The Nazgul vs. Harry Potter

NeoGoomba · Post by **NeoGoomba** » 2003-09-08 11:39pm

Smiling Bandit wrote: But the Nazgul would probably accept him. If Harry ever met Sauron, he would lose, though.

The Nazgul are loyal to Sauron and under his personal control above all else, even if someone else were to claim the Ring. They would feign allegance, and at the first chance they got, they would betray Harry and whisk the Ring to Sauron.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2003-09-09 05:45am

2000AD wrote:
The_Lumberjack wrote:note that because everyone seems to be a little unfussed about using Avada Kedavra whether they fight for good or evil, you only appear to need the power (rather than the anger as in Crucio in OOTP).
The killing curse is a banned curse and it's only been the "evil side" that have used it, so you can hardly say using it is "unfussed about".

I was referring to Crouch's authorisation of Aurors to kill rather than capture at the height of Voldemorts powers, "Moody" used it against the spiders and Lupin and Sirius were prepared to kill Wormtail - what I was trying to get at (but not very clearly), was that unlike the Cruciatus curse as seen in OOTP, you dont appear to need to be evil to use it, whilst the latter has to be 'meant' (ie - with the intention to hurt someone).

My apologies for not being too clear on the matter.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-09 09:11am

Stormbringer wrote:Buy Quality, Buy Mordor!

That's suprisingly pro-Labor of you.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-09-09 12:44pm

Man anybody know what the D+D stats of a Nazgul would be? myself I think AC2 ((only +2 and silver weapons hit)
10 hd (( 90 hp +3d10))

move normal human or normal horse

save as fighter 10 or wizard 10

cannot be destyroyed merley banished

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-09-09 01:25pm

also no living man can harm a Nazgul. The man part is important because it is Elowin who kills the Lord of the Nazgul. So Harry would have to have the help of a girl to survive this one and the Nazgul can use their magic to paralize anyone else. Aragorn was a special case but even he could not harm the Nazgul just drive them off.

Cej4096 · Post by **Cej4096** » 2003-09-09 02:09pm

Isolder74 wrote:also no living man can harm a Nazgul. The man part is important because it is Elowin who kills the Lord of the Nazgul.

Actually no living man WOULD kill the Witch King. It wasn't an ability, it was a prophecy. I can't remember the exact circumstances, but I believe Tolkien talks about it in the Appendices. It is based on something an elf king said, that he had seen the Witch King's end and it would not come at the hands of any living man.

So saying that no man could kill the Witch King because of this, is somewhat like argueing in a versus debate that no one could kill Darth Vader because we know how he died, and thus he can't be killed by any other means, at any other time.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-09-09 07:21pm

The_Lumberjack wrote: I was referring to Crouch's authorisation of Aurors to kill rather than capture at the height of Voldemorts powers, "Moody" used it against the spiders and Lupin and Sirius were prepared to kill Wormtail - what I was trying to get at (but not very clearly), was that unlike the Cruciatus curse as seen in OOTP, you dont appear to need to be evil to use it, whilst the latter has to be 'meant' (ie - with the intention to hurt someone).

The "kill, rather than capture" order was probably due to how severe the problems were back then (as everyone always seem to talk about how bad it was) and i bet Sirius and Lupin were pretty pissed off that Wormtail had betrayed their best friend to his death, but i can see where your coming from. And since "Moody" was a deatheater in disguise i doubt he'd be too fussed about using it and probably got a buzz out of using fornbidden curse on the students.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2003-09-09 10:50pm

NeoGoomba wrote:
Smiling Bandit wrote: But the Nazgul would probably accept him. If Harry ever met Sauron, he would lose, though.
The Nazgul are loyal to Sauron and under his personal control above all else, even if someone else were to claim the Ring. They would feign allegance, and at the first chance they got, they would betray Harry and whisk the Ring to Sauron.

Thought the Nazgul were slaves to the One Ring and the reason they go after it is that sauron is the ring's master and he who controls the spice controls the universe? That is to say, he who controls the ring (Or vice-versa) controls the Nazgul. What I'm saying is, Let's say HP Destroys Sauron by using the ring (And takes his rightful place as lord of all middle earth (LMAO) then the nazgul are slaves to Harry Potter...
Man, that's just sick. Of course, Harry would be decapitated long before he made it to Mordor. URUUUUUK-HAAAAAAAAAI!!!!

