The Witch King of Angmar vs Vilgefortz of Roggeveen

Avatar image for mzp92
MZP92

748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

  • Morals off, fight to kill
  • Witch King has movies and books feats, he's unmounted though.
  • Vilgefortz from the Witcher books.
  • Base gear for both
  • No prepare and base knowledge, but Vilgefortz knows he's dealing with a very powerful being.
  • Starts 20 meters apart in a generic open field
  • Victory by total incap or death.
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for the_wspanialy
the_wspanialy

695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I mean... Aragorn fought the Witch-King and four of his lackeys off with a torch.

Avatar image for mzp92
MZP92

748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@the_wspanialy: Only the Nazgul lackeys were in the scene iirc, and the fire would not kill them anyway,(The Witch King at least). he also able to break Gandalf staff

Loading Video...

Avatar image for cheth
Cheth

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Cheth  Online

I mean... Aragorn fought the Witch-King and four of his lackeys off with a torch.

Only movie canon and note that as the dark riders they're a massively weakened form of the ringwraiths, which is still inferior to the Witch King (the nazgul in general are slowly gathering power throughout the events of the lord of the rings as it takes time for them to fully ressurect, especially since Sauron himself is weakened). Even as of the battle of Minas Tirith the Witch King is weakened, as Sauron has the Witch King's ring while waiting for his own.

As for the OT: I have no idea who Vilgefortz even is, just wanted to clarify

@mzp92 said:

@the_wspanialy: Only the Nazgul lackeys were in the scene iirc, and the fire would not kill them anyway,(The Witch King at least). he also able to break Gandalf staff

Loading Video...

No its the witch king who aragorn fought (making the movie scene even more ridicolous), but for the reasons above its not really an anti-feat anyways

Avatar image for the_wspanialy
the_wspanialy

695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mzp92 said:

@the_wspanialy: Only the Nazgul lackeys were in the scene iirc, and the fire would not kill them anyway,(The Witch King at least). he also able to break Gandalf staff

Loading Video...

No:

Loading Video...

If he manages to break Vilgefortz's staff, Vilgefortz burns him with flames hot enough to cut through stone columns and turn Regis (who is resistant to magical fire) into a smear. And why wouldn't burning him count as a "total incap"?

@cheth said:
@the_wspanialy said:

I mean... Aragorn fought the Witch-King and four of his lackeys off with a torch.

Only movie canon and note that as the dark riders they're a massively weakened form of the ringwraiths, which is still inferior to the Witch King (the nazgul in general are slowly gathering power throughout the events of the lord of the rings as it takes time for them to fully ressurect, especially since Sauron himself is weakened). Even as of the battle of Minas Tirith the Witch King is weakened, as Sauron has the Witch King's ring while waiting for his own.

As for the OT: I have no idea who Vilgefortz even is, just wanted to clarify

And the movie feats count here, so...

If you want to follow just the books, then the Witch-King has literally nothing, except running away at the mere sight of Glorfindel, being stalemated by Gandalf the Grey (while having backup and being empowered at night), and beating Eowyn (for whatever it's worth).

Avatar image for cheth
Cheth

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Cheth  Online

@mzp92 said:

@the_wspanialy: Only the Nazgul lackeys were in the scene iirc, and the fire would not kill them anyway,(The Witch King at least). he also able to break Gandalf staff

Loading Video...

No:

Loading Video...

If he manages to break Vilgefortz's staff, Vilgefortz burns him with flames hot enough to cut through stone columns and turn Regis (who is resistant to magical fire) into a smear. And why wouldn't burning him count as a "total incap"?

@cheth said:
@the_wspanialy said:

I mean... Aragorn fought the Witch-King and four of his lackeys off with a torch.

Only movie canon and note that as the dark riders they're a massively weakened form of the ringwraiths, which is still inferior to the Witch King (the nazgul in general are slowly gathering power throughout the events of the lord of the rings as it takes time for them to fully ressurect, especially since Sauron himself is weakened). Even as of the battle of Minas Tirith the Witch King is weakened, as Sauron has the Witch King's ring while waiting for his own.

As for the OT: I have no idea who Vilgefortz even is, just wanted to clarify

And the movie feats count here, so...

If you want to follow just the books, then the Witch-King has literally nothing, except running away at the mere sight of Glorfindel, being stalemated by Gandalf the Grey (while having backup and being empowered at night), and beating Eowyn (for whatever it's worth).

Movie feats count here, as its composite between the two, but book feats can't be limited by movie low showings.

If we follow book feats we have him challenging Gandalf the White (and repeatedly being noted to be his equal/potentially superior), breaking the gates of minas tirith with words of power, and turning lands to frost.

Again note I have no idea who Vilgefortz is and its entirely possible he stomps the witch king. But I just think if thats the case it should be argued why he does beat The Witch King, not just pull out "he lost to Aragorn"

Avatar image for cergic
cergic

4195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Vilgefortz win comfortably due to having actual decent combat feats, but "intent of lore"-wise, he'd be toast.

Avatar image for the_wspanialy
the_wspanialy

695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cheth said:

Movie feats count here, as its composite between the two, but book feats can't be limited by movie low showings.

