated. Perhaps the term "fanfiction" can be applied to those authorized sequels not by original authors (I'm thinking Dune). Maybe you want to use the term on anything amateurish with tendencies found in fanfiction.

Regardless OOTS has none of that. There is nothing here to hang the fanfiction hat on. Its as original a work as any new fantasy work can be.

[LadyEowyn]

It's a fanfic because it's telling a new story within the setting/worldbuilding of a previously-existing work (D&D). The concepts of PCs and NPCs, the classes, the races, the spells, are all elements of a pre-existing "world". OOTS uses some elements without modification, alters others, and critiques others, but it's clearly set in that world. The fact that we can even have a class and level geekery thread that says "oh,mX character cast Y spell, so s/he's at least Z level" - despite Rich not saying what level every spell is - is because the setting was defined and created by people other than the comic's author.

Sure, D&D is different from many other source works for fanfiction in that it doesn't really have a plot or characters, but it's still a fictional world, and one that is not of Rich's invention. Heck, he's written two strips honouring people who did invent that world.

[Kaytara]

Right on, LadyEowyn.


For something to be fanfiction there has to be an actual work of fiction its based on. D&D 3.5 is just a bunch of rule books. Rich crafts his own world and references the rules.

Sure there are questions about what it means to be "a work of fiction" or a "story" but a saying a bunch of rulebooks is a story is stretching it.

...

Regardless OOTS has none of that. There is nothing here to hang the fanfiction hat on. Its as original a work as any new fantasy work can be.

That's an interesting answer, though I think I disagree. There's the mistake right there, bolded. 'Fiction' and 'story' are very different things, but you're treating them as interchangeable. Fictional simply means that it's imagined, not real. A story (in this case, written prose) is something with a narrative and a plot. So yes, it's stretching it to say that a bunch of rulebooks is a story. But it's not stretching it to say that a bunch of rulebooks is fiction. Because the content of those rulebooks is fictional, therefore they're fiction. So anything written as based off them but not by the original author(s) is technically fanfiction, if we're going kind bluntly by your own condition: that something has to be based on a work of fiction to be fanfiction.

Though, granted, rulebooks and such are slightly unusual in that they're actually meant to inspire other people to come up with stories based on them.

The problem with the definition of fanfic has been cleared up really well by the past few posts. Defining something as fanfic has so many factors that are extrinsic to the work (like how it's published, how much involvement the original creators have, if it's monetised, etc.) that you can't really decide if something is fanfic solely from intrinsic factors like the originality of the content. So it's not about originality at all. It's just one of many criteria, and probably not even the most important one. (E.g. remakes of older movies are technically super unoriginal, highly derivative, and have very little if any involvement from the original creators, but it's "not fanfiction" because money changed hands and licensing agreements were signed. It's kind of random in that way. So you could make the case that for something to be fanfiction it needs to a) be based of a pre-existing other fictional thing, and b) be set in that grey zone of copyright law/unoriginality/derivativeness where it exists completely separately from the original creator, potentially even despite the original creator's wishes.)

[factotum]

Asking if 50 Shades of Grey is fanfiction is complicated.

I wouldn't say it's complicated--it started out as Twilight fanfiction, even Stephanie Meyer would admit that. That she later cleaned it up and sold it to a publisher doesn't change its origins.

[Cap'n Gravelock]

It's a fanfic because it's telling a new story within the setting/worldbuilding of a previously-existing work (D&D). The concepts of PCs and NPCs, the classes, the races, the spells, are all elements of a pre-existing "world". OOTS uses some elements without modification, alters others, and critiques others, but it's clearly set in that world. The fact that we can even have a class and level geekery thread that says "oh,mX character cast Y spell, so s/he's at least Z level" - despite Rich not saying what level every spell is - is because the setting was defined and created by people other than the comic's author.

Sure, D&D is different from many other source works for fanfiction in that it doesn't really have a plot or characters, but it's still a fictional world, and one that is not of Rich's invention. Heck, he's written two strips honouring people who did invent that world.


For something to be fanfiction there has to be an actual work of fiction its based on. D&D 3.5 is just a bunch of rule books. Rich crafts his own world and references the rules.

Sure there are questions about what it means to be "a work of fiction" or a "story" but a saying a bunch of rulebooks is a story is stretching it.

Asking if 50 Shades of Grey is fanfiction is complicated. Perhaps the term "fanfiction" can be applied to those authorized sequels not by original authors (I'm thinking Dune). Maybe you want to use the term on anything amateurish with tendencies found in fanfiction.

Regardless OOTS has none of that. There is nothing here to hang the fanfiction hat on. Its as original a work as any new fantasy work can be.

So, say, if I say something similar that takes place in an original setting with races and classes from Pathfinder, will it still be considered fanfic?

[Seafarer]

It's a fanfic because it's telling a new story within the setting/worldbuilding of a previously-existing work (D&D). The concepts of PCs and NPCs, the classes, the races, the spells, are all elements of a pre-existing "world". OOTS uses some elements without modification, alters others, and critiques others, but it's clearly set in that world. The fact that we can even have a class and level geekery thread that says "oh,mX character cast Y spell, so s/he's at least Z level" - despite Rich not saying what level every spell is - is because the setting was defined and created by people other than the comic's author.

Sure, D&D is different from many other source works for fanfiction in that it doesn't really have a plot or characters, but it's still a fictional world, and one that is not of Rich's invention. Heck, he's written two strips honouring people who did invent that world.

D&D isn't a work. It's a game engine. Is Undertale fanfic because it's built on RPG Maker? Is *insert a decent chunk of modern video gaming* fanfic because it uses the Unreal Unity, dammit Engine?

D&D isn't even a setting. The rulebooks tend to assume a setting for ease of explanation, but the rules themselves are setting-independent. As for the concepts of PCs and NPCs - they aren't even elements of the assumed setting. They're game mechanics. The Giant made them part of his setting because it's funny, but they're not part of any published D&D setting that I know of.

The classes and races are basically generic - elves and dwarves, for example, are common things in stories dating back hundreds of years, and most classes are based around strong character archetypes. D&D draws from these to, again, allow the DM creative freedom - the more rules there are covering common story tropes, the easier it is for a DM to rip off whatever his favourite story is.

So, basically, the story is Rich's; the setting is Rich's; the characters are Rich's. Not fanfic by any sensible definition.

[hroþila]

It's pretty hard to discuss what is and isn't fanfic while this huge stigma about fanfic exists, but I think it's pretty clear that OotS isn't, because the characters, the plot and the setting are all original.

Is most medieval literature fanfic, though? Aaaah.

[Vinyadan]

OotS is a parody. So it's derivative, but with an element of originality. This element ended up taking over the comic by developing characters and plots. These still are parodies, but they also stand up on their own. So it isn't a fanfiction, because fanfiction ≠ parody.

I don't call anything a fanfiction, unless the author declared it as such, because I think that there is a precise mindset to writing fanfiction.

About medieval art being fanfiction, I'd say no. Medieval literature has its own set of definitions. Saying "it's all fanfiction" instead of "it's derivative work" would only murk up the water. To explain what I mean: I have occasionally read Dante's Comedy defined as a self-insert fanfic. Let's ignore the "fanfic" element for a moment (which can be just translated into "derivative work"), and talk about the "self-insert". Dante is in the Comedy. He is the main character. But anyone who has studied the Comedy will tell you that there is a clear difference between the author Dante and the character Dante. The author was an important politician and an expert theologian. The character has no idea of what he is doing, and is pretty much a bundle of feelings and questions. More importantly, in the allegorical meaning, Dante represents any man who is lost. So the character isn't really about Dante. Add in the fact that Dante came from a poetry tradition in which it was normal to speak in first person.
Or one could say that Virgil being there is a wish-fulfilment of Dante, who so gets to hang out with his favourite poet. But Virgil would have been familiar to anyone in the Middle Ages, be it as poet or as wizard, as a man who had written famous prophecies and knew how the Afterworld worked. So the point isn't "OMG Vergil Senpai". It's that Virgil is the man for the job.
I have also seen Beatrice described as wish-fulfilment, but even that doesn't really work. Praising the beloved woman was a normal theme in the poetry of Dante's time; the poet's job was to write well in enough, as to give the woman a praise adequate to her merit. Dante explicitly says that this is why Beatrice is in the Comedy: to praise her in a way in which no poet has ever praised his beloved, and in the way that Beatrice deserves.

[snowblizz]

So, say, if I say something similar that takes place in an original setting with races and classes from Pathfinder, will it still be considered fanfic?
How round is too round for a banana?

Will it be considered fanfic? That will depend almost entirely on the recepient/reader. Pathfinder is unlikely to be very "original" in it's use of classes or races (just like D&D which they fanficed). If you draw inspiration from some Pathfinder stuff it's equally probable that someone will see it as just another Tolkien clone as anything else.

You get the following problem I think Penny Arcade illustrated very well.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-XjgLRsf/2/a57d30e2/O/i-XjgLRsf.jpg


Also if people like your stuff they will be less likely to say "fanfic". People who love 50 Shades are less likely to consider it fanfic. Those who dislike Twilight and 50 Shades are more likely to consider it so.

Basically we cannot say a priori whether something will be considered fanfic or not. The concept itself is too nebulous and it will depend on the persons experiencing the story.

Best we can say I'd say, would be that, most here don't consider OOTS a fanfic, and are unlikely to consider a good story inspired by some Pathfinder stuff to be fanfic. But I reserve the right to judge the product when I see it. As some american judge might have said "I know pornography when I see it". (I'm unsure how exactly that story goes exactly)

[JennTora]

How round is too round for a banana?

Will it be considered fanfic? That will depend almost entirely on the recepient/reader. Pathfinder is unlikely to be very "original" in it's use of classes or races (just like D&D which they fanficed). If you draw inspiration from some Pathfinder stuff it's equally probable that someone will see it as just another Tolkien clone as anything else.

