Arena. Live action versions.
Bonus: Book Balrog.
Printable View
Arena. Live action versions.
Bonus: Book Balrog.
Dark Fire should pretty much avail him, the Flame of Udûn.
EDIT: Also, which book version of Balrogs are we talking about Fall of Gondolin, or the 'retconned' ones. As their power level varied, IIRC. Or are we talking Durin's Bane specifically ?
[QUOTE=Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh;4702488]Dark Fire should pretty much avail him, the Flame of Udûn.
EDIT: Also, which book version of Balrogs are we talking about Fall of Gondolin, or the 'retconned' ones. As their power level varied, IIRC. Or are we talking Durin's Bane specifically ?[/QUOTE]
.......yes.
Edit: Totally bamboozled tbh. I know very VERY little about anything beyond the main lotr trilogy of books/movies. Feel free to discuss whichever you'd like!
Honestly, given Durin's Bane, I don't think there's a lot of mileage in trying to bring up the earliest take on the Balrogs for anything, Tolkien clearly ended up settling on that they were the whole fewer in number corrupted Maiar deal.
[QUOTE=Pendaran;4702514]Honestly, given Durin's Bane, I don't think there's a lot of mileage in trying to bring up the earliest take on the Balrogs for anything, Tolkien clearly ended up settling on that they were the whole fewer in number corrupted Maiar deal.[/QUOTE]
That's fair enough, but I love bringing up the Fall of Gondolin whenever I can.
Which, ahem, you should definitely the Silmarilion Arby. It makes absolutely no sense, and will leave you more confused than satisfied; but it's great ... and has things like a crazed werewolf biting off a dude's arm, a dragon being killed by an elf with a laser forehead and crushing mountains, and a giant spider woman slapping the crap out of Melkor so bad he summons his Valkyries (the Balrogs).
The books are really vague on the Balrogs, right down to their appearance. I always pictured more of a fallen angel type of creature, with shadows and fire instead of the halo of light angels usually get. But the description is so vague that you can make a case for anything from what I described to the thing in the movies.
[QUOTE=The Arbiter;4702237]Arena. Live action versions.
Bonus: Book Balrog.[/QUOTE]
Night King for both, arguably. Certainly movie version.
Night King was basking in Drogon's flames and was strong enough to hurl an icy javelin across a respectable distance. Coupled with his esoteric powers and abilities, I'd say he has the advantage.
Movie version:
I don't see the Balrog surviving the death ice javelin any better than a dragon did.
And the fire is going to be totally useless against him, based on what dragon fire does in GoT versus what the Durin's Bane's fire does in LotR.
Book version:
If we are talking Durin's Bane, well, it fought and fell really far and long with Gandalf. There was some lightning flashing about. It died. I guess it's a better showing than the movie version, but, for all that we have that description above, it's not like we have a blow by blow retelling of the scuffle, and it's not like Gandalf has any other physical combat feats to compare to. So... I don't know. The fire should still be totally useless. And I don't know how it's going to handle the NK's javelins. If it can take shots from those, it might well be a very, very long fight, in which we find out the NK's limits.
[QUOTE]
If we are talking Durin's Bane, well, it fought and fell really far and long with Gandalf. There was some lightning flashing about. It died.[/QUOTE]
That's a remarkably understated way of putting that.
[QUOTE=Pendaran;4703755]That's a remarkably understated way of putting that.[/QUOTE]
What's the full story?
[QUOTE=The Arbiter;4703765]What's the full story?[/QUOTE]
One that's been posted a few times, making that a remarkably understated way of phrasing that. Sadly the thread where in response to something like that I typed up the whole fight died a few board crashes ago, so I guess I have to redo that, unghle.
There it is:
'Name him not!' said Gandalf, and for a moment it seemed that a cloud of pain passed over his face, and he sat silent, looking old as death. 'Long time I fell,' he said at last, slowly, as if thinking back with difficulty. 'Long I fell, and he fell with me. His fire was about me. I was burned. Then we plunged into the deep water and all was dark. Cold it was as the tide of death: almost it froze my heart.'
'Deep is the abyss that is spanned by Durin's Bridge, and none has measured it,' said Gimli.