If we follow book feats we have him challenging Gandalf the White (and repeatedly being noted to be his equal/potentially superior),

Neither they can be ignored outright.

Quotes, please. You'd think some of them would make it into the Nazgul RT...

Also, both Gandalf and Aragorn disagree:

"Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord."

The Two Towers

"The Dark Lord has Nine. But we have One, mightier than they: The White Rider."

The Two Towers

@cheth said:

breaking the gates of minas tirith with words of power

It took him three attempts and Grond:

The Black Captain rose in his stirrups and cried aloud in a dreadful voice, speaking in some forgotten tongue words of power and terror to rend both heart and stone. Thrice he cried. Thrice the great ram boomed. And suddenly upon the last stroke the Gate of Gondor broke. As if stricken by some blasting spell it burst asunder.

Return of the King

By comparison, here we have Vilgefortz shaking a castle as a side effect of him extending his hand:

He saw Vilgefortz extend a hand. He dived aside and flatten himself against the floor behind the base of a column. There was a boom so loud it hurt their ears, and the whole castle was shaken to its fundations.

Lady of the Lake
@cheth said:

and turning lands to frost

"and they were afraid of the Witch-king, who (they said) could make frost or thaw at his will."

Return of the King

Yeah, I don't think I have to point out why exactly this quote isn't particularly reliable.

Avatar image for alphamon
Alphamon

9583

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Won’t the other guy hurt himself trying to hurt the witch king technically?

Avatar image for cheth
Cheth

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Cheth  Online

@the_wspanialy:

Also, both Gandalf and Aragorn disagree:

Both quotes are from the Two Towers, at which point the Witch King is still not at his full power (even as of the return of the king he's not, as Sauron has the Nazgul rings to control them).

Yeah, I don't think I have to point out why exactly this quote isn't particularly reliable.

You said that a quote from Aragorn, meant to inspire hope in a hopeless scenario, in which he compares them not in combative power but as military leaders, and argues that Gandalf is mightier not because of power but because of the trials he has faced, is completely legitimate, whereas you now claim that a historical record made after the fact by Bilbo, Pippin and Merry, based on their own experiences, connections (which would include Aragorn) and vast libraries, Merry having met the Witch King personally (a way stronger version than Aragorn has ever even seen), are unreliable?

Quotes, please. You'd think some of them would make it into the Nazgul RT...

Here you go:

‘Yet now under the Lord of Barad-Dûr the most fell of all his captains is already master of your outer walls,’ said Gandalf. ‘King of Angmar long ago, Sorcerer, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgûl, a spear of terror in the hand of Sauron, shadow of despair.’

‘Then, Mithrandir, you had a foe to match you,’ said Denethor. ‘For myself, I have long known who is the chief captain of the hosts of the Dark Tower. Is this all that you have returned to say? Or can it be that you have withdrawn because you are overmatched?’

The Return of the King

As for the Nazgul RT, I didn't make it so *shrug*

And as you can see this is in the Return of the King, so its regarding the actual Witch King, not a simple dark rider as he was previously. Before you question the source, Denethor has a palantir, which grants him near-complete knowledge of the world. Since you also say "neither can be ignored outright" (ignoring that they were much inferior to ROTK WK against Aragorn, who in turn is inferior to prime WK), we outright have WK oneshotting Gandalf the White in the movies, making the argument in the first place moot.

It took him three attempts and Grond:

It took him three attempts and Grond to breach a gatethat is stronger than Saurman the Multicoloured:

At first men laughed and did not greatly fear such devices. For the main wall of the City was of great height and marvellous thickness, built ere the power and craft of Númenor waned in exile; and its outward face was like to the Tower of Orthanc, hard and dark and smooth, unconquerable by steel or fire, unbreakable except by some convulsion that would rend the very earth on which it stood.

'Nay,' they said, 'not if the Nameless One himself should come, not even he could enter here while we yet live.' But some answered: 'While we yet live? How long? He has a weapon that has brought low many strong places since the world began. Hunger. The roads are cut. Rohan will not come.'

The Return of the King
Round and round the rock of Orthanc the Ents went striding and storming like a howling gale, breaking pillars, hurling avalanches of boulders down the shafts, tossing up huge slabs of stone into the air like leaves. The tower was in the middle of a spinning whirlwind. I saw iron posts and blocks of masonry go rocketing up hundreds of feet, and smash against the windows of Orthanc. But Treebeard kept his head. He had not had any burns, luckily. He did not want his folk to hurt themselves in their fury, and he did not want Saruman to escape out of some hole in the confusion. Many of the Ents were hurling themselves against the Orthanc-rock; but that defeated them. It is very smooth and hard. Some wizardry is in it, perhaps, older and stronger than Saruman's. Anyway they could not get a grip on it, or make a crack in it; and they were bruising and wounding themselves against it.’The Two Towers

By comparison, here we have Vilgefortz shaking a castle as a side effect of him extending his hand:

Not at all a feat you even can compare, not that it matters, since you're debating noone here. I'M NOT SAYING WK WINS, JUST NOT ALLOWING PLAINLOWBALL

If Vilgefortz wins he wins, I know nothing about him so i'm not debating the topic. I just want to make sure the arguments for Vilgefortz winning is about how he's superior to WK, not about why WK is fodder by misrepresenting the lore

Avatar image for cheth
Cheth

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Cheth  Online

Please don't read the above as me being mad when i used bold, its merely since i want to make it clear what my intentions are in the thread

Avatar image for cergic
cergic

4195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@cheth:
Also, as i recall (can proof-read the book if i got energy, they're in my office in the next room) he also recieved an additional, quite substantial, amp from Sauron just before he ventured forth from Minas Morgul.