You get the following problem I think Penny Arcade illustrated very well.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-XjgLRsf/2/a57d30e2/O/i-XjgLRsf.jpg


Also if people like your stuff they will be less likely to say "fanfic". People who love 50 Shades are less likely to consider it fanfic. Those who dislike Twilight and 50 Shades are more likely to consider it so.

Basically we cannot say a priori whether something will be considered fanfic or not. The concept itself is too nebulous and it will depend on the persons experiencing the story.

Best we can say I'd say, would be that, most here don't consider OOTS a fanfic, and are unlikely to consider a good story inspired by some Pathfinder stuff to be fanfic. But I reserve the right to judge the product when I see it. As some american judge might have said "I know pornography when I see it". (I'm unsure how exactly that story goes exactly)

That penny arcade comic is not quite correct. The main part of that lawsuit was that the first underworld movie was extremely similar to a vampire the masquerade story published prior to the movie. White wolf's lawyers did mention a lot of classical vampire tropes to pad the silly thing though.

Anyway, if you can't actually write a fanfic about d&d, there's quite a few stories on fanfiction.net that aren't fanfics because as far as I can tell they're based on original settings

[martianmister]

It's a parody.

[Kaytara]

D&D isn't a work. It's a game engine. Is Undertale fanfic because it's built on RPG Maker? Is *insert a decent chunk of modern video gaming* fanfic because it uses the Unreal Unity, dammit Engine?

D&D isn't even a setting. The rulebooks tend to assume a setting for ease of explanation, but the rules themselves are setting-independent. As for the concepts of PCs and NPCs - they aren't even elements of the assumed setting. They're game mechanics. The Giant made them part of his setting because it's funny, but they're not part of any published D&D setting that I know of.

The classes and races are basically generic - elves and dwarves, for example, are common things in stories dating back hundreds of years, and most classes are based around strong character archetypes. D&D draws from these to, again, allow the DM creative freedom - the more rules there are covering common story tropes, the easier it is for a DM to rip off whatever his favourite story is.


Mmm, I think you're making some erroneous comparisons there. It's ludicrous to say that they're "basically generic" - not only are elves and dwarves in their current iteration a quite recent (read: Tolkienish) invention because they are at best only very loosely inspired by a variety of different old myths, but the DnD take on them is based on it but still noticeably distinct from it. For instance, DnD (and thus OotS) elves are creatures that are slight, shorter than humans, with a frailer constitution and an immunity (and inability) to sleep who favourably tend to be wizards. There is nothing about that specific set of traits that "goes back hundreds of years", or even back to Tolkien. It can't even be considered to be the "high fantasy cliche" type of elf, because that's the Tolkien elf.

And I'm not really sure how you can argue that the classes are generic when a) that would make for a pretty boring game engine, tbh, and b) the specific abilities of some classes and the, at times, ridiculously specific and obscure prestige classes have often been pointed out as jokes in the comic. The DM is always free to improvise and deviate from the formula because that's their job and prerogative, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS a formula, and a pretty specific one at that.

Even if DnD is a game engine, it's also a work. The job of a game engine would stop at the point of defining what a playable race is, what abilities there are, how they're calculated, how combat works, etc. All the other stuff on top if it? Like specific examples of what playable classes and races can look like, giving them names and aesthetics and gods to worship and alignments and all that stuff? That's fluff, and it's definitely a work of fiction.

I should probably clarify at this point that I don't really care for the stigma attached to the word 'fanfic', don't consider "it's technically slightly a fanfic" to be any statement on quality, and am purely interested in discussing it for the sake of discussion. I just don't find the arguments for "It's very definitely not a fanfic!" convincing so far.

Except for one, maybe. I do actually agree with Vinyadan's statement that writing fanfic is a specific mindset. Rich doesn't think of it as fanfic (that we know of?), therefore it isn't one.

[Seafarer]

Mmm, I think you're making some erroneous comparisons there. It's ludicrous to say that they're "basically generic" - not only are elves and dwarves in their current iteration a quite recent (read: Tolkienish) invention because they are at best only very loosely inspired by a variety of different old myths, but the DnD take on them is based on it but still noticeably distinct from it. For instance, DnD (and thus OotS) elves are creatures that are slight, shorter than humans, with a frailer constitution and an immunity (and inability) to sleep who favourably tend to be wizards. There is nothing about that specific set of traits that "goes back hundreds of years", or even back to Tolkien. It can't even be considered to be the "high fantasy cliche" type of elf, because that's the Tolkien elf.


Faerie-descended creatures with an affinity for magic? That looks like "generic fantasy elf" to me.
More seriously, D&D wasn't the first thing to give any of those traits to a thing that was called "elf". Apart from the frailer constitution, they are all Tolkienian traits, and they've all been copied by a succession of others since then.



And I'm not really sure how you can argue that the classes are generic when a) that would make for a pretty boring game engine, tbh, and b) the specific abilities of some classes and the, at times, ridiculously specific and obscure prestige classes have often been pointed out as jokes in the comic. The DM is always free to improvise and deviate from the formula because that's their job and prerogative, but that doesn't change the fact that there IS a formula, and a pretty specific one at that.


I meant that they're strongly archetyped and can fit into any setting. Of course, 3E is ridiculous about its setting-themed prestige classes, but I don't remember any of those showing up in OotS.



Even if DnD is a game engine, it's also a work. The job of a game engine would stop at the point of defining what a playable race is, what abilities there are, how they're calculated, how combat works, etc. All the other stuff on top if it? Like specific examples of what playable classes and races can look like, giving them names and aesthetics and gods to worship and alignments and all that stuff? That's fluff, and it's definitely a work of fiction.


Now, see, I did refer to this. What you're talking about is the assumed setting that the designers use to illustrate the rules. The assumed setting for 3E core is Forgotten Realms, I believe. If OotS was set in the Forgotten Realms, then sure, it'd be fanfic. It's not, so the question is trickier.


I think that there's a fundamental problem with this discussion: nobody has actually put forth a definition of "fanfic" for people to compare with the evidence. My arguments are largely resting on a legal definition - is anything Rich is using capable of being considered intellectual property of someone else. Of course, even that is complicated by two things: the OGL, and the fact that OotS is a parody.

If I recall correctly, the OGL was meant to cover the things that WotC didn't consider their exclusive IP, so that's something. The parody part is harder, because I've seen parody fanfic before, but... well, I agree with this:



Except for one, maybe. I do actually agree with Vinyadan's statement that writing fanfic is a specific mindset. Rich doesn't think of it as fanfic (that we know of?), therefore it isn't one.

[snowblizz]

I think that there's a fundamental problem with this discussion: nobody has actually put forth a definition of "fanfic" for people to compare with the evidence. My arguments are largely resting on a legal definition - is anything Rich is using capable of being considered intellectual property of someone else. Of course, even that is complicated by two things: the OGL, and the fact that OotS is a parody.


Well that's largely because it'd be impossible to nail it down. And the process of doing so I suspect easily shaves bit too close to matters of law and "giving legal advice". In copyright cases the legal definition is only really established in a court of law.

[LadyEowyn]

Faerie-descended creatures with an affinity for magic? That looks like "generic fantasy elf" to me.
More seriously, D&D wasn't the first thing to give any of those traits to a thing that was called "elf". Apart from the frailer constitution, they are all Tolkienian traits, and they've all been copied by a succession of others since then.
Tolkien's elves are as tall or taller than humans, as well as stronger and tougher; they do sleep; and they do not generally use "magic" in the D&D sense of specific spells with specific verbal and physical components.

On a related note, OOTS uses a system of magic (Vancian) that is certainly not original to it, and the specific spells and abilities (Exploding Runes, Meteor Swarm, Sneak Attack, etc.) used by the characters are drawn from D&D. As are the specific abilities associated with the Rogue, Bard,metc. characters, and the distinctions between the way magic is performed by a Wizard vs as Sorceror. These things are not generic.

I am certainly mot claiming that OOTS violates copyright; OOTS is sufficient transformative for that not yo be an issue. But the underlying setting, races, character types, magic system, spells, levels, abilities etc. are taken from a pre-existing work, which makes it D&D fanfic. I use the word fanfic in a descriptive manner, not a pejorative one.

[Fyraltari]

Tolkien's elves are as tall or taller than humans, as well as stronger and tougher
Used to be. Both the Book of Lost Tales and Lord of the Rings establish that Elves have become significantly weaker that Men since the good ol' days of Beleriand and will continue weakening until they look like the feys of fairy storie and legends. It is part of the "Arda is Earth's past" and "the world used to be much more magical" thing.


On a related note, OOTS uses a system of magic (Vancian) that is certainly not original to it, and the specific spells and abilities (Exploding Runes, Meteor Swarm, Sneak Attack, etc.) used by the characters are drawn from D&D. As are the specific abilities associated with the Rogue, Bard,metc. characters, and the distinctions between the way magic is performed by a Wizard vs as Sorceror. These things are not generic.
I wwould like to add that D&D practically invented the whole "paladin = magic knighty monk" thing too that seems to just be everywhere in fantasy nowadays.

[Lacuna Caster]

I would like to add that D&D practically invanented the whole "paladin = magic knighty monk" thing too that seems to just be everywhere in fantasy nowadays.
What were paladins before that, exactly?

[hroþila]

What were paladins before that, exactly?
Simply ideal knights.

[Fyraltari]

What were paladins before that, exactly?

Rigt-hand men/bodyguards of an emperor. The term has the same roots as palace.

Originally the term covered Roland and the others knights in service of Charlemagne as a Matter of France counterpart to Matter of England's Knights of the Round table.

Bismarck and Molte were sometimes called Wilhelm II's paladins.

EDIT Wilhelm the First goddammit. Bloody royals and their re-use of first names.

[Cedar]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/David_von_Michelangelo.jpg/800px-David_von_Michelangelo.jpg

Is this "Bible fanfiction/fanart"?