'Yet it has a bottom, beyond light and knowledge,' said Gandalf. 'Thither I came at last, to the uttermost foundations of stone. He was with me still. His fire was quenched, but now he was a thing of slime, stronger than a strangling snake.
'We fought far under the living earth, where time is not counted. Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels. They were not made by Durin's folk, Gimli son of Glóin. Far, far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he. Now I have walked there, but I will bring no report to darken the light of day. In that despair my enemy was my only hope, and I pursued him, clutching at his heel. Thus he brought me back at last to the secret ways of Khazad-dûm: too well he knew them all. Ever up now we went, until we came to the Endless Stair.'
'Long has that been lost,' said Gimli. 'Many have said that it was never made save in legend, but others say that it was destroyed.'
'It was made, and it had not been destroyed,' said Gandalf. 'From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak it climbed. ascending in unbroken spiral in many thousand steps, until it issued at last in Durin's Tower carved in the living rock of Zirak-zigil, the pinnacle of the Silvertine.
'There upon Celebdil was a lonely window in the snow, and before it lay a narrow space, a dizzy eyrie above the mists of the world. The sun shone fiercely there, but all below was wrapped in cloud. Out he sprang, and even as I came behind, he burst into new flame. There was none to see, or perhaps in after ages songs would still be sung of the Battle of the Peak.' Suddenly Gandalf laughed. 'But what would they say in song? Those that looked up from afar thought that the mountain was crowned with storm. Thunder they heard, and lightning, they said, smote upon Celebdil, and leaped back broken into tongues of fire. Is not that enough? A great smoke rose about us, vapour and steam. Ice fell like rain. I threw down my enemy, and he fell from the high place and broke the mountain-side where he smote it in his ruin. Then darkness took me; and I strayed out of thought and time, and I wandered far on roads that I will not tell.
That is a much prettier version.
Sadly it does leave us without somewhat-objective feats on how that helps it in this rumble. Broke the mountain side sounds nice, but is it "smashed a 100 foot long skid where it fell" or "cracked off a giant avalanche." We don't know. We know that he didn't survive it.
[QUOTE=big_adventure;4703968]That is a much prettier version.
Sadly it does leave us without somewhat-objective feats on how that helps it in this rumble. Broke the mountain side sounds nice, but is it "smashed a 100 foot long skid where it fell" or "cracked off a giant avalanche." We don't know. We know that he didn't survive it.[/QUOTE]
At the very least it tells us that the battle was fierce enough that people presumably far away enough to observe the mountain, would see a [I]storm[/I] at the top, as a side effect of the battle
[QUOTE=big_adventure;4703968]That is a much prettier version.
Sadly it does leave us without somewhat-objective feats on how that helps it in this rumble. Broke the mountain side sounds nice, but is it "smashed a 100 foot long skid where it fell" or "cracked off a giant avalanche." We don't know. We know that he didn't survive it.[/QUOTE]
The intensity of their fight was such that people looking at the mountain would see a storm at the top of it. They fell a ridiculous length into the water and both of them did not consider that an especially huge impairment to keep fighting. They chased and fought each other, without pause or rest, all the way up the mountain, from beneath it, which speaks to their endurance. "Cracked off a giant avalanche" would mean saying all he did was send snow and ice rolling along when it states "broke the mountain side" as far as his death throes.
It's certainly beyond going:
[QUOTE]If we are talking Durin's Bane, well, it fought and fell really far and long with Gandalf. There was some lightning flashing about. It died. [/QUOTE]
The text is pretty strongly leaning into that both threw a lot of power around.
I'll say it another way. If the two of them going at each other can generate what looks like a storm of intensity enough to obscure the mountaintop that it would have been visible to people who would have wanted to look at said mountain, I'm pretty cool with that the Balrog can be read to have smashed up that much of mountainside in its death throes.
It's one thing to go "the exact limits of that are hard to parse" it's another thing to go "so I'm going to lowball and talk about it as being barely impressive as hard as possible in ways the text itself does not bear out from its clear context."
Dont use "creates natural disasters as side scatter from fights" as a feat with big_adventure. He loves math and science and hates imagination. ;P
[QUOTE=The Arbiter;4704192]Dont use "creates natural disasters as side scatter from fights" as a feat with big_adventure. He loves math and science and hates imagination. ;P[/QUOTE]
That's nice for him. Context is not optional when looking at something.