Avatar image for cergic
cergic

4195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By cergic

@cheth:

It was in one of the letters from Tolkien. Letter 210.

Difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force

Avatar image for cheth
Cheth

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Cheth  Online

@cergic said:

@cheth:

It was in one of the letters from Tolkien. Letter 210.

Difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force

Yeah, seen that one before but didn't have it at hand so didn't want to mention it xD. I do wonder how close to Witch King of Angmar (aka peak witch king with ring) the RoTK version is, could probably be an interesting topic for another time

Avatar image for rerisen
ReRisen

381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Vilgefortz

Avatar image for the_wspanialy
the_wspanialy

695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16  Edited By the_wspanialy
@cheth said:

@the_wspanialy:

Also, both Gandalf and Aragorn disagree:

Both quotes are from the Two Towers, at which point the Witch King is still not at his full power (even as of the return of the king he's not, as Sauron has the Nazgul rings to control them).

Gandalf specifically says that (with an exception of Sauron himself) he's the most powerful being Aragorn and co will ever encounter. Why do you doubt his words?

@cheth said:

You said that a quote from Aragorn, meant to inspire hope in a hopeless scenario, in which he compares them not in combative power but as military leaders, and argues that Gandalf is mightier not because of power but because of the trials he has faced, is completely legitimate, whereas you now claim that a historical record made after the fact by Bilbo, Pippin and Merry, based on their own experiences, connections (which would include Aragorn) and vast libraries, Merry having met the Witch King personally (a way stronger version than Aragorn has ever even seen), are unreliable?

That's your interpretation.

Aragorn has personal experience with the Nazgul, has received education directly from loremaster Elrond, and spent years traveling with (and learning from) Gandalf. Bilbo/Merry/Pippin hasn't seen the Witch-King conjuring frost, were not around during the fall of Arnor, and simply took the words of some random Snowmen at face value.

So yeah, I'll take Aragorn's word over what Bilbo/Merry/Pippin read in some books and decided to put in their own any day of the week.

Btw. the Witch-King's supposed ability to "make frost or thaw" doesn't suddenly translate into him being capable of "turning lands to frost", as you've claimed.

@cheth said:

Here you go:

‘Yet now under the Lord of Barad-Dûr the most fell of all his captains is already master of your outer walls,’ said Gandalf. ‘King of Angmar long ago, Sorcerer, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgûl, a spear of terror in the hand of Sauron, shadow of despair.’

‘Then, Mithrandir, you had a foe to match you,’ said Denethor. ‘For myself, I have long known who is the chief captain of the hosts of the Dark Tower. Is this all that you have returned to say? Or can it be that you have withdrawn because you are overmatched?’

The Return of the King

As for the Nazgul RT, I didn't make it so *shrug*

And as you can see this is in the Return of the King, so its regarding the actual Witch King, not a simple dark rider as he was previously. Before you question the source, Denethor has a palantir, which grants him near-complete knowledge of the world. Since you also say "neither can be ignored outright" (ignoring that they were much inferior to ROTK WK against Aragorn, who in turn is inferior to prime WK), we outright have WK oneshotting Gandalf the White in the movies, making the argument in the first place moot.

Why should I take the words of Denethor, a man who despises Gandalf and was on verge of losing sanity due to Sauron's manipulation, over the words of Gandalf?

Funnily enough, you dismiss the fight between Aragorn and the Nazgul as "lowball", yet you take the Witch-King one-shotting Gandalf as valid, despite the fact that only one of them directly contradicts events of the books. And it's not the former.

@cheth said:

It took him three attempts and Grond to breach a gatethat is stronger than Saurman the Multicoloured:

At first men laughed and did not greatly fear such devices. For the main wall of the City was of great height and marvellous thickness, built ere the power and craft of Númenor waned in exile; and its outward face was like to the Tower of Orthanc, hard and dark and smooth, unconquerable by steel or fire, unbreakable except by some convulsion that would rend the very earth on which it stood.

'Nay,' they said, 'not if the Nameless One himself should come, not even he could enter here while we yet live.' But some answered: 'While we yet live? How long? He has a weapon that has brought low many strong places since the world began. Hunger. The roads are cut. Rohan will not come.'

The Return of the King
Round and round the rock of Orthanc the Ents went striding and storming like a howling gale, breaking pillars, hurling avalanches of boulders down the shafts, tossing up huge slabs of stone into the air like leaves. The tower was in the middle of a spinning whirlwind. I saw iron posts and blocks of masonry go rocketing up hundreds of feet, and smash against the windows of Orthanc. But Treebeard kept his head. He had not had any burns, luckily. He did not want his folk to hurt themselves in their fury, and he did not want Saruman to escape out of some hole in the confusion. Many of the Ents were hurling themselves against the Orthanc-rock; but that defeated them. It is very smooth and hard. Some wizardry is in it, perhaps, older and stronger than Saruman's. Anyway they could not get a grip on it, or make a crack in it; and they were bruising and wounding themselves against it.’The Two Towers

...