In the end most things are based on something else. I don't really see the point of trying to make a clean distinction between what is or what isn't 'fanfiction' (especially not with how some people think that fanfiction is less valuable than 'real art'). As long as (you enjoy it/it brings something new/insert other thing you value), I don't think it really matters.

[Vinyadan]

Tolkien's elves are as tall or taller than humans

According to the Tales of Numenor and Middle Earth, Galadriel is very tall and as tall as Celeborn, but they both are below 2m (and Galadriel is said to be the tallest of the Eldar women). Celeborn was considered tall for a Linda, but these were shorter than the Noldor. Elendil was around 2m 40 cm (three ranga), and was the tallest of the Numenoreans. Aragorn and Eomer were both around the same height as Galadriel. The Rohirrim generally were somewhat shorter. The Men of Gondor were around the same height as Eomer.

Apparently, the Companion to LotR notes Aragorn at around 6'6 (198 cm), and Boromir as about two inch shorter. I rely on a quote from Reddit, though. Elendil here is 7 foot tall (213 cm).

In practice, there is a lot of variance between different peoples of the same race, so it's hard to come to a conclusion. The two tallest individuals ever seem to have been Thingol and Turgon, while the Numenoreans of the Second Age were commonly seven foot tall.


as well as stronger and tougher;

"Nonetheless it needed the strength of the two Men to lift and haul them [the boats] over the ground that the Company now had to cross". which means that the Men were the strongest in the Fellowship. Tougher is a relative concept: Elves could survive wounds and illness better than Men, but be killed by psychic trauma, according to posthumous material.


they do sleep;

"Legolas already lay motionless, his fair hands folded upon his breast, his eyes unclosed, blending living night and deep dream, as is the way with Elves." An odd way to sleep, but it's close to human sleep; not a trance, at least. I don't know how it relates to the drunken stupor in "The Hobbit" :smallbiggrin:


and they do not generally use "magic" in the D&D sense of specific spells with specific verbal and physical components.


Right, kinda. There are some common points: Sam's Elvish words scare away Shelob, and Galadriel has her ways to make magic items, like the Phial. But Tolkien's magic has firstly an aesthetic purpose, while D&D's magic aims to be usable in a tactical setting, so it has to be different.

[hamishspence]

According to the Tales of Numenor and Middle Earth, Galadriel is very tall and as tall as Celeborn, but they both are below 2m (and Galadriel is said to be the tallest of the Eldar women). Celeborn was considered tall for a Linda, but these were shorter than the Noldor. Elendil was around 2m 40 cm (three ranga), and was the tallest of the Numenoreans. Aragorn and Eomer were both around the same height as Galadriel. The Rohirrim generally were somewhat shorter. The Men of Gondor were around the same height as Eomer.

Apparently, the Companion to LotR notes Aragorn at around 6'6 (198 cm), and Boromir as about two inch shorter. I rely on a quote from Reddit, though. Elendil here is 7 foot tall (213 cm).

7'11"


Thus two ranga (or paces, which was one unit in Numenorean measure) was often called “man-high”, which at 38 inches gives an average height of six feet four inches; but this was at a later date, when the stature of the Dunedain appears to have decreased…

Elendil was said to be “more than man-high by half a ranga ;” but he was accounted the tallest of all the Numenoreans who escaped from the Downfall….

- he's 2.5 ranga tall, 1 ranga is 38 inches, 0.5 ranga is 19 inches, so he's 38+38+19 inches tall - 95 inches.

[Vinyadan]

What I don't get is how I got the number of ranga (3 instead of 2.5) wrong, but the cm right (95 inch = 241 cm).

To be clear, the two different heights for Elendil in the two paragraphs are due to the fact that Tolkien wrote different estimates in different texts. So the Tales of Numenor has 7 foot 11 inch, and the text quoted from the Companion to the LotR (which I don't own and I am reading from a quote on Reddit) has 7 inch.

Aragorn, direct descendant of Elendil and his son Isildur, both of whom had been seven feet tall
This last one is part of an unpublished note from the Bodleian Library (the Oxford University Library), which I had never read of, before today. The Companion looks like an interesting book.

[LadyEowyn]

Okay, you win! I was going off memory, not direct quotes, and didn't remember the passage about a trance-like sleep correctly. Though Tolkien's elves can also trance while physically active, which I think differs from D&D.

I certainly have the impression from The Silmarillion that the Noldor are tougher than Men - not many humans would have a chance of surviving a journey across Arctic ice sheets without any winter gear - and at least as strong). If D&D went by Tolkien, Elves would have higher CON than Men.

Your description of height also seems to put Elves and Men at a similar height, or at least Elves at a similar height to present-day humans (2m is on the tall side for male humans as well, as would be extremely tall for a human woman).

The Elvish words said by Sam in Shelob's Lair (and by Frodo and Sam on their escape from Cirith Ungol, and by Frodo on Weathertop) are in no way a spell; they are a prayer to Varda, which is why they harm evil things.

[Fyraltari]

Okay, you win!

I was going off memory, not direct quotes (though I certainly have the impression from The Silmarillion that the Noldor are tougher than Men - not many humans would have a chance of surviving a journey across Arctic ice sheets without any winter gear - and at least as strong). If D&D went by Tolkien, Elves would have higher CON than Men.

Your description of height also seems to put Elves and Men at a similar height.

They were. I the First Age. 6000 years ago. Before magic went away (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=23035575).

[LadyEowyn]

Okay. I've only read the more narrative-style books (Hobbit, LOtR, Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales), not the HIstory of Middle-earth books (except Lays of Beleriand). But I think it's reasonable to compare Elves to Men with regards to the First-through-Third Ages, as that's when the stories are set.

[hroþila]

It may be misleading to say the Elves were this or that, because there was a vast gulf in power between the Noldor and the Sindar, and also between the Sindar and the Nandor and the Avari. Power which encompassed mental capabilities, but also quite likely physical strength (and certainly combat prowess). But as for the FA Noldor and Sindar, who make up the bulk of the Elves in the Silmarillion, I'd say they're both pretty explicitly stronger than Men. The Númenóreans were quite extraordinary among Men.

[pearl jam]

Indeed. They're collectively somewhat like half-elves even if that term wouldn't be technically accurate for all (most) of them.

[Vinyadan]

In Related News: Do Dwarf Women Have Beards?

[Fyraltari]

In Related News: Do Dwarf Women Have Beards?

Yes. Weeee!

[factotum]

They were. I the First Age. 6000 years ago. Before magic went away (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=23035575).

Weren't the human heroes of the First Age similarly much stronger than their descendants? Hurin was supposed to have personally killed 70 orcs and trolls at the Last Stand of the Men of Dor-Lomin, and even though the enemies were explicitly trying to take him alive rather than kill him, that's still a pretty impressive total.

[Seafarer]

Tolkien's elves are as tall or taller than humans, as well as stronger and tougher; they do sleep; and they do not generally use "magic" in the D&D sense of specific spells with specific verbal and physical components.

The height thing has been hashed out already. The stronger and tougher thing I specifically excluded. They don't sleep the same way as Men - Legolas is always up before Aragorn and Gimli when they're hunting Orcs across Rohan, and the narrative describes his rest as - hang on -"resting his mind in the strange paths of elvish dreams", which sounds a lot like the inspiration for D&D trancing to me. And the question was not about magic in the D&D sense, but an affinity for wizardry, which the Eldar qualify for as much as anyone in Arda.



On a related note, OOTS uses a system of magic (Vancian) that is certainly not original to it, and the specific spells and abilities (Exploding Runes, Meteor Swarm, Sneak Attack, etc.) used by the characters are drawn from D&D. As are the specific abilities associated with the Rogue, Bard,metc. characters, and the distinctions between the way magic is performed by a Wizard vs as Sorceror. These things are not generic.

D&D didn't invent Vancian magic, though. That, to me, is part of the point: world mechanics can be lifted without automatically qualifying the lifter as fanfiction. D&D also didn't invent the concepts of people who are good at attacking stealthily for massive damage, or throwing fireballs, or being trained to fight a specific type of foe. OotS is, in part, a parody of the D&D ruleset, so it has to reference those rules, or it's not what it is. That doesn't make it not an original work.

I still fundamentally disagree with the idea that D&D is, on its own, a work of fiction, because it lacks a defined setting and characters. Or rather, it is effectively a set of physical laws that have fuelled many settings.

EDIT: Settings can share elements without being the same setting as each other. That's what I've been struggling to articulate.



I am certainly mot claiming that OOTS violates copyright; OOTS is sufficient transformative for that not yo be an issue. But the underlying setting, races, character types, magic system, spells, levels, abilities etc. are taken from a pre-existing work, which makes it D&D fanfic. I use the word fanfic in a descriptive manner, not a pejorative one.

On the other hand, I feel like we're only going to talk past each other, because we don't agree on what makes something a "work" or "fanfic". So I'll leave it at that.

[Jay R]

Wikipedia: Fan fiction or fanfiction (also abbreviated to fan fic, fanfic, fic or ff) is fiction about characters or settings from an original work of fiction, created by fans of that work rather than by its creator.

dictionary.com: 1. fiction written by fans of a TV series, movie, etc., using existing characters and situations to develop new plots.
2. a work of fiction in this genre.

merriam-webster.com: stories involving popular fictional characters that are written by fans and often posted on the Internet

oxforddictionaries.com: Fiction written by a fan of, and featuring characters from, a particular TV series, film, etc.

The Order of the Stick is not about characters and settings from an original work of fiction, it doesn't use existing characters and situations, it doesn't involve popular fictional characters, and doesn't feature characters from, a particular story.

So by the most obvious definitions I can find, the Order of the Stick is not fanfic.

But it's a new term, not well established. And there is no English equivalent of the Académie française - no final arbiter about what English words mean.

So if you want to use fanfic in a way that includes the Order of the Stick, nobody can stop you. But you will not communicate with anyone that way, and we will all think you're mistaken.

Not mistaken about the nature of the Order of the Stick. Mistaken about the meaning of the term fanfic.