Ok, I just have to go on a small rant here, forgive me, please. The Night King doesn't have crap on a Balrog. Maybe you all will lambast me for this, and I'd probably deserve it, but the Balrog is the inspiration from one of the baddest and most powerful creatures I've ever faced beside the Tarrasque...the Balor. The Balor has high cold resistance, he has EXTREMELY high magic resistance, his fire causes not just flame damage (which Night King may be immune to) but also unholy damage (which I seriously doubt the Night king is immune to). He has telekinesis, any sword he holds has a chance to instantly cut off your head! He can magically entangle you with his whip, he can create storms of fire (bye bye undead army!), he has power word stun which can instantly paralyze you and allow no movement or escape...far more powerful than even his entangle. He can teleport at will, cause you to implode with a thought, he can dominate and crush your will, call in legions upon legions of demons nearly as powerful as himself (including the Miralith). The Balor can dispel magic, he can create a blasphemy (A power that creates a radius burst of evil that weakens, dazes, stuns, or instantly kills anything within it...provided they fail their save). Even more powerful Balors have access to 1st through 8th level magic that they can do several times a day...or at will...including lightning bolts, acid attacks, sonic attacks, unholy power, blinding, taking control of undead...or creating their own undead with which to fight, causing earthquakes, and more.
If Pendaran or someone else said the Balrog could probably do all of this too, I would have no trouble believing it. Both creatures look and act EXACTLY the same! So I apologize, but I find it hard that this...ice...zombie...whatever the Night King is...created by a bunch of moronic little nature twerps (who's only other big magic example of power was throwing tiny fire/acorn grenades) could stand a chance against such a creature. The Night King has the advantage of seeming extremely powerful, in a highly non-magical dark fantasy world. His killing of one of the dragons is impressive and I have to give that to him...but you have to understand that GoT dragons are nothing compared to Tolkien or D&D dragons. In D&D, GoT dragons are little more than giant sized fire breathing wyverns (but without the poisonous stinger tail). They are big and can breath fire, but are really stupid, have no magical power, and have no access to magical items. I have no trouble believing that a white dragon (weakest of all the D&D true dragons) would be able to take it to any of the Targaryen dragons. Meanwhile, only the absolute oldest and most powerful of the absolute most powerful of the true dragons (Ancient Great Wyrm Red, Silver, Gold, and maybe Blue) could match up against a Balor (or Balrog).
The Night King isn't winning this one.
[QUOTE]The Night King doesn't have crap on a Balrog. Maybe you all will lambast me for this,[/QUOTE]
The Night King laughed off Drogon's fire breath, which has blasted apart stone fortifications like nothing, and was straight up unharmed by a certainly not as far but still pretty significant fall. The damage one of his javelins did on impact with one of the dragons (though I wouldn't call that a pure matter of strength as much as also being influenced by being some kind of being mystically damaging thing) was also pretty impressive.
The thread has had a "let's lowball the Balrog for no good reason" thing, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't mean the Night King isn't impressive for what it is.
[QUOTE]and I'd probably deserve it, but the Balrog is the inspiration from one of the baddest and most powerful creatures I've ever faced beside the Tarrasque...the Balor.[/QUOTE]
You would deserve it, because the Balrog and Balor, aside from the second thing being a rip of the first, have nothing to do with each other and are not in any way comparable or usable to talk about the capacity of the other.
[QUOTE]He has telekinesis, any sword he holds has a chance to instantly cut off your head! He can magically entangle you with his whip, he can create storms of fire (bye bye undead army!), he has power word stun which can instantly paralyze you and allow no movement or escape...far more powerful than even his entangle. He can teleport at will, cause you to implode with a thought, he can dominate and crush your will, call in legions upon legions of demons nearly as powerful as himself (including the Miralith). The Balor can dispel magic, he can create a blasphemy (A power that creates a radius burst of evil that weakens, dazes, stuns, or instantly kills anything within it...provided they fail their save). Even more powerful Balors have access to 1st through 8th level magic that they can do several times a day...or at will...including lightning bolts, acid attacks, sonic attacks, unholy power, blinding, taking control of undead...or creating their own undead with which to fight, causing earthquakes, and more.[/QUOTE]
None of this has anything to do with Balrogs, though there's a whooooooooooloe lot I'd want to unpack here as far as statements about D&D monsters, but to paraphrase my ancestors, it wouldn't be worth the tsuris.