Are you seriously going to pretend that Minas Tirith's gate is as durable as Minas Tirith's walls?

It was against the Gate that he would throw his heaviest weight. Very strong it might be, wrought of steel and iron, and guarded with towers and bastions of indomitable stone, yet it was the key, the weakest point in all that high and impenetrable wall.

Return of the King

Tolkien very specifically distinguishes between the durability of the gate and the wall. As if a very basic understanding of medieval warfare wasn't enough.

@cheth said:

By comparison, here we have Vilgefortz shaking a castle as a side effect of him extending his hand:

Not at all a feat you even can compare,

Prey tell, why not?

You have the Witch-King who requires three direct magical attacks to breach a "very strong" gate. Throw to the mix the use of Grond, which is not only so huge that it needs multiple trolls (who are comparable to ents in strength) to be effectively operated but also has its own "spells of ruin" carved into it.

And you have Vilgefortz causing a castle to shake with a single, indirect attack.

Pretty clear cut, if you ask me.

@cheth said:

not that it matters, since you're debating noone here. I'M NOT SAYING WK WINS, JUST NOT ALLOWING PLAINLOWBALL

And you're getting so worked up why exactly? As far as I'm concerned, we have a civil exchange here, not some heated argument. Do we need to actively disagree to talk?

Yes, I know you're not saying the Witch-King wins. Which is why I didn't address this part of your previous post:

Again note I have no idea who Vilgefortz is and its entirely possible he stomps the witch king. But I just think if thats the case it should be argued why he does beat The Witch King, not just pull out "he lost to Aragorn"

@cheth said:

If Vilgefortz wins he wins, I know nothing about him so i'm not debating the topic. I just want to make sure the arguments for Vilgefortz winning is about how he's superior to WK, not about why WK is fodder by misrepresenting the lore

Do not accuse me of "misrepresenting the lore". I've done no such thing.

I guess I'll rephrase: does the Witch-King becoming stronger over the course of the series makes him any less susceptible to fire? That was the reason I brought up the Aragorn fight in the first place.

Avatar image for cheth
Cheth

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Cheth  Online

@the_wspanialy:

Gandalf specifically says that (with an exception of Sauron himself) he's the most powerful being Aragorn and co will ever encounter. Why do you doubt his words?

Because as Cergic pointed out, the WK as of the Two Towers can not yet be raised to the stature he is in RoTK. And the fact that it goes from that to Denethor saying WK might be his superior, and the WK being willing to directly confront Gandalf by himself, is telling of the fact that he's at the bare minimum comparable to gandalf.

Aragorn has personal experience with the Nazgul, has received education directly from loremaster Elrond, and spent years traveling with (and learning from) Gandalf. Bilbo/Merry/Pippin hasn't seen the Witch-King conjuring frost, were not around during the fall of Arnor, and simply took the words of some random Snowmen at face value.

Doublestandard here. You argue that since Aragorn has personal experience with the Nazgul (the hobbits do too), has received education directly from loremaster Elrond (who the hobbits had access to as a source when writing their records, aragorn too btw.), spent years traveling with and learning from Gandalf (which the hobbits did too), etc.

That's your interpretation.

Thats the context of the scene...

Why should I take the words of Denethor, a man who despises Gandalf and was on verge of losing sanity due to Sauron's manipulation, over the words of Gandalf?

How about you take the word from Gandalf directly following what Denethor said instead?

‘Yet now under the Lord of Barad-dûr the most fell of all his captains is already master of your outer walls,’ said Gandalf. ‘King of Angmar long ago, Sorcerer, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgûl, a spear of terror in the hand of Sauron, shadow of despair.’

‘Then, Mithrandir, you had a foe to match you,’ said Denethor. ‘For myself, I have long known who is the chief captain of the hosts of the Dark Tower. Is this all that you have returned to say? Or can it be that you have withdrawn because you are overmatched?’

Pippin trembled, fearing that Gandalf would be stung to sudden wrath, but his fear was needless. ‘It might be so,’ Gandalf answered softly.

Note that it does, of course, not confirm that WK > Gandalf. It does however confirm that its a possibility. Which is all I've really been arguing for.

Funnily enough, you dismiss the fight between Aragorn and the Nazgul as "lowball", yet you take the Witch-King one-shotting Gandalf as valid, despite the fact that only one of them directly contradicts events of the books. And it's not the former.

Outright ignoring what I say repeatedly doesn't really make me want to continue this discussion tbh. I didn't say I take it as valid, I said;

Since you also say "neither can be ignored outright"

Which clearly only indicates that under your paradigm it is the case that WK oneshotting Gandalf the White is perfectly valid. I believe that neither Aragorn > novel Nazgul nor WK > novel Gandalf the White is the case (or well the latter is possibly true, but I don't believe in a hard bind), but following your logic it is.