Because that's not how the word is generally used. It's just not.

[hamishspence]

While "Le Morte d'Arthur" is an original work of fiction, the characters from it are more "public domain". Plus it's far from the only work to use those characters.

So, calling Arthurian fiction "Le Morte d'Arthur fanfic" would be stretching the term more than a bit.

Similar principles would apply to calling modern stories about the fall of Troy, "Homer fanfic".

[Jay R]

While "Le Morte d'Arthur" is an original work of fiction, the characters from it are more "public domain". Plus it's far from the only work to use those characters.

So, calling Arthurian fiction "Le Morte d'Arthur fanfic" would be stretching the term more than a bit.

Similar principles would apply to calling modern stories about the fall of Troy, "Homer fanfic".

Especially given that both Morte d'Arthur and the Iliad were re-telling stories centuries old at the time.

[snowblizz]

I still fundamentally disagree with the idea that D&D is, on its own, a work of fiction, because it lacks a defined setting and characters. Or rather, it is effectively a set of physical laws that have fuelled many settings.

Exactly.

If we pare D&D down it effectively becomes "roll dice, compare [result] against [value], check what this means".

This has no element of fiction in it.

D&D could actually be said to be non-fiction. It is applied mathematics. A game like yahtzee.

[Lacuna Caster]

Simply ideal knights.

Originally the term covered Roland and the others knights in service of Charlemagne as a Matter of France counterpart to Matter of England's Knights of the Round table.
No, I get that much. But if you're just talking about D&D adding at-will spellcasting to an archetype already invested in the ideals of medieval christian asceticism, I'm not sure that they're amped up any more than clerics or rangers.

[Kish]

Exactly.

If we pare D&D down it effectively becomes "roll dice, compare [result] against [value], check what this means".
That depends entirely on what you cut off when "paring it down." From where I'm standing, you're holding the potato peel and saying that, since you were able to cut away the core, clearly all that was truly there was the peel.

[Fyraltari]

No, I get that much. But if you're just talking about D&D adding at-will spellcasting to an archetype already invested in the ideals of medieval christian asceticism, I'm not sure that they're amped up any more than clerics or rangers.

I am talking about the fact that people now seem to associate paladin strictly with magic monk-knight. And I am pretty sure that "paladins imply magic" wasn't a thing before D&D.

[Lacuna Caster]

I am talking about the fact that people now seem to associate paladin strictly with magic monk-knight. And I am pretty sure that "paladins imply magic" wasn't a thing before D&D.
Yeah, but neither was "rangers imply magic" or, typically speaking, clerics (unless you go as far as actual sainthood.) Friar Tuck or Aragorn aren't especially pyrotechnic characters. Heck, even Merlin and Gandalf are pretty subdued compared to D&D wizards.

[Fyraltari]

Yeah, but neither was "rangers imply magic" or, typically speaking, clerics (unless you go as far as actual sainthood.) Friar Tuck or Aragorn aren't especially pyrotechnic characters. Heck, even Merlin and Gandalf are pretty subdued compared to D&D wizards.

Aragorn does magic, though. And Merlin just pops up Stonehenge from Ireland and turn people into other people like it was nothing.

Wait Rangers => magic is a common thing in fantasy? I have never come across it. Is there some good stuff with that that you would recommend me?

But basically my point was to underly that D&D is a major influence on western Fantasy, not that there was anything particular about paladins.

Thinking of it, did "druid = treehugger" exist before D&D?

[factotum]

Aragorn does magic, though.

When does he do that? :smallconfused:

[Gnoman]

When does he do that? :smallconfused:

His healing abilities are explicitly equated to Elrond's, and it is clear that there is more to what he does than just shoving athelas at it.

[Fyraltari]

He also has low-level prophecy powers, his charisma has an on/off switch and he yanked a Palantir away from the Eye.

[brian 333]

It's a parody.

Best answer!

+1 Thumbs Up.

[SaintRidley]

It's pretty hard to discuss what is and isn't fanfic while this huge stigma about fanfic exists, but I think it's pretty clear that OotS isn't, because the characters, the plot and the setting are all original.

Is most medieval literature fanfic, though? Aaaah.

I really think some enterprising young scholar should publish a piece that brings to bear theories of fan fiction study onto saints' lives and Arthuriana and really shake up the medieval field. Won't be me, though. Too lazy.

[factotum]

His healing abilities are explicitly equated to Elrond's, and it is clear that there is more to what he does than just shoving athelas at it.

Not clear to me--from what I remember of that scene, it was implied pretty heavily that the reason he could do what he did was because he knew how to use athelas and nobody else did. (In fact, nobody else seemed to even know the stuff had mystical healing properties).


He also has low-level prophecy powers, his charisma has an on/off switch and he yanked a Palantir away from the Eye.

I don't recall the low-level prophecy powers, have no idea what you're talking about with the charisma thing, and anyone with sufficient willpower would have been able to do the same with a palantir--magic is not required.

[snowblizz]

I don't recall the low-level prophecy powers, have no idea what you're talking about with the charisma thing, and anyone with sufficient willpower would have been able to do the same with a palantir--magic is not required.
Do note in Tolkiens works willpower often equates to magic.

To paraphrase something I brought up in a thread about Tolkien magic, Words Are Power (the D&D Power Word spels are most likely inspired by this). Which ofc is massively appropriate for a linguist to write.

Also at least one person, an old woman in Minas Tirith, says something about the healing hands of a king (a common medieval thing) which is sorta how Aragorn is "outed" and gets a grassrotos claim on the crown he does not really want to dejure claim.

[hroþila]

I don't think willpower equals magic in Tolkien's works. While bona fide magic 100% exists, we have to bear in mind that it's also made explicit that the Elves for example are puzzled by the way the hobbits and other Men call everything "magic" (or even worse, "sorcery").

[hamishspence]

Not clear to me--from what I remember of that scene, it was implied pretty heavily that the reason he could do what he did was because he knew how to use athelas and nobody else did. (In fact, nobody else seemed to even know the stuff had mystical healing properties)."

A point is made of how the elderly use it for headaches and the like: even if the "loremasters" aren't prepared to confirm one way or another that it's beneficial:

Gandalf: "Then, in the name of the King, find us some old man with less learning and more wisdom who keeps some in his house!"

[Lacuna Caster]

Wait Rangers => magic is a common thing in fantasy? I have never come across it. Is there some good stuff with that that you would recommend me?

But basically my point was to underly that D&D is a major influence on western Fantasy, not that there was anything particular about paladins.
I... wouldn't disagree with that. You're probably more abreast of the literature than I am, but all-natural-hunter-guys with magic are fairly commonplace in video games these days.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I don't recall the low-level prophecy powers, have no idea what you're talking about with the charisma thing, and anyone with sufficient willpower would have been able to do the same with a palantir--magic is not required.

I’m not sure prophecy is necessarily an indication of magical ability (and I also don’t recall Aragorn being especially gifted in that area), since we see Faramir and Boromir receiving one and they seem decently non-magical to me.

[Vinyadan]

There is an important component of "right" in Aragorn's character. So he can be King because he has a right to it, and he can use this right to brute force the palantir away from Sauron, because they are a prerogative of the Kings of Gondor (and Arnor, but the one in Isengard belonged to Gondor). I don't think that that's magic. It's interesting, because I never had the feeling that such a thing was present in The Hobbit, where the Dwarves looked at least morally questionable to me.

The healing powers are more like magic. Elrond also has them, although stronger, because he's older, and they share them, because they are relatives. If you think about it, Elrond being a healer is a big deal at the beginning of the second book, and Aragorn, M.D. is an underpowered version of him. There definitely is a new take on the healing touch of the King, which, however, wasn't just a medieval thing. In England, Samuel Johnson was touched by the Queen to heal scrofula, and the French monarchy kept administering the royal touch even after the Restauration (as far as 1825!)

About tall people, Tuor apparently was the tallest man ever (of the Edain, at least).

[Keltest]

There is an important component of "right" in Aragorn's character. So he can be King because he has a right to it, and he can use this right to brute force the palantir away from Sauron, because they are a prerogative of the Kings of Gondor (and Arnor, but the one in Isengard belonged to Gondor). I don't think that that's magic. It's interesting, because I never had the feeling that such a thing was present in The Hobbit, where the Dwarves looked at least morally questionable to me.

The healing powers are more like magic. Elrond also has them, although stronger, because he's older, and they share them, because they are relatives. If you think about it, Elrond being a healer is a big deal at the beginning of the second book, and Aragorn, M.D. is an underpowered version of him. There definitely is a new take on the healing touch of the King, which, however, wasn't just a medieval thing. In England, Samuel Johnson was touched by the Queen to heal scrofula, and the French monarchy kept administering the royal touch even after the Restauration (as far as 1825!)

About tall people, Tuor apparently was the tallest man ever (of the Edain, at least).

The entire quest for the mountain was based on "right". They didn't even have a plan for dealing with the dragon beyond "we'll figure something out." because they knew it was their mountain, not Smaug's

[Jay R]

I am talking about the fact that people now seem to associate paladin strictly with magic monk-knight. And I am pretty sure that "paladins imply magic" wasn't a thing before D&D.

The perfectly good knight having healing powers was seen in the play Camelot in 1960, fourteen years before D&D. It was made into a movie in 1967, and quite possibly helped inspire the paladin's ability to lay on hands (which first appeared in 1975, in the first D&D supplement Greyhawk).

[Vinyadan]

The entire quest for the mountain was based on "right". They didn't even have a plan for dealing with the dragon beyond "we'll figure something out." because they knew it was their mountain, not Smaug's

And how did that work out for them? :smallbiggrin: This is what I mean: they tried, and they did not succeed. Dain became king, a Man killed Smaug, and the king they were planning to install died with his relatives, extinguishing his dynasty. "Right" didn't help them in the least, while it definitely helped Aragorn, at least with the palantir.