[QUOTE]If Pendaran or someone else said the Balrog could probably do all of this too, I would have no trouble believing it.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say that. We're shown what Balrogs can do roughly. It is not that (and a bunch of that is being a touch generous on what Balors can do, but again, that's another story),
[QUOTE]Both creatures look and act EXACTLY the same! So I apologize, but I find it hard that this...ice...zombie...whatever the Night King is...created by a bunch of moronic little nature twerps (who's only other big magic example of power was throwing tiny fire/acorn grenades) could stand a chance against such a creature. [/QUOTE]
Fortunately, the creature you are talking about has nothing to do with the capacity of the Balrog, so your speculation here is without meaning.
[QUOTE].but you have to understand that GoT dragons are nothing compared to Tolkien or D&D dragons.[/QUOTE]
True, but breathtakingly irrelevant. Though there are some D&D dragons that GoT dragon firebreath would be more impressive than, that said.
[QUOTE]The Night King isn't winning this one. [/QUOTE]
If he's not, it's not because of anything you said.
Ok so, a couple of problems here. Huge problems.
1: The Balor or whatever isn't a Balrog. It's not even from the same universe. Being the inspiration for something is not some sort of free pass on feats, otherwise Homelander and Bright Burn kid get all of Superman's stuff, which they dont because that would be silly.
2: The Children of the Forest do sooo much more then throw fireballs. In the Histories and Lore (which are canon tellings in the DVD box sets of GoT), we learn that they shatter a land bridge, help create the wall and have flooded huuuge swaths of land with a little prep time at the peak of their magic. Same peak that made the Night King. But again, their feats are not his.
Edit: Alternatively, literally everything Pen said is a great rebuttal to your point.
[QUOTE=Pendaran;4705346] None of this has anything to do with Balrogs, though there's a whooooooooooloe lot I'd want to unpack here as far as statements about D&D monsters, but to paraphrase my ancestors, it wouldn't be worth the tsuris.[/QUOTE]
So what exactly did I say that was so untrue that you're holding back so much about unloading on me? I was literally looking right at the monster's stats as I was listing off what he could do for reference/remembering. Every single thing I listed is true about the Balor's spell like abilities. The only thing you MIGHT be able to call me out on is the casting of 1st through 8th level spells...that IS reserved for "Balor Lords" but they are still Balors all the same and I did specify "some". The Balor IS a DC 20 creature, as are the most powerful of the most powerful dragons I mentioned (some of them are higher, actually, specifically the gold) but come, don't disappoint your ancestors. You did very well negating my other points, which I admitted I'd probably get called out on, but I fail to see how I am so "ignorant" on Dungeons and Dragons monsters when I listed off EXACTLY what they can do from their own damn entry in the Monster Manual? I admit this is 3.5 edition, but I still stand by it.
[QUOTE=The Arbiter;4705348]Ok so, a couple of problems here. Huge problems.
1: The Balor or whatever isn't a Balrog. It's not even from the same universe. Being the inspiration for something is not some sort of free pass on feats, otherwise Homelander and Bright Burn kid get all of Superman's stuff, which they dont because that would be silly.
2: The Children of the Forest do sooo much more then throw fireballs. In the Histories and Lore (which are canon tellings in the DVD box sets of GoT), we learn that they shatter a land bridge, help create the wall and have flooded huuuge swaths of land with a little prep time at the peak of their magic. Same peak that made the Night King. But again, their feats are not his.