Also both events contradict the books. Aragorn never faced the nazgul, gandalf did, and the Witch King never blew up Gandalf's staff. However of the two events, if anything, the latter is closer to what happened, as the Witch King and Gandalf did actually face off, and the Witch King's blade did summon flames, they just never got to conclude their duel before Rohan arrived. Perhaps WK would have blown up Gandalf's staff in the books if it had gotten to it, perhaps not, but what we do know is it didn't happen in the novels, nor did Aragorn ever face off the nazgul. You may choose: "All movie feats apply", or "Movie feats don't apply", or "Books take precedence", or "all feats apply, but movie feats can't limit book feats and the other way around", but if you choose the first then you have to stick to it. Otherwise that is a doublestandard.

Are you seriously going to pretend that Minas Tirith'sgateis as durable as Minas Tirith'swalls?

Oh so the way you read the quote i posted is:

At first men laughed and did not greatly fear such devices. For the main wall of the City was of great height and marvellous thickness, built ere the power and craft of Númenor waned in exile; and its outward face was like to the Tower of Orthanc, hard and dark and smooth, unconquerable by steel or fire, unbreakable except by some convulsion that would rend the very earth on which it stood.

But of course the gate was made of paper and a strong breeze could break it down. That didn't matter to the men that laughed at Mordor's siege equipment since they knew it would take a military mastermind to know to target the gates.

Of course the gates are weaker than the walls. But they're weaker relative to the walls. They're still made the same way, by the same craftsmen, and still formed with power greater than that of Sarumann. And while not as great as the walls, they're still so strong that its supposed to be impossible for anything to enter by force lest they bring sorcery. And infact we do see that Grond, a massive battering ram enchanted with sorcery, fails to breach it:

The drums rolled louder. Fires leaped up. Great engines crawled across the field; and in the midst was a huge ram, great as a forest-tree a hundred feet in length, swinging on mighty chains. Long had it been forging in the dark smithies of Mordor, and its hideous head, founded of black steel, was shaped in the likeness of a ravening wolf; on it spells of ruin lay. Grond they named it, in memory of the Hammer of the Underworld of old. Great beasts drew it, orcs surrounded it, and behind walked mountain-trolls to wield it.

[...]

The drums rolled and rattled. With a vast rush Grond was hurled forward by huge hands. It reached the Gate. It swung. A deep boom rumbled through the City like thunder running in the clouds. But the doors of iron and posts of steel withstood the stroke.

Return of the King

You act as if the gates were completely regular, but they're still as the walls of Minas Tirith and of the Tower of Orthanc. Just weaker in comparison. And even then they were impossible to breach even with magic and the strongest siege equipment in the setting until WK speaks words of power.

Weak point =/= weak.

And you have Vilgefortz causing a castle to shake with a single, indirect attack.

One was targetting a gate made of powers greater than Saruman and destroyed it, one shook a castle without further effect (to my knowledge). = no ways to compare the two feats.

Still do not know about the matchup so don't really care to debate it though, so again not at all sure why you feel the need to give arguments for Vilgefortz in reply to me.

And you're getting so worked up why exactly? As far as I'm concerned, we have a civil exchange here, not some heated argument. Do we need to actively disagree to talk?

To quote myself:

Please don't read the above as me being mad when i used bold, its merely since i want to make it clear what my intentions are in the thread

Quite possible you didn't see this since it was in a seperate post, so no hard feelings about it, but I never wrote bold and caps since i was worked up. I wrote it that way because you didn't seem to see me writing it twice before so I wanted to make sure it stood out. But since I know it could be seen as anger I'm sorry for possibly offending you, think you're a cool guy and I love to talk about matchups I do know something about with you, just really can't talk about the Witcher at all since my understanding of the setting amounts to "Cool guy with one sword for humans and one for other creatures, but both for monsters, hunts alot of beasts" lmfao.

Yes, I know you're not saying the Witch-King wins. Which is why I didn't address this part of your previous post:

Why do you then feel the need to give arguments in Vilgefortz favour to someone who's already admitted he can't at all adress the topic? If its to give me an idea of his abilities, I appreciate the gesture and thank you, but I think to give an answer to the topic personally I would have to read a bit about the setting itself and then about him (something i don't have time for rn), since otherwise my view of the matchup will very likely be wrong by virtue of me only knowing one side

Do not accuse me of "misrepresenting the lore". I've done no such thing.

I do think its misrepresenting the lore to argue that the movies bind the novels, that Aragorn can solo the nazgul, and that the dark riders = prime witch king. Don't even necessarily mean to imply that you did so intentionally (its easy for pure moviegoers to think that Aragorn vs dark riders happened in the books too for example), but I doubtlessly think its lowball and misrepresentation. If we take other characters we've talked about in the past, if someone made a matchup roughly: "Base Grom vs Grimgor"

And I said "Grom wins because he beat Cenarius", neglecting to mention that it was a massively amped fel orc Grom, would you not consider it misrepresentation? Or if a matchup was "Cenarius vs Thrall", and I said "Thrall wins since Cenarius lost to Grom", would you not also consider it misrepresentation and lowball?

I guess I'll rephrase: does the Witch-King becoming stronger over the course of the series makes him any less susceptible to fire? That was the reason I brought up the Aragorn fight in the first place.