[Keltest]

And how did that work out for them? :smallbiggrin: This is what I mean: they tried, and they did not succeed. Dain became king, a Man killed Smaug, and the king they were planning to install died with his relatives, extinguishing his dynasty. "Right" didn't help them in the least, while it definitely helped Aragorn, at least with the palantir.

I disagree. They got their mountain and their treasure, and they didn't even have to fight the dragon for it. Things Just Worked Out for them until they got stupid and started trying to take/claim other people's treasure too.

[Vinyadan]

I disagree. They got their mountain and their treasure, and they didn't even have to fight the dragon for it. Things Just Worked Out for them until they got stupid and started trying to take/claim other people's treasure too.

I had forgotten about the treasure of the city purportedly mixed with the dwarves'. So you might be right. However, hadn't Thorin been greedy, and hadn't he sent for reinforcements from Dain, instead of just paying back the Men, I don't think that the battle would have gone well.

There's also the question of whether they were going beyond their right from the start, by deciding to just split the gold among themselves. As the old raven observes, they only represent a small remnant of the people who lived there. So the rightful ownership probably wasn't as rightful as they assumed it was. (Thorin understands this as "you need more men" and "call for reinforcements").

[factotum]

Also at least one person, an old woman in Minas Tirith, says something about the healing hands of a king

Aragorn is already known to be the heir to the throne of Gondor at tbat point in the tale, and the old woman in question, I think, just saw a man she knew to be King heal someone and put 2 and 2 together. It still doesn't require Aragorn to have magic powers. The reason I'm so sure he does not is that magic, to Tolkien, was a nasty dangerous thing--this is why the only people on the side of Good we actually see using it are Elves and angelic spirits (the Istari, or order of wizards, were all Maia). Any mortals who got a bit too close to anything magical were almost invariably corrupted or destroyed by it.

[hamishspence]

It may be a combination of things - medical knowledge, the plant athelas, and "internal power":


Aragorn went first to Faramir, and then to the Lady Éowyn, and last to Merry. When he had looked on the faces of the sick and seen their hurts he sighed. 'Here I must put forth all such power and skill as is given to me,' he said. 'Would that Elrond were here, for he is the eldest of all our race, and has the greater power.'
Aragorn's healing of Faramir didn't just involve the herb:


Now Aragorn knelt beside Faramir, and held a hand upon his brow. And those who watched him felt that some great struggle was going on. For Aragorn’s face grew grey with weariness; and ever and anon he called the name of Faramir, but each time more faintly to their hearing, as if Aragorn himself was removed from them, and walked in some dark vale, calling for one who is lost.

Ioreth didn't seem to be aware that Aragorn was available as "the rightful king of Gondor" when she made that comment - nor had Aragorn had a chance to do some public healing:


Then an old wife, Ioreth, the eldest of the women who served in that house, looking on the fair face of Faramir, wept, for all the people loved him. And she said: "Alas! if he should die. Would that there were kings in Gondor, as there were once upon a time, they say! For it is said in old lore: The hands of the king are the hands of a healer. And so the rightful king could ever be known."
it's only later, after Faramir addresses him as "the king" when healed, that she realises and comments on it:


“Walk no more in the shadows, but awake!” Said Aragorn. “You are weary. Rest a while, and take food, and be ready when I return.”
“I will, lord,” said Faramir. “For who would lie idle when the king has returned?”

“King! Did you hear that! What did I say? The hands of a healer, I said.”

[martianmister]

Aragorn's healing powers comes from his royal blood, not from being a ranger.

[hamishspence]

And Gandalf's powers come from his divine origins, not from "being trained as a wizard".

Yet he's become the "wizard archetype".

Probably a similar principle applies to D&D rangers - they heal, because Aragorn heals.

[Kish]

And yet, they have spells, most of which aren't terribly healing-oriented, while paladins are the ones with healing hands (as well as spells).

[hamishspence]

It is true that a ranger is no better, and possibly slightly worse, at healing, than a druid or a bard.

[Fyraltari]

Not clear to me--from what I remember of that scene, it was implied pretty heavily that the reason he could do what he did was because he knew how to use athelas and nobody else did. (In fact, nobody else seemed to even know the stuff had mystical healing properties).
That's because "nobody else" in that scene means "Sam, Pippin, and Merry" none of which are trained doctors, as others have pointed out there is more to Aragorn's healing than simple medicine.


I don't recall the low-level prophecy powers, have no idea what you're talking about with the charisma thing, and anyone with sufficient willpower would have been able to do the same with a palantir--magic is not required.
Aragorn tells Gandalf that entering Moria would be his death and that he and Eomer would meet again before the end
So it comes that we find ourselves again despite all of the armies of Mordor laying between us, said Aragorn. Had I not said so at the Hornburg?
-Yes, you said so, answered Eomer ; but hope often decieves and I did not know then that you were seer.
His poem at Boromir funerals also perfectly if describes how Denethor got wind (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F9ADVDSZLw&t=139s) of Boromir's death something he could not possibly know at the time.
I said low-level because it doesn't seem like he can tell when he is predicting the future and when he is just making normal guesses.

As for the charisma thing, there are several scenes where he chooses to appear "kingly", when he appears taller, stronger, taller, more handsome and generally has a more commending presence. It is true that a good bath and standing straight do wonders I am pretty sure at one point the viewpoint character (not sure who it is at that moment) can faintly distinguish the crown of Numenor on his brow.

As for the willpower thing (and more that has been said below), magic is not, in Tolkien's Legendarium, a separate ability or skill that people possess independantly from your others abilities (as it is in, say, Harry Potter) it is (well part of it is) doing normal things to a greater extent than should be normally possible: A stealthy man becomes invisible, a man with good instinct predicts the future, a charismatic man make people adore him, a perceptive man will see a light hundreds of kilometers away, a man good with languages will learn words when they are first told to him, etc.
So yes the Palantir thing is magic, or at least as much magic than running three days straight without rest is.

I’m not sure prophecy is necessarily an indication of magical ability (and I also don’t recall Aragorn being especially gifted in that area), since we see Faramir and Boromir receiving one and they seem decently non-magical to me.
Prophecy is not something that real humans can do. If a human foetelling the future is not magic I don't know what is.


The perfectly good knight having healing powers was seen in the play Camelot in 1960, fourteen years before D&D. It was made into a movie in 1967, and quite possibly helped inspire the paladin's ability to lay on hands (which first appeared in 1975, in the first D&D supplement Greyhawk).
Oh? Well I'll be damned.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD6qtc2_AQA/maxresdefault.jpg


The reason I'm so sure he does not is that magic, to Tolkien, was a nasty dangerous thing--this is why the only people on the side of Good we actually see using it are Elves and angelic spirits (the Istari, or order of wizards, were all Maia). Any mortals who got a bit too close to anything magical were almost invariably corrupted or destroyed by it.
Beorn turns into a bear without problem. Several humans (Huor, a random seer from Brethil and Tar-Palantir for example) make perfectly accurate prophecies without problem. Beren was close to a Silmaril for years and nothing indicates he had any problem. The Fellowship handles their elven cloaks and magical wraith-killing swords from 1000 years ago (made by mortal men by the way) without problem.
Tolkien held that Evil was corruptive, so naturally the magicians that try to become more powerful by dealing with the current Dark Lord are corrupted.


Aragorn's healing powers comes from his royal blood, not from being a ranger.
So?

[hroþila]

The Elven cloaks for example weren't magic from an Elvish point of view.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Prophecy is not something that real humans can do. If a human foetelling the future is not magic I don't know what is.
I would agree that a human foretelling the future makes them have magic. That’s not what happens with Faramir or Boromir, however; receiving a vision from the Valar doesn’t mean you have magical powers.

[Gallowglass]

In my view, it is not a fan-fic.

A fan-fic, to me, involved appropriation of another's intellectual property on some level WHEN SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A SHARED PROPERTY.

Now, that might seem complex but it isn't, at least not to me.

As an example, if someone wrote a story about Harry Potter as an adult, that is a fan fiction. You are appropriating the characters and world of J.K. Rowling.

However, even if you wrote a story with wholly unique and original characters that just HAPPENED to take place in the same world as Harry Potter but used none of the characters from her novels, just the trappings
of her world, that would still be fan-fiction. Why? Because J.K. Rowling never meant for that to be a shared universe, shared property, it wasn't built for anyone else to write stories in.

Now, more complicated, let's look at, say, forgotten realms. If you wrote a story about Drizzt Do'urden, that would be fan-fiction. You are appropriating R.A. Salvatore's universe and character.

But, if you wrote a story with wholly unique and original characters that just HAPPENED to take place in the forgotten realms, I would argue that as not being fan fiction. Because the world is meant to be a shared space, its meant for everyone to tell their stories in it. Even if you used established characters as background or incidental story elements, I would still not call it fan fiction. Only if you used established characters are integral to the story or as point of view characters does it stray into fan fiction territory.

Order of Stick is even simpler. Its wholly unique and original characters in a wholly unique and original setting. There is nothing taken from any other intellectual property except for references to the D&D rule-set and history of the rule-set for what is obviously parody purposes.

Not fan-fic. Not as I recognize it.

[Kish]

In my view, it is not a fan-fic.

A fan-fic, to me, involved appropriation of another's intellectual property on some level WHEN SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A SHARED PROPERTY.
(Bolding mine.)

I don't think any definition of fanfic that negatively loaded is terribly useful. It's too much like saying "OotS isn't fanfic because fanfic is bad and OotS isn't bad."

[Gallowglass]

(Bolding mine.)

I don't think any definition of fanfic that negatively loaded is terribly useful. It's too much like saying "OotS isn't fanfic because fanfic is bad and OotS isn't bad."


ap·pro·pri·a·tion
[əˌprōprēˈāSH(ə)n]
NOUN

the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.

That's simply the correct word for the action. I, personally, don't have a negative connotation to the act or to the word. The negativity is put there by you, the reader of the post, not me, the author of said post. I, personally, don't think fanfic is bad, I quite enjoy it. There are many authors who appreciate and applaud fan-fic made of their property and many who don't.