Edit: Alternatively, literally everything Pen said is a great rebuttal to your point.[/QUOTE]
The Children have shown jack shit. The rumors and stories SAY they flooded the land, helped build the wall, and shattered the land bridge, but as far as I know, we've never seen them do any of this. Just as Bran the builder was supposedly in 600 places at once spanning thousands of miles apart. Unless George Martin confirms it was Bran Stark time hoping or whatever, all it is is hearsay. Also, the Children "helped" with the wall...who else was involved? Did they also get help with the land bridge or the flood? Those stories are extremely strange and muddled, as they say the Children of the forest did all this to cut themselves off from humans, but huge tribes of humans/first men are all sitting around on the same side of the wall with them. The stories also say they defeated the Night King the first time around. If that's untrue, why did they block themselves with the wall and be on the WRONG side of it? Why would they be with the monsters they created, and not safe on the other side with their newly befriended humans? Why would they also allow those other human tribes to remain on the wrong side of the wall where the White Walkers can regain their strength by using them in their undead armies? Why did the Night King...or his successor...wait so damn long to do any of this? As far as I know, Martin hasn't addressed any of this in any story directly. He's mostly concentrated on the Targaryens, the iron throne, and that stuff. I know he's written books set in this world aside from the Song of Ice and Fire trilogy (such as Dunc and Egg) but I don't recall him writing specifically about the Children and First Men wars with point of view characters or anything. From what I've read, anyone who recites it is just reciting what history said...they weren't actually there. And, as with history in real life, George has made it a point that those who wrote about specific events in the past are not always right, specific, or even willfully telling the truth.
[QUOTE=Goldenbane;4705433]So what exactly did I say that was so untrue that you're holding back so much about unloading on me? I was literally looking right at the monster's stats as I was listing off what he could do for reference/remembering. Every single thing I listed is true about the Balor's spell like abilities. The only thing you MIGHT be able to call me out on is the casting of 1st through 8th level spells...that IS reserved for "Balor Lords" but they are still Balors all the same and I did specify "some". The Balor IS a DC 20 creature, as are the most powerful of the most powerful dragons I mentioned (some of them are higher, actually, specifically the gold) but come, don't disappoint your ancestors. You did very well negating my other points, which I admitted I'd probably get called out on, but I fail to see how I am so "ignorant" on Dungeons and Dragons monsters when I listed off EXACTLY what they can do from their own damn entry in the Monster Manual? I admit this is 3.5 edition, but I still stand by it.[/QUOTE]
Look at that last thing you said and consider how many editions deep we are at this point for what passes for D&D canon, as it were.
[QUOTE=Goldenbane;4705454]The Children have shown jack shit. The rumors and stories SAY they flooded the land, helped build the wall, and shattered the land bridge, but as far as I know, we've never seen them do any of this. Just as Bran the builder was supposedly in 600 places at once spanning thousands of miles apart. Unless George Martin confirms it was Bran Stark time hoping or whatever, all it is is hearsay. Also, the Children "helped" with the wall...who else was involved? Did they also get help with the land bridge or the flood? Those stories are extremely strange and muddled, as they say the Children of the forest did all this to cut themselves off from humans, but huge tribes of humans/first men are all sitting around on the same side of the wall with them. The stories also say they defeated the Night King the first time around. If that's untrue, why did they block themselves with the wall and be on the WRONG side of it? Why would they be with the monsters they created, and not safe on the other side with their newly befriended humans? Why would they also allow those other human tribes to remain on the wrong side of the wall where the White Walkers can regain their strength by using them in their undead armies? Why did the Night King...or his successor...wait so damn long to do any of this? As far as I know, Martin hasn't addressed any of this in any story directly. He's mostly concentrated on the Targaryens, the iron throne, and that stuff. I know he's written books set in this world aside from the Song of Ice and Fire trilogy (such as Dunc and Egg) but I don't recall him writing specifically about the Children and First Men wars with point of view characters or anything. From what I've read, anyone who recites it is just reciting what history said...they weren't actually there. And, as with history in real life, George has made it a point that those who wrote about specific events in the past are not always right, specific, or even willfully telling the truth.[/QUOTE]
Ok. More problems with this.
1: Your right! We never actually see the Children do any of that. Then again, we never actually see the Balrog create a storm or damage a mountain with its death either, so I guess your cool telling Pen or whatever that Gandalf and Balrog "have shown jack shit" as well? In both circumstances, it's second hand info, told to us in good faith.
If you go on to say "not in good faith - what about my point that George has claimed that past events arent always right?" well then, see my second problem.
2: We are discussing, as specified, Live Action GoT's characters. This is a distinctly different universe backed by a different creative team to the ASOIAF books. As discussed earlier, "based on" is not the same as "actually being the same". These feats are in canon narrated to us as actually having happened.
Edit: again, not that it matters as the NK only gets /his/ feats. No freebies are given just based on a things creators.