The fact that he summons fire likely is an indication that fire doesn't weaken him. Unless he has the worst battle iq in fictional history xD. Additionally, its likely that WK is no longer weakened by such things since he's no longer a dark rider. Dark riders (as cergic's quote shows) draw power from fear and darkness, thats why fire is a bummer for them in the first place. But as WK he leads an army of fire and ruin, he's a warrior and sorcerer; his power no longer comes from fear and darkness, it comes from battle itself.

Also if thats the reason you brought it up then its a much more valid point, since the dark riders were suspectible to fire (though hardly to the degree movies portray in books). But that is not at all what your first post indicates:

I mean... Aragorn fought the Witch-King and four of his lackeys off with a torch.

This indicates that the witch king loses since he's massively sub Aragorn. From how the creator of OT responded, I would gather he shares my interpretation of your first post. Entirely possible you intent just didn't go through, but next time at least maybe add like:

I mean... Aragorn fought the Witch-King and four of his lackeys off with a torch. So they're vulnerable to fire. And Vilgefortz can summon large amounts of fire.

that way those who can/want to debate the topic can argue why the WK can counter it/no longer is vulnerable to it, or if everyone agrees to it your point is made. Either way, at least it doesn't look like Aragorn > WK is your case then :).

Avatar image for gaoron
Gaoron

14979

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Vilgefortz. He is not only one of the best mages in the verse but also one of the best swordsmen if not the best as far as books canon only goes.

Avatar image for the_wspanialy
the_wspanialy

695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By the_wspanialy
@cheth said:

Because as Cergic pointed out, the WK as of the Two Towers can not yet be raised to the stature he is in RoTK. And the fact that it goes from that to Denethor saying WK might be his superior, and the WK being willing to directly confront Gandalf by himself, is telling of the fact that he's at the bare minimum comparable to gandalf.

Fair enough.

@cheth said:

Doublestandard here. You argue that since Aragorn has personal experience with the Nazgul (the hobbits do too), has received education directly from loremaster Elrond (who the hobbits had access to as a source when writing their records, aragorn too btw.), spent years traveling with and learning from Gandalf (which the hobbits did too), etc.

Nah, just facts.

Aragorn's experience and knowledge with the Nazgul is relevant to his quote. The hobbits' experience with the Nazgul isn't relevant to theirs, while their knowledge is based entirely on historical records, which apparently even Elrond and co weren't able (or didn't care) to verify.

@cheth said:

How about you take the word from Gandalf directly following what Denethor said instead?

‘Yet now under the Lord of Barad-dûr the most fell of all his captains is already master of your outer walls,’ said Gandalf. ‘King of Angmar long ago, Sorcerer, Ringwraith, Lord of the Nazgûl, a spear of terror in the hand of Sauron, shadow of despair.’

‘Then, Mithrandir, you had a foe to match you,’ said Denethor. ‘For myself, I have long known who is the chief captain of the hosts of the Dark Tower. Is this all that you have returned to say? Or can it be that you have withdrawn because you are overmatched?’

Pippin trembled, fearing that Gandalf would be stung to sudden wrath, but his fear was needless. ‘It might be so,’ Gandalf answered softly.

Note that it does, of course, not confirm that WK > Gandalf. It does however confirm that its a possibility. Which is all I've really been arguing for.

Then couldn't you, I don't know, post the entire quote in the first place? You have me at a disadvantage since I do not have an English translation of LotR, I'm working on whatever I can find on the Internet. It would've spared us both time.

Fair enough.

@cheth said:

Outright ignoring what I say repeatedly doesn't really make me want to continue this discussion tbh. I didn't say I take it as valid, I said;

Since you also say "neither can be ignored outright"

Which clearly only indicates that under your paradigm it is the case that WK oneshotting Gandalf the White is perfectly valid. I believe that neither Aragorn > novel Nazgul nor WK > novel Gandalf the White is the case (or well the latter is possibly true, but I don't believe in a hard bind), but following your logic it is.

Also both events contradict the books. Aragorn never faced the nazgul, gandalf did, and the Witch King never blew up Gandalf's staff. However of the two events, if anything, the latter is closer to what happened, as the Witch King and Gandalf did actually face off, and the Witch King's blade did summon flames, they just never got to conclude their duel before Rohan arrived. Perhaps WK would have blown up Gandalf's staff in the books if it had gotten to it, perhaps not, but what we do know is it didn't happen in the novels, nor did Aragorn ever face off the nazgul. You may choose: "All movie feats apply", or "Movie feats don't apply", or "Books take precedence", or "all feats apply, but movie feats can't limit book feats and the other way around", but if you choose the first then you have to stick to it. Otherwise that is a doublestandard.

Except I wasn't making an argument that the Nazgul are sub-Aragorn. I've never stated that. Their fight however exposed a cripling weakness, one Vilgefortz can easily exploit.

You are the one who claims that the Witch-King one-shotting Gandalf in the movie renders the Aragorn fight obsolete and an attempt at lowball. I might as well say that the Witch-King one-shotting Gandalf is an outlier.

Btw. Aragorn was actually implied to confront the Nazgul:

Even as he swooned he caught, as through a swirling mist, a glimpse of Strider leaping out of the darkness with a flaming brand of wood in either hand.