[Lacuna Caster]

A fan-fic, to me, involved appropriation of another's intellectual property on some level WHEN SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A SHARED PROPERTY.
...I wonder about that. I would just mention that parody and satire involve appropriating someone else's IP in ways that many authors would probably find objectionable (and are legally protected precisely because it allows for open criticism). Would satirists be fans, necessarily?

[Vinyadan]

As an aside, the only academic paper I have ever read about fanfiction was exactly about illegitimate authorship. US "fair use" isn't a worldwide thing, and, in Europe, most fanfictions are illegal. Parodies, however, have a very low bar to meet to be legal.

[hroþila]

That's simply the correct word for the action. I, personally, don't have a negative connotation to the act or to the word. The negativity is put there by you, the reader of the post, not me, the author of said post. I, personally, don't think fanfic is bad, I quite enjoy it. There are many authors who appreciate and applaud fan-fic made of their property and many who don't.
I'd say the negativity is there for all those native speakers for whom "appropriate" does have clear negative connotations. I'm not a native speaker myself, but I certainly share Kish's impression.

[Jasdoif]

I'd say the negativity is there for all those native speakers for whom "appropriate" does have clear negative connotations. I'm not a native speaker myself, but I certainly share Kish's impression.It's "appropriation" that's picked up more of the negative connotations, I think. "Appropriate"'s verb and adjective forms have diverged over time, to the point where the adjective is like "it's acceptable for the situation" and the verb is more like "we're going to make it acceptable for the situation by taking it for ourselves". And "appropriation" is, of course, a noun based on the verb.

So yes, appropriation may not be appropriate. Go figure.

[hroþila]

It's "appropriation" that's picked up more of the negative connotations, I think. "Appropriate"'s verb and adjective forms have diverged over time, to the point where the adjective is like "it's acceptable for the situation" and the verb is more like "we're going to make it acceptable for the situation by taking it for ourselves". And "appropriation" is, of course, a noun based on the verb.

So yes, appropriation may not be appropriate. Go figure.
Oh, yeah, I was only thinking of the verb and its derived noun here. Should've made that clearer.

[Gallowglass]

...I wonder about that. I would just mention that parody and satire involve appropriating someone else's IP in ways that many authors would probably find objectionable (and are legally protected precisely because it allows for open criticism). Would satirists be fans, necessarily?

This is a good point. Satire and Parady are not fan-fiction, even when they appropriate other's work. Because they are doing so for the sole purpose of parody and satire (read: criticism (another word that will no doubt be read with negative connotations) which are not integral to the word itself) and not to tell a story (though that might be a side-effect) I should've been clear about that.

[Lacuna Caster]

This is a good point. Satire and Parody are not fan-fiction, even when they appropriate other's work. Because they are doing so for the sole purpose of parody and satire (read: criticism (another word that will no doubt be read with negative connotations) which are not integral to the word itself) and not to tell a story (though that might be a side-effect) I should've been clear about that.
Your own mileage may vary, but I would disagree (http://www.whatisdeepfried.com/2013/01/20/weapon-brown/) with the idea (http://www.hpmor.com/) that parody (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaamelott) can't be used to tell a story.

[Gnoman]

Your own mileage may vary, but I would disagree (http://www.whatisdeepfried.com/2013/01/20/weapon-brown/) with the idea (http://www.hpmor.com/) that parody (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaamelott) can't be used to tell a story.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is not a parody. It is a combination of a cult recruitment tool and philosophical author tract latched on to Harry Potter in order to trick the gullible into reading it. It is also a supremely horrible work in and of itself, even when you adjust for it literally being a Harry Potter Fanfiction Fanfiction (the author never read most of the HP books, considering them too childish).

[Lacuna Caster]

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is not a parody. It is a combination of a cult recruitment tool and philosophical author tract latched on to Harry Potter in order to trick the gullible into reading it.
I'll grant that part of me was thinking "ah, so this is how Voldemort sees the world", so again, mileage may vary. But I don't see how that excludes constructing an independent story whilst being critical of the original work?

[Gnoman]

I'll grant that part of me was thinking "ah, so this is how Voldemort sees the world", so again, mileage may vary. But I don't see how that excludes constructing an independent story whilst being critical of the original work?

The only aspects of the original work "criticized" are those the author made up out of whole cloth. It is literally one of the author's pseudscience rants grafted onto an extremely shallow shell of what the author thinks the HP world looks like. This is before you condsider the blatant racism, misogyny, and bad science.

[Lacuna Caster]

The only aspects of the original work "criticized" are those the author made up out of whole cloth.
I can specifically remember an early chapter where Harry talks about everyone congratulating him for killing Voldemort- "they don't want to shake hands with me. They want to shake hands with a bad explanation-" which seemed like a perfectly fair point, given he was a child at the time and had no control over the situation. (The author also didn't invent the idea that wizards have a virtual monopoly on the world's gold supply, which combined with some fairly straightforward assumptions about exchange rates does lead to some reasonable points about distortion of financial markets.)

We could go on, but you'll need to point out some specific examples of what you object to.

[Fyraltari]

Does it say anything about House Elves?

[martianmister]

And Gandalf's powers come from his divine origins, not from "being trained as a wizard".

Yet he's become the "wizard archetype".

Probably a similar principle applies to D&D rangers - they heal, because Aragorn heals.

I highly doubt that Gandalf is the wizard archetype.


So?

So, it has nothing to do with his being a ranger, and it's not magic.

[Fyraltari]

I highly doubt that Gandalf is the wizard archetype.

Some people (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WizardClassic) disagree with you.
He his a wise, well-traveled old man who is much more than he appears, speak in riddles serves a mentor/advisory role to the hero and has unexplained (and thus convineniently for the author technically unlimited) powers.

He is as much the wizard archetype as Merlin.


So, it has nothing to do with his being a ranger, and it's not magic.

The point (however true it is) being made wasn't that Aragorn had magic because he was a ranger but that ranger had magic because Aragorn had.

And agains I fail to see why his magic coming fromhis royal blood disqualify it from being magic. He is doing stuff real humans can't do ergo he is doing magic.

[Gnoman]

We could go on, but you'll need to point out some specific examples of what you object to.

I'm not going to go back and look for the text (I just got those brain cells back!), but here's the big one. One of the things that makes MOR Harry so super awesome is the way he breaks the established rules of Transfiguration by "thinking rationally!". The problem with that is that the rules he's breaking not only are not in the source material (in other words, the author made them up specifically so his Mary Sue author insert could break them), but contradict scenes from the original books. The sort of partial transfiguration he's crowing about happens in Book 1, as soon as they start being allowed to actually try in class.

More generally, the entire fic revolves around the idea that nobody studies magic systematically, and everything the wizarding world knows is just handed down and degenerated from the original wizards. This is contradicted in the very first book, where Transfiguration class requires extensive notes on magical theory and Dumbledore's chocolate frog card describes his magical and alchemical research accomplishments.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality is nothing more than a tool for the author insert protagonist (that "this is how Voldemort sees the world" behavior? The author insists that anybody who doesn't see the world that way is deluded) to convince people to join the author's science cult. It is also incredibly racist and misogynistic, and nearly all of the "science" in it is either misinterpreted or pure bunk.

[Lacuna Caster]

The sort of partial transfiguration he's crowing about happens in Book 1, as soon as they start being allowed to actually try in class.

More generally, the entire fic revolves around the idea that nobody studies magic systematically, and everything the wizarding world knows is just handed down and degenerated from the original wizards. This is contradicted in the very first book, where Transfiguration class requires extensive notes on magical theory and Dumbledore's chocolate frog card describes his magical and alchemical research accomplishments.
I'm afraid it's been a while since I read either, so I'm fuzzy on some of the particulars, but... I think the broad point about Potterverse wizardry being in a general state of either technical decline or stagnation is probably fair. There's an extended list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter) of rare or uniquely powerful magical artifacts created by bygone masters that modern practitioners are either unable or unwilling to replicate- this is the opposite of the pattern you'd associate with scientific progress over time, where the initial prototypes are refined and outmoded in tandem with market saturation and mass production techniques, and government regulation struggles to keep tech off the black market.

There is some ambiguity on this point- things like the flue network, animated newspapers and owl-messaging feel very 'Tippyverse', and it's entirely possible that individual wizards are quite skilled in independent research and development. But as a broad critique of the underpinnings of the setting... well, there's room for that sort of thing (http://www.cracked.com/article_21025_5-reasons-harry-potter-wizards-are-huge-threat.html).


It is also incredibly racist and misogynistic, and nearly all of the "science" in it is either misinterpreted or pure bunk.
The nearest I can see to racism consists of pointing out the blatantly obvious (http://shwoo.tumblr.com/post/83597787150/harry-potter-and-the-methods-of-hella-racism) about the deficiencies of certain non-european cultures? I think conflating that with biological supremacism says more about the people taking offence than it does about the author.

The fridging accusations (https://www.reddit.com/r/HPMOR/comments/1hh5ph/ch90_salvaging_gender_bias_in_hpmor/) I can kind of agree with, but... I don't see how this turns the work into 'not a criticism', 'not a fanfic', or 'not a story'. It clearly is those things.

[martianmister]

Some people (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WizardClassic) disagree with you.
He his a wise, well-traveled old man who is much more than he appears, speak in riddles serves a mentor/advisory role to the hero and has unexplained (and thus convineniently for the author technically unlimited) powers.

He is as much the wizard archetype as Merlin.

All these tropes predates him.


The point (however true it is) being made wasn't that Aragorn had magic because he was a ranger but that ranger had magic because Aragorn had.

They're not really similar.


And agains I fail to see why his magic coming fromhis royal blood disqualify it from being magic. He is doing stuff real humans can't do ergo he is doing magic.