[QUOTE]1: Your right! We never actually see the Children do any of that. Then again, [b]we never actually see the Balrog create a storm or damage a mountain with its death either, [/b]so I guess your cool telling Pen or whatever that Gandalf and Balrog "have shown jack shit" as well? In both circumstances, it's second hand info, told to us in good faith.[/QUOTE]
We do actually, in the movie. One of the reasons movie version would lose, it's not as impressive (the battle)
Edit - not as impressive in terms of feats that is. The fight itself was really cool , very well done
[QUOTE]1: Your right! We never actually see the Children do any of that. Then again, we never actually see the Balrog create a storm or damage a mountain with its death either, so I guess your cool telling Pen or whatever that Gandalf and Balrog "have shown jack shit" as well? In both circumstances, it's second hand info, told to us in good faith. [/QUOTE]
Ugh, I missed that in the general sprawl of the posts. Gandalf straight up from the Two Towers describes the fight. We are told what happens. That's not second hand info in good faith, that's "the guy who was one half of that fight narrates what happened for us." The things you are trying to compare are not super comparable. It would require one of the Children themselves who was around at the time noting all the stuff you're talking about. Which, if that's what happens, hey, nevermind me, but otherwise, not the same thing.
edit: I get the point you are trying to make and certainly the idea that the Children didn't do the things they do, especially if the dvd bothered to include them as part of some canonical narrative thing, is significantly bereft of validity from the context of the narrative, particularly when the narrative is "The most ancient stories are true", I'm just saying, these aren't comparable states of being for pointing to a narrative. Still, the idea that they didn't shatter the arm of Dorne when the Children themselves are noting their war with humanity totally happened, as did the Long Night, and tossing into it "also, we made the white walkers", wellllll…
Oh, and certainly the movie fight was well done, but yes the book fight has more over the top, throw a few Kirby dots around it fwackoom in it, yes.
The most you can say about the arm of Dorne thing is that, again, contextually speaking, that wasn't some small effort of the Children, that was a significant thing and they still in the end basically lost.
Particularly when in show most of their workings involve having to make a thing, to do a thing (their fireballs are from created things, the obsidian chunk thing they made the Night King with), nothing they accomplish really bears a sense of just stuff they can bust out. The Wall itself is a created object that involved massive effort. Etc. etc.
[QUOTE=Pendaran;4705645]Ugh, I missed that in the general sprawl of the posts. Gandalf straight up from the Two Towers describes the fight. We are told what happens. That's not second hand info in good faith, that's "the guy who was one half of that fight narrates what happened for us." The things you are trying to compare are not super comparable. It would require one of the Children themselves who was around at the time noting all the stuff you're talking about. Which, if that's what happens, hey, nevermind me, but otherwise, not the same thing.
edit: I get the point you are trying to make and certainly the idea that the Children didn't do the things they do, especially if the dvd bothered to include them as part of some canonical narrative thing, is significantly bereft of validity from the context of the narrative, particularly when the narrative is "The most ancient stories are true", I'm just saying, these aren't comparable states of being for pointing to a narrative. Still, the idea that they didn't shatter the arm of Dorne when the Children themselves are noting their war with humanity totally happened, as did the Long Night, and tossing into it "also, we made the white walkers", wellllll…
Oh, and certainly the movie fight was well done, but yes the book fight has more over the top, throw a few Kirby dots around it fwackoom in it, yes.[/QUOTE]
"Second hand info" was definitely the wrong choice of words in regards to Gandalf at least. I more so meant that neither thing were explicitly "shown" just "told" which I thought Goldenbane was protesting.
For what it's worth, the Histories and Lore segment was narrated by Bran well into his 3 eyed Raven training. Dude was the living memory of the world and could see past events with his own eyes. A bit more meaningful then if say... Littlefinger had done the tale :P
By and large, Histories and Lore takes itself pretty seriously as an entry in the series, so I'm pretty ok with using it seriously. Mileage may vary.
[QUOTE=Pendaran;4705654]The most you can say about the arm of Dorne thing is that, again, contextually speaking, that wasn't some small effort of the Children, that was a significant thing and they still in the end basically lost.