Fellowship of the Ring

But since the events are presented to us from the perspective of Frodo (who has lost consciousness immediately after seeing Aragorn), we don't see the actual confrontation. And if you want to insist that there was no fight, well... the fact that the Nazgul fleed without putting any fight whatsoever makes them look even worse.

@cheth said:

Oh so the way you read the quote i posted is:

At first men laughed and did not greatly fear such devices. For the main wall of the City was of great height and marvellous thickness, built ere the power and craft of Númenor waned in exile; and its outward face was like to the Tower of Orthanc, hard and dark and smooth, unconquerable by steel or fire, unbreakable except by some convulsion that would rend the very earth on which it stood.

But of course the gate was made of paper and a strong breeze could break it down. That didn't matter to the men that laughed at Mordor's siege equipment since they knew it would take a military mastermind to know to target the gates.

Of course the gates are weaker than the walls. But they're weaker relative to the walls. They're still made the same way, by the same craftsmen, and still formed with power greater than that of Sarumann. And while not as great as the walls, they're still so strong that its supposed to be impossible for anything to enter by force lest they bring sorcery. And infact we do see that Grond, a massive battering ram enchanted with sorcery, fails to breach it:

The drums rolled louder. Fires leaped up. Great engines crawled across the field; and in the midst was a huge ram, great as a forest-tree a hundred feet in length, swinging on mighty chains. Long had it been forging in the dark smithies of Mordor, and its hideous head, founded of black steel, was shaped in the likeness of a ravening wolf; on it spells of ruin lay. Grond they named it, in memory of the Hammer of the Underworld of old. Great beasts drew it, orcs surrounded it, and behind walked mountain-trolls to wield it.

[...]

The drums rolled and rattled. With a vast rush Grond was hurled forward by huge hands. It reached the Gate. It swung. A deep boom rumbled through the City like thunder running in the clouds. But the doors of iron and posts of steel withstood the stroke.

Return of the King

You act as if the gates were completely regular, but they're still as the walls of Minas Tirith and of the Tower of Orthanc. Just weaker in comparison. And even then they were impossible to breach even with magic and the strongest siege equipment in the setting until WK speaks words of power.

Weak point =/= weak.

Indeed, they are weaker than the walls, and by a substantial margin. You don't differentiate between "very strong" and "impenetrable", or "steel and iron" and "indomitable stone", just to imply a minor difference.

Some wizardry is in it, perhaps, older and stronger than Saruman's.

Return of the King

This "perhaps" part really stings.

@cheth said:

To quote myself:

Please don't read the above as me being mad when i used bold, its merely since i want to make it clear what my intentions are in the thread

Quite possible you didn't see this since it was in a seperate post, so no hard feelings about it, but I never wrote bold and caps since i was worked up. I wrote it that way because you didn't seem to see me writing it twice before so I wanted to make sure it stood out. But since I know it could be seen as anger I'm sorry for possibly offending you, think you're a cool guy and I love to talk about matchups I do know something about with you, just really can't talk about the Witcher at all since my understanding of the setting amounts to "Cool guy with one sword for humans and one for other creatures, but both for monsters, hunts alot of beasts" lmfao.

No worries, I wasn't (and I'm not) offended at all. I was just confused.

@cheth said:

Why do you then feel the need to give arguments in Vilgefortz favour to someone who's already admitted he can't at all adress the topic? If its to give me an idea of his abilities, I appreciate the gesture and thank you, but I think to give an answer to the topic personally I would have to read a bit about the setting itself and then about him (something i don't have time for rn), since otherwise my view of the matchup will very likely be wrong by virtue of me only knowing one side

Yeah, thought I'll give a general idea.

@cheth said:

Do not accuse me of "misrepresenting the lore". I've done no such thing.

I do think its misrepresenting the lore to argue that the movies bind the novels, that Aragorn can solo the nazgul, and that the dark riders = prime witch king. Don't even necessarily mean to imply that you did so intentionally (its easy for pure moviegoers to think that Aragorn vs dark riders happened in the books too for example), but I doubtlessly think its lowball and misrepresentation. If we take other characters we've talked about in the past, if someone made a matchup roughly: "Base Grom vs Grimgor"

And I said "Grom wins because he beat Cenarius", neglecting to mention that it was a massively amped fel orc Grom, would you not consider it misrepresentation? Or if a matchup was "Cenarius vs Thrall", and I said "Thrall wins since Cenarius lost to Grom", would you not also consider it misrepresentation and lowball?

I guess I'll rephrase: does the Witch-King becoming stronger over the course of the series makes him any less susceptible to fire? That was the reason I brought up the Aragorn fight in the first place.

The fact that he summons fire likely is an indication that fire doesn't weaken him. Unless he has the worst battle iq in fictional history xD. Additionally, its likely that WK is no longer weakened by such things since he's no longer a dark rider. Dark riders (as cergic's quote shows) draw power from fear and darkness, thats why fire is a bummer for them in the first place. But as WK he leads an army of fire and ruin, he's a warrior and sorcerer; his power no longer comes from fear and darkness, it comes from battle itself.