Same way miracles of prophets and saints aren't magic. King Edward III from Macbeth can heal people with layin his hands, this doesn't make him a wizard.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'm afraid it's been a while since I read either, so I'm fuzzy on some of the particulars, but... I think the broad point about Potterverse wizardry being in a general state of either technical decline or stagnation is probably fair. There's an extended list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter) of rare or uniquely powerful magical artifacts created by bygone masters that modern practitioners are either unable or unwilling to replicate- this is the opposite of the pattern you'd associate with scientific progress over time, where the initial prototypes are refined and outmoded in tandem with market saturation and mass production techniques, and government regulation struggles to keep tech off the black market.

What on Earth are you talking about? There is exactly 4 objects in that list that could be said to fall under the category of "created by bygone masters that modern practitioners are either unable or unwilling to replicate": the philosopher's stone, and three hallows, and of those, the elder wand was most definitely studied and partially replicated, as was demonstrated by Gregorovitch. The cloak was kept secret, and thus we can't know if it could be, but there is no actual indication that, if examined, someone couldn't figure it out; and the resurrection stone is actually not the kind of object anyone wants to make more of (other than for creating inferi, if that's your thing). Which leaves the philosopher's stone, which I'll grant you is weird that no-one has re-discovered, but if so falls under the same category as RL Greek Fire.

Everything else in that list is either modern (e.g. the deluminator was invented by Dumbledore, and the marauder's map by Harry's father & co.) or objects that do exist (e.g. the mirror of Erised) and we do not know if there are others of the same type laying around somewhere.

For the other objects? Things like broomsticks and consumer products, we constantly hear of new and improved models coming out year after year. The Nimbus 2000 replaced by the 2001 model. The Weasley twins coming out with new merchandise. Etc.

So yeah, as far as I can see you have no leg to stand on here.

Grey Wolf

[Lacuna Caster]

What on Earth are you talking about? There is exactly 4 objects in that list that could be said to fall under the category of "created by bygone masters that modern practitioners are either unable or unwilling to replicate": the philosopher's stone, and three hallows, and of those, the elder wand was most definitely studied and partially replicated, as was demonstrated by Gregorovitch.
I don't recall that Gregorovitch actually succeeded, unless that's escaping my attention again?

My point here is that the trends associated with technological progress don't seem to apply in the wizarding world. Nobody in the muggle world refers to the Model T with tones of hushed reverence, as a source of great power to be fought over and coveted, rather than a collector's item. Because most of the population already have transport that's orders of magnitude more powerful and versatile. And we're talking about wands here- the tool on which all wizards depend for everything else they do. With all due respect to the Weasleys, Dumbledore, and similar innovators, you just can't compare the Nimbus series or Deluminator with raising the dead or turning back time.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't recall that Gregorovitch actually succeeded, unless that's escaping my attention again?

Succeeded in becoming one of the great wand-makers based on what he learnt from the elder wand? Yes, yes he did. Duplicating the elder wand? Maybe. There is nothing in the books that suggests that the Elder wand is any more powerful than any other well-made wand, other than what the legend says of it. Certainly it doesn't make you invincible, no matter what the legend says, as Grindelwald and Voldemort discovered (and indeed, dozens of wizards before them).


My point here is that the trends associated with technological progress don't seem to apply in the wizarding world. Nobody in the muggle world refers to the Model T with tones of hushed reverence, as a source of great power to be fought over and coveted, rather than a collector's item.

1) Yes, yes they do. Maybe not the model T specifically (although I'm sure there is someone out there that will swear it has never been surpassed), but there is definitely people willing to say that some obsolete object from 50 years ago has qualities that have never been surpassed and that today's X are flimsy pale copies of it.

2) Again, you seem to be talking about some other wizarding world. The number of people talking about these items in hushed reverence are the conspiracy theory guy that publishes the local equivalent of supermarket tabloid and a wandmaker who treats it like a RL instrument maker would talk about getting their hands on a Stradivarius. And indeed, that is the clear inspiration for the Elder wand: the Stradivarius string instruments, and the legend around them. But they are hardly unique.


Because most of the population already have transport that's orders of magnitude more powerful and versatile. And we're talking about wands here- the tool on which all wizards depend for everything else they do. With all due respect to the Weasleys, Dumbledore, and similar innovators, you just can't compare the Nimbus series or Deluminator with raising the dead or turning back time.

Given that no-one can raise the dead or turn back time, again, you really need to read the books again before making these grandiose claims. Now, I'm guessing the latter refers to time turners, which the ministry had a cabinet full of, and gave them away to students on a teacher's recommendation - that hardly seems to indicate these were objects prized above all others. They might be expensive and time consuming to replace, which is why after book 5 there are none available, but you need to present evidence that they are literally irreplaceable, and I doubt you can.

Also, for the record, the time turners don't turn back time. They create a stable time loop, which means you can use them to go through the same period a second time, but they cannot be used to change time.

Grey Wolf

[Lacuna Caster]

Again, you seem to be talking about some other wizarding world. The number of people talking about these items in hushed reverence are the conspiracy theory guy that publishes the local equivalent of supermarket tabloid and a wandmaker who treats it like a RL instrument maker would talk about getting their hands on a Stradivarius...
If we lived in a world where everyone depends on their violins for transport, communications, manufacturing and medical care... yes, it would be analogous to that.

I think greek fire is a particularly poor analogue, given that the main mystery is how the greeks pulled it off, not that we don't have napalm, white phosphorous, and a variety of other unpleasant substances that provide similar effects.


Also, for the record, they time turners don't turn back time. They create a stable time loop, which means you can use them to go through the same period a second time, but they cannot be used to change time.
Steroid abuse is rampant in organised sports despite heavy legal sanctions because it allows for rapid recovery and strength gains in a highly competitive profession. You think a device that allowed you to cram in twice the time on sleep, study, meetings or experimentation wouldn't be immediately exploited in business or academia? Or that a device which allowed you to summon the shades of the dead wouldn't be snapped up by law-enforcement for murder investigations? (I'll grant you that how this differs from the ubiquitous magical portraits is kinda fuzzy to me, but there you go.)

Now, look, I'm not saying that JK Rowling is a terrible, terrible writer for not thinking all of this through. I like Harry Potter just fine, by and large. But if Yudkowsky wants to take a particular aspect of the setting and either selectively pick it apart and/or exaggerate for effect, he's not doing anything that satirists haven't been doing for centuries.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If we lived in a world where everyone depends on their violins for transport, communications, manufacturing and medical care... yes, it would be analogous to that.

Again, you have yet to prove your thesis that wand making has not improved on the elder wand. You, like the guy behind MoR are criticising something that is not in the books in the first place. That is what makes it NOT satire, and indeed a very poor fanfic of HP - that it had to build strawmen they could then knock down.


I think greek fire is a particularly poor analogue, given that the main mystery is how the greeks pulled it off, not that we don't have napalm, white phosphorous, and a variety of other unpleasant substances that provide similar effects.

No, it makes it the perfect example. Everything indicates that modern wands can be as good as the elder wand - Harry outright states he prefers his, even after he takes control of the elder wand. The mystery remains of how the elder wand was made, but given its techniques can be studied and duplicated, and by all accounts successfully so, you have no leg to stand on.


Steroid abuse is rampant in organised sports despite heavy legal sanctions because it allows for rapid recovery and strength gains in a highly competitive profession. You think a device that allowed you to cram in twice the time on sleep, study, meetings or experimentation wouldn't be immediately exploited in business or academia?

Yes, I do think so. Which is why the government keeps close tabs on the tool and makes sure it only is used in approved ways. What exactly is this supposed to do with your thesis of supposed stagnation?


Now, look, I'm not saying that JK Rowling is a terrible, terrible writer for not thinking all of this through. I like Harry Potter just fine, by and large. But if Yudkowsky wants to take a particular aspect of the setting and either selectively pick it apart and/or exaggerate for effect, he's not doing anything that satirists haven't been doing for centuries.

Again, the issue here is that this is neither "selectively picked" nor "exaggerated". It is created out of whole cloth. Strawmen with no basis on canon created to criticise said canon in absence of actual valid criticism* (and, of course, it seems, to push the racist, supremacist views of the author).

The closes thing to this is the fact that the wizarding world, due to its isolationism, longevity, low population numbers and even lower population density, lags behind muggle world when it comes to innovation: it takes decades for muggle-borns to bring in ideas from the muggle world into the wizarding world, and even longer for those ideas to be adapted and implemented into the wizarding world at large. But that's not what you or MoR is criticising. Instead, you've made up this idea of stagnation, and you can barely present a single piece of evidence for this, circumstantial at best, and must reject the mounds of evidence to the contrary.

In short, no, the wizarding world of Harry Potter is not stagnated. And creating a "fanfic" that criticizes it for being so is not satire or parody. It is strawmanning.

Grey Wolf

*There is criticism that could and indeed has been leveled at HP. As far as I could tell (I did give up on MoR fairly early on), you won't find any of it in MoR

[Lacuna Caster]

Everything indicates that modern wands can be as good as the elder wand - Harry outright states he prefers his, even after he takes control of the elder wand. The mystery remains of how the elder wand was made, but given its techniques can be studied and duplicated, and by all accounts successfully so...
There's no evidence for that. And there's certainly no indication that cloaks of invisibility or resurrection stones are in wide circulation, despite how useful they'd be. (I'll grant that the elder wand doesn't make the bearer invincible, but that's largely because (A) everyone needs to sleep some time, and (B) it has to attune to it's owner by a particular method. It's not really a mark against it's workmanship.)


Yes, I do think so. Which is why the government keeps close tabs on the tool and makes sure it only is used in approved ways.
You're not hearing me. Our governments have not kept close tabs on the tool and only made sure it is used in approved ways. They have attempted to and failed, despite possessing sophisticated technologies for detection.

And the market incentives to replicate time-turners pale next to incentives to replicate the philosopher's stone, which doesn't just let you live faster, but actually live forever. I can really imagine no more powerful commercial incentive on that front- the fact that stones aren't in wide circulation suggests that replicating the techniques involved is simply beyond the ken of modern wizards.