Particularly when in show most of their workings involve having to make a thing, to do a thing (their fireballs are from created things, the obsidian chunk thing they made the Night King with), nothing they accomplish really bears a sense of just stuff they can bust out. The Wall itself is a created object that involved massive effort. Etc. etc.[/QUOTE]
Total agreement that these things aren't just some simple effort on their part. I think I mentioned they were prep time feats in my initial response to Goldenbane. More like a theoretical max then a practical fight move to bust out.
[QUOTE=Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh;4702488]EDIT: Also, which book version of Balrogs are we talking about Fall of Gondolin, or the 'retconned' ones. As their power level varied, IIRC. Or are we talking Durin's Bane specifically ?[/QUOTE]
[I]Fall of Gondolin[/I] is not canon.
[QUOTE=Pendaran;4702514]Honestly, given Durin's Bane, I don't think there's a lot of mileage in trying to bring up the earliest take on the Balrogs for anything, Tolkien clearly ended up settling on that they were the whole fewer in number corrupted Maiar deal.[/QUOTE]
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: It's flatly stated in Tolkien's notes on the matter, and borne up by Lord of the Rings and the final Silmarillion.
[QUOTE=Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh;4702542]That's fair enough, but I love bringing up the Fall of Gondolin whenever I can.[/quote]
[I]Fall of Gondolin[/I] is not canon.
I'm just going to repeat that for fun, because honestly, I love bringing it up as well - Glorfindel going all Michael Strogoff on a Balrog is a hilariously awesome scene, as is Ecthelion using his giant spiked helmet to impale Gothmog after it busts both his arms.
Buuuut...non-canon. ^_^
[QUOTE=Pendaran;4705645]Ugh, I missed that in the general sprawl of the posts. Gandalf straight up from the Two Towers describes the fight. We are told what happens. That's not second hand info in good faith, that's "the guy who was one half of that fight narrates what happened for us." The things you are trying to compare are not super comparable. It would require one of the Children themselves who was around at the time noting all the stuff you're talking about. Which, if that's what happens, hey, nevermind me, but otherwise, not the same thing.[/quote]
The fight is also noted in the appendices in [URL="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline_of_Arda"]the timeline[/URL], and said timeline and vague description dovetails nicely with what Gandalf says (starts January 15, 3019 for those interested). It does not, for example, say 'Gandalf kills the Balrog in an hour-long fight, then takes a breather for a week while making up a great story to tell everyone.' ^_^
...it also notes that Gandalf fought the Balrog -- including stair-running time, presumably without breaks -- for TEN DAYS.
To reply to the earlier critique: I'm not arguing against anything Pen says there. I just don't think that it helps in this Rumble. The NK no-sells GoT dragon fire, and that stuff is pretty impressive. Doesn't prep, doesn't shield, just ignores it. This includes the obvious physical aspect to such dragon fire.
He's also pretty fast, and has the ability to chuck dragon-one-shotting spears with pinpoint accuracy over long range. It seems to me that the fight starts, NK puts a spear through Balrog's eye, game over. I could be mistaken - again, the Balrog has pretty limited defined feats. It's possible that it just can't be hurt by the NK.
[QUOTE=big_adventure;4705997]To reply to the earlier critique: I'm not arguing against anything Pen says there. I just don't think that it helps in this Rumble. The NK no-sells GoT dragon fire, and that stuff is pretty impressive. Doesn't prep, doesn't shield, just ignores it. This includes the obvious physical aspect to such dragon fire.
He's also pretty fast, and has the ability to chuck dragon-one-shotting spears with pinpoint accuracy over long range. It seems to me that the fight starts, NK puts a spear through Balrog's eye, game over. I could be mistaken - again, the Balrog has pretty limited defined feats. It's possible that it just can't be hurt by the NK.[/QUOTE]
So, just to be clear, you are totally fine with them creating a storm as an unintended side effect of their struggles and the energy they are tossing about?
[QUOTE=The Arbiter;4706047]So, just to be clear, you are totally fine with them creating a storm as an unintended side effect of their struggles and the energy they are tossing about?[/QUOTE]
Eh, they created something that people would have seen as a storm if anyone saw it. What level of disturbance that was is very vague. It ignores whether this is on top of a mountain that often has storms, etc.
I'm speaking in the context of this fight: I don't see that giving it a win against the NK.