Smiling Bandit · Post by **Smiling Bandit** » 2003-09-10 09:51am

The Nazgul are loyal to Sauron and under his personal control above all else, even if someone else were to claim the Ring. They would feign allegance, and at the first chance they got, they would betray Harry and whisk the Ring to Sauron.

If Harry took the Ring, he could order them to obey him, and they would. I'd take a wild guess, but his will enjoys control over others a lot more than Frodo's, particularly in book 5. The Nazgul could not really disobey him, or not attack him, but they could trick him or trap him while Sauron until along.

Tolkeing said in one fo his letters that if Gollum hadn't but the ring off, Frodo would have either chucked himself into the volcano or come down off the mountain with it. In the latter case, the Riders would feign obesience, but destroy the path up to Mt. Doom. Now, they didn't attack Frodo, and he was nowhere near as controlling as Harry, so I assume they couldn't attack him or try to take the ring. They hwould have had to wait until Sauron came down to take the ring himself.

Now, Sauron's will was described as being awesomely mighty. Tolkein said that the only reason Aragorn was able to evict him from the Palantir and Denethor evade Sauron's grip was that Sauron was not nearly as fearsome on long-distance calls, and the Palantir was rightfully Aragorns.

The Ring is rightfully Sauron's, and Tolkeing also says that only gandalf or Saruman would have a chance (and then only a 50/50 shot) at winning the fight.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-10 02:14pm

If Harry took the Ring, he could order them to obey him, and they would.

Doubtful. Sauron held the Nine Rings which was what allowed him to command them.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-09-10 05:34pm

Stormbringer wrote:Doubtful. Sauron held the Nine Rings which was what allowed him to command them.

I thought the Nazgul wore the nine rings and the One Ring was the master ring that directly controlled them.

NeoGoomba · Post by **NeoGoomba** » 2003-09-10 10:42pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: I thought the Nazgul wore the nine rings and the One Ring was the master ring that directly controlled them.

It's been debated, but the general belief is that Sauron holds the Nine. The Witch King and Kamul both had free will of their own, yet when Sauron commanded them without the One Ring, they had no choice to obey him. It was also said that Sauron sent the Nine to find Frodo because he wasn't afriad of one of them suddenly becoming their own masters once they killed Frodo and took the Ring, which implies that their bondage to Sauron is deeper than just who wears the One, hence the argument that Sauron must also hold their Rings as an additional level of control.

On the topic of will power, probably only Gandalf, Saruman, and maybe Galadriel would have had the will power to use the One Ring to exert their will over the other Ring Bearers, including the Nazgul. The Ring was made for Sauron, not for anyone else, and only he can utilize it to its full extent. Plus Gandalf himself said it would take time for even himself to learn how to use it properly. Something tells me Harry wouldn't have the time to learn all he could do with it before Sauron came and took it back

Darth_Shinji · Post by **Darth_Shinji** » 2003-09-10 10:57pm

Cej4096 wrote:
Isolder74 wrote:also no living man can harm a Nazgul. The man part is important because it is Elowin who kills the Lord of the Nazgul.
Actually no living man WOULD kill the Witch King. It wasn't an ability, it was a prophecy. I can't remember the exact circumstances, but I believe Tolkien talks about it in the Appendices. It is based on something an elf king said, that he had seen the Witch King's end and it would not come at the hands of any living man.

So saying that no man could kill the Witch King because of this, is somewhat like argueing in a versus debate that no one could kill Darth Vader because we know how he died, and thus he can't be killed by any other means, at any other time.

Can you find out more about it? The debate has been waging forever wether it was a phopecy or a MacBeth style charm.

NeoGoomba · Post by **NeoGoomba** » 2003-09-10 11:13pm

Darth_Shinji wrote: Can you find out more about it? The debate has been waging forever wether it was a phopecy or a MacBeth style charm.

It sounded more like a charm, when you look at what happened. Witch King and Glorfindel fight. Glorfindel proclaims that not by the hand of Man will the Witch King be defeated. Witch King believes the prophecy. Witch King confronts a warrior it thinks is a man, a warrior who also killed his dragon-thing ride. He states that not by the hand of a man will he be defeated. Warrior removes her helmet, Witch King blanches, suddenly in doubt, this causes him to be delayed long enough for a hobbit to jab him with an anti-Wraith sword in the leg, and the woman to stab him in the face, killing him. (I'm pretty sure thats the sequence of events. If I'm mistaken make the change)

If there was no prohecy, would the Witch King have hesitated, or would he have just cut down everyone around him?