Also if thats the reason you brought it up then its a much more valid point, since the dark riders were suspectible to fire (though hardly to the degree movies portray in books). But that is not at all what your first post indicates:

I mean... Aragorn fought the Witch-King and four of his lackeys off with a torch.

This indicates that the witch king loses since he's massively sub Aragorn. From how the creator of OT responded, I would gather he shares my interpretation of your first post. Entirely possible you intent just didn't go through, but next time at least maybe add like:

I mean... Aragorn fought the Witch-King and four of his lackeys off with a torch. So they're vulnerable to fire. And Vilgefortz can summon large amounts of fire.

that way those who can/want to debate the topic can argue why the WK can counter it/no longer is vulnerable to it, or if everyone agrees to it your point is made. Either way, at least it doesn't look like Aragorn > WK is your case then :).

All right, all right, let's not go in circles. As I said, I wasn't making an argument that the Nazgul are sub-Aragorn.

I mean, wielding a flaming sword doesn't make him immune to fire.

Anyway...

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for cheth
Cheth

3850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 Cheth  Online

@the_wspanialy:

Aragorn's experience and knowledge with the Nazgul is relevant to his quote. The hobbits' experience with the Nazgul isn't relevant to theirs, while their knowledge is based entirely on historical records, which apparently even Elrond and co weren't able (or didn't care) to verify.

Glorfindel also was alive and well in this era, and someone Bilbo, Pippin and Merry had access too :)

Then couldn't you, I don't know, post the entire quote in the first place? You have me at a disadvantage since I do not have an English translation ofLotR, I'm working on whatever I can find on the Internet. It would've spared us both time.

In fairness my point was about denethor so i posted what i thought relevant at the time xD. Only when you questioned his validity was there really need to post the rest.

Oh and fair on the translation part, I read it in norwegian the first time, so i get how annoying it can be to get quotes, not too easy for me either lol

Except I wasn't making an argument that the Nazgul are sub-Aragorn. I've never stated that. Their fight however exposed a cripling weakness, one Vilgefortz can easily exploit.

This is what I addressed later so i guess thats covered lol

But since the events are presented to us from the perspective of Frodo (who has lost consciousness immediately after seeing Aragorn), we don't see the actual confrontation. And if you want to insist that there was no fight, well... the fact that the Nazgul fleed without putting any fight whatsoever makes them look even worse.

Aragorn is actually confused why the nazgul went away and aren't attacking again, indicating that they just left after Frodo was stabbed:

'I am not a Black Rider, Sam,' he said gently, 'nor in league with them. I have been trying to discover something of their movements; but I have found nothing. I cannot think why they have gone and do not attack again. But there is no feeling of their presence anywhere at hand.'

The Fellowship of the Ring

He does however after hearing what had happened while he was gone realize why:

[...] They have drawn off for the time being. But not far, I fear. They will come again another night, if we cannot escape. They are only waiting, because they think that their purpose is almost accomplished, and that the Ring cannot fly much further. I fear, Sam, that they believe your master has a deadly wound that will subdue him to their will. We shall see!' Sam choked with tears. 'Don't despair!' said Strider. 'You must trust me now. Your Frodo is made of sterner stuff than I had guessed, though Gandalf hinted that it might prove so. He is not slain, and I think he will resist the evil power of the wound longer than his enemies expect. I will do all I can to help and heal him. Guard him well, while I am away!' He hurried off and disappeared again into the darkness.

The Fellowship of the Ring

So since Frodo was stabbed they expected him to turn into a wraith any moment now, underestimating the strength of a hobbit and Frodo himself (which in general is the theme of the story), and thinking they didn't need to do anything more. They are even so confident that they don't attack while Aragorn leaves the hobbits alone again. Kind of a dumb move on their part, but it does have a firm explaination that isn't Aragorn beating them

Indeed, they are weaker than the walls, and by a substantial margin. You don't differentiate between "very strong" and "impenetrable", or "steel and iron" and "indomitable stone", just to imply a minor difference.

They're still completely resistant to the greatest siege weapons in the world and even the magic on grond. And steel and iron and indomitable stone is differentiated since.. they're made of different materials?

This "perhaps" part really stings.

While it is true it says perhaps, and that it implies it could be lesser, here we go to the intent you mentioned in the wall vs gate point: if the walls were much lesser than saruman or lesser at all, why would Tolkien have it be said its potentially more powerful and older than Saruman in the first place?

Also worth noting that Saruman was imprisoned in his tower by the ents, unable to resist them, whereas the walls greatly wounded the ents, indicating that the walls are a force greater than the ents.

No worries, I wasn't (and I'm not) offended at all. I was just confused

Yeah sorry lol, and glad you weren't offended, I totally get how it could be seen as me being aggressive, meanwhile for me it was more about applying like pressure to it. Maybe just italics would've been enough xD.

Yeah, thought I'll give a general idea.

Thank you :), though like i said, I still don't really want to speak out of ignorance lol

All right, all right, let's not go in circles. As I said, I wasn't making an argument that the Nazgul are sub-Aragorn.

Yeah then thats fair lol (and renders my initial reason to join in this thread pointless now xD).

Of course! Disagreements over power rankings and battle threads should never be ground for not being friends xD