...and, of course, it seems, to push the racist, supremacist views of the author...
I'm still baffled by where this is coming from. What exactly are you talking about?

[wumpus]

All these tropes predates him.

They're not really similar.

Same way miracles of prophets and saints aren't magic. King Edward III from Macbeth can heal people with layin his hands, this doesn't make him a wizard.

The problem is that you are mixing the definition of "magic" is many ways...

Saints, prophets, and King Ed presumably could "get away" with unnatural things and not fear being burned as a witch. Magic was a crime, but miracles weren't. Presumably this was the difference between arcane and divine magic, but calling it "not magic" is the same as claiming it is insufficiently advanced technology.

Tolkien of all people seems to have a similar view of magic to Arthur C. Clarke, although I'm certain he would call it "craftsmanship" and not "technology". Hobbits saw elven wonders as "magic" and presumably saw Aragon's healing the same way. The elves saw their wonders as "things doing what they were supposed to do" and presumably simply involved craftsmanship beyond mortal kenning. Oddly enough, the few characters everyone agreed could do "magic" were actually Maia and should be expected to be like the Saints, prophets, and Ed (only more powerful).

In practice I suspect that the tropes "deus ex machina" and "a wizard did it" are quite similar. When reality opposes the plot, just bring in somebody to modify reality.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

There's no evidence for that. And there's certainly no indication that cloaks of invisibility or resurrection stones are in wide circulation, despite how useful they'd be. (I'll grant that the elder wand doesn't make the bearer invincible, but that's largely because (A) everyone needs to sleep some time, and (B) it has to attune to it's owner by a particular method. It's not really a mark against it's workmanship.)
Moody had two invisibility cloaks. They are in wide enough circulation.

The two people I listed were not asleep when they lost duels with the elder wand. By all accounts, Grindelwald had mastery of it. So too did Dumbledore, for that matter.

Also, the onus for evidence is on you, not me.


You're not hearing me.
Well, that's charming.


Our governments have not kept close tabs on the tool and only made sure it is used in approved ways. They have attempted to and failed, despite possessing sophisticated technologies for detection.
So the wizarding government is more successful at keeping control of this dangerous object amongst a population of a few tens of thousands than the real life government is at keeping track of substance in populations numbering in the millions. But if you have a point, or this in any way relates to the supposed stagnation of the wizarding world, I'm still not seeing it.


And the market incentives to replicate time-turners pale next to incentives to replicate the philosopher's stone, which doesn't just let you live faster, but actually live forever. I can really imagine no more powerful commercial incentive on that front- the fact that stones aren't in wide circulation suggests that replicating the techniques involved is simply beyond the ken of modern wizards.
Or it involves a set of circumstances (such as the alignment of all 8 planets) that only allows for it to happen rarely. This is a world were a plant is most magically efficacious when picked at dusk. Alchemy can be both as reliable as science, and almost impossible to replicate. Given the mounds of improvements seen elsewhere, that is a far more likely explanation.


I'm still baffled by where this is coming from. What exactly are you talking about?
From the links provided above. And my own experience reading the first few chapters.

Grey Wolf

[Lacuna Caster]

Moody had two invisibility cloaks. They are in wide enough circulation.

The two people I listed were not asleep when they lost duels with the elder wand. By all accounts, Grindelwald had mastery of it. So too did Dumbledore, for that matter.
Dumbledore deliberately lost that duel for unrelated reasons, and his ability to beat Grindelwald was explicitly a Big Deal and highly unusual. All invisibility cloaks aside from the first (http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Invisibility_cloak) are noted as being inferior knockoffs.


So the wizarding government is more successful at keeping control of this dangerous object amongst a population of a few tens of thousands than the real life government is at keeping track of substance in populations numbering in the millions...
This isn't about keeping track of a handful of dangerous objects. This is about the ostensible ability of the wider wizarding community to manufacture more of them, in a universe where an extensive and magically-potent criminal organisation are the main antagonists. So is the government all-powerful at clamping down on illegal spellcasting, or do Death Eaters exist?

So again, assuming that the tools and expertise haven't declined, why doesn't everyone have a bootleg copy of the philosopher's stone, given the same guy was able to make it successfully for 500 years?


From the links provided above. And my own experience reading the first few chapters.
You're repeating the point without making it any clearer. To repeat, what do the author's comments have to do with racial supremacy?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Dumbledore deliberately lost that duel for unrelated reasons, and his ability to beat Grindelwald was explicitly a Big Deal and highly unusual. All invisibility cloaks aside from the first (http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Invisibility_cloak) are noted as being inferior knockoffs.
Super Prototype (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuperPrototype). Scroll down to Real Life.


This isn't about keeping track of a handful of dangerous objects. This is about the ostensible ability of the wider wizarding community to manufacture more of them, in a universe where an extensive and magically-potent criminal organisation are the main antagonists. So is the government all-powerful at clamping down on illegal spellcasting, or do Death Eaters exist?
I grow very bored of trying to converse with you. You keep changing your point as the previous one is proven to be false. If you wanted to say "why haven't the Death Eaters manufactured their own time turners" you could have said that from the start.

And the answer, as I already said, is because they don't do what you think they do, and they are way more dangerous for the person using them than you pretend they are.

However, I'm done talking to you. Believe whatever you want to believe. My point has been made, and I'm clearly not going to change your mind about the blatant strawmanning, so I'm done wasting my time with you.


So again, assuming that the tools and expertise haven't declined, why doesn't everyone have a bootleg copy of the philosopher's stone, given the same guy was able to make it successfully for 500 years?
No, he made it once. The elixir is a product of the stone, not the stone itself, which was only ever manufactured once, and I've already addressed why that might be that does not require an unfounded stagnation. Your clear disregard or ignorance of even the most basic plot points of the book is noted, and is a main reason for my decision above.


You're repeating the point without making it any clearer. To repeat, what do the author's comments have to do with racial supremacy?

I do not believe that attempting to explain the blatantly obvious to you will be a valuable use of my time.

Grey Wolf

[Heksefatter]

Obviously it is based on D&D and roleplaying games in general, but that doesn't make it fanfic. If I wrote a fiction book based on (for example) Norse mythology, it would obviously be at least SOMEWHAT derivative. But that doesn't make it fan fiction as such. It doesn't even mean that my book wasn't all that original.

In fact, much fiction is inspired by something. Or based on something. That doesn't mean it falls under the heading fan fiction. If I absolutely had to place ONE label on OotS, it would be "affectionate parody." But even that is too narrow, since OotS is more than that. It is a genuinely good story with some ideas which are original.

[Keltest]

Ill take over for Grey Wolf if youre still interested in arguing the point. Its rare that he and I are so completely on the same page, I would hate to squander this.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ill take over for Grey Wolf if youre still interested in arguing the point. Its rare that he and I are so completely on the same page, I would hate to squander this.

Not that rare. I've generally approved of and faithfully read your ongoing quest of talking some sense into a certain poster, next to whom Lacuna is the very avatar of reasonableness. Your pool of patience is certainly much deeper than mine, so by all means.

Grey Wolf

[Lacuna Caster]

I grow very bored of trying to converse with you. You keep changing your point as the previous one is proven to be false. If you wanted to say "why haven't the Death Eaters manufactured their own time turners" you could have said that from the start.
No, I am not asking why the Death Eaters specifically haven't made their own time turners (though that's a fair question to ask)- I'm asking why an entire society hasn't had a number of enterprising souls either steal or reverse-engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcelain#European_porcelain) the secrets to high-level magic and sold, e.g, the elixir of life for a million dollars a dose.

Again, to be perfectly clear, I have nothing against the Harry Potter series, and I am not trying to hold up MoR as a flawless work beyond rebuke or improvement. But you're claiming that MoR is inventing this critique out of whole cloth, when there are absolutely elements of the original books that can be reasonably interpreted this way.


Ill take over for Grey Wolf if youre still interested in arguing the point. Its rare that he and I are so completely on the same page, I would hate to squander this.
Feel free, but unless you can somehow convince me that white people were invented in the late 18th century by a consortium of french intellectuals, I don't know if it will help very much.

.

[Keltest]

No, I am not asking why the Death Eaters specifically haven't made their own time turners (though that's a fair question to ask)- I'm asking why an entire society hasn't had a number of enterprising souls either steal or reverse-engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porcelain#European_porcelain) the secrets to high-level magic and sold, e.g, the elixir of life for a million dollars a dose.

The idea that people wanted these things and would try to steal them was the plot of the very first book. A number of interested powers and individuals devote significant expense to keeping them controlled and protected. Time Turners are kept in the most secure and secret wing of the Ministry of Magic. The Philosopher's Stone was pretty constantly kept under maximum security, and was then destroyed when it was decided that still wasn't good enough. The Elder Wand was studied, and was never really shown to be any better in practice than an ordinary wand anyway. Nobody familiar with the resurrection stone really wants to try and duplicate it. And the Invisibility Cloak wasn't an artifact in the public awareness, having plenty of copies around that did the job adequately anyway.

[Fyraltari]

Feel free, but unless you can somehow convince me that white people were invented in the late 18th century by a consortium of french intellectuals, I don't know if it will help very much.
Wich is preposterous since, as we all know, white people were invented by the Illuminati, a late XVIIIth century congregation of german intellectuals.

[zimmerwald1915]

Wich is preposterous since, as we all know, white people were invented by the Illuminati, a late XVIIIth century congregation of german intellectuals.
I thought White people were invented in the late XVII century by English colonial administrators.

[Vinyadan]

King Edward III from Macbeth can heal people with layin his hands, this doesn't make him a wizard.

Divine magic! :smallbiggrin: Rangers are divine casters too, aren't they? In 3.5, at least.



The Nimbus 2000 replaced by the 2001 model.


Is that Goku learning to fly by his own power?