[QUOTE=big_adventure;4706053]Eh, they created something that people would have seen as a storm if anyone saw it. What level of disturbance that was is very vague. It ignores whether this is on top of a mountain that often has storms, etc.[/QUOTE]
Dude, this is seriously coming off as low-balling.
[I]"Those that looked up from afar thought that the mountain was crowned with storm. Thunder they heard, and[B] lightning, they said, smote upon Celebdil, and leaped back broken into tongues of fire[/B]."[/I]
Emphasis mine.
[QUOTE=big_adventure;4706053]Eh, they created something that people would have seen as a storm if anyone saw it. What level of disturbance that was is very vague. It ignores whether this is on top of a mountain that often has storms, etc.
I'm speaking in the context of this fight: I don't see that giving it a win against the NK.[/QUOTE]
Beaten to it, but again, you seem to be trying to talk down this sequence whenever you get space to do so. It's not that vague. The text is right there for you. The context of it is clear. "Maybe the mountain often had storms" is verging on magical tiger keep away rock thinking. Nothing supports you trying to whittle away at this performance by saying something like that.
OK, to AGAIN try to refocus on the actual rumble at hand:
What about that makes you think that the Balrog can beat the NK? Because it seems to me that the NK's damage is high enough to take it, the NK has better range game and the NK is effectively invulnerable to the Balrog's element of choice AND physically resistant to greater physical force than we see the Balrog dish based on clear-as-day on-screen feats.
So we can argue the semantics of the Balrog's fight with Gandalf. I, above this, absolutely said that your description was better than mine. If you want me to say I was lowballing it - OK, it could easily be interpreted as me lowballing it. I apologize profusely for my lack of clarity. What I was really going for is trying to apply that feat to this fight.
And, going back to the Rumble, nothing that we can even logically INFER about that feat is scratching the Night King's paint, based on his clear, on-screen, not interpreted or described feats. He stands there and ignores intensive dragon fire from dragons that explode stone castles with said fire relatively instantly.
He has a weakness to Valryian steel that the Balrog has absolutely no way to exploit. He may or may not have a similar weakness to obsidian, again, that the Balrog cannot exploit and it's not sure that it's a weakness for the NK anyway. Obviously Superman would paste him: I'm not going for any no-limits silliness. But the Balrog isn't faster, isn't stronger, isn't tougher, has a worse range game... I'm not seeing a win, based on feats we have for Durin's Bane.
I don't really care about or have any interest in the fight at hand. My issue here was taking a performance that showed a considerable amount of power involved by any reasonable standard and repeatedly talking about it as though it did not, trying, after this was pointed out on several parts to again do so with things like "well maybe the mountain had a lot of storms". That's not semantics. That's a variety of disingenuous takes on a thing that happened in a pretty clear context.
You want to walk all that back? Hey great.
I had a side interest in a guy trying to do with the Night King what you were trying to do with the Balrog and pointing that out besides (and a side D&D tangent), but that was the extent of it.
I will flat-out state I know between jack and squat about the Night-King, having enjoyed interest in neither book nor TV series.
I'm just here for clarity. ^_^
[QUOTE=Sharpandpointies;4705856][I]Fall of Gondolin[/I] is not canon.[/QUOTE]
Missed this, but yea. I know it's not canon, but all the same it's great. Arguably one of my favorites from Tolkien.
[QUOTE][I]Fall of Gondolin[/I] is not canon.
I'm just going to repeat that for fun, because honestly, I love bringing it up as well - Glorfindel going all Michael Strogoff on a Balrog is a hilariously awesome scene, as is Ecthelion using his giant spiked helmet to impale Gothmog after it busts both his arms.
Buuuut...non-canon. ^_^[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
An Elf goes full Dwarf (headbutt !) to murder the Lord of the Balrog by knocking them both into the Fountain of the King. It's almost as fantastic as Pendaran's retelling of how Earendil atop his badass van, used his laser forehead to save the land.
[QUOTE]The fight is also noted in the appendices in [URL="https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Timeline_of_Arda"]the timeline[/URL], and said timeline and vague description dovetails nicely with what Gandalf says (starts January 15, 3019 for those interested). It does not, for example, say 'Gandalf kills the Balrog in an hour-long fight, then takes a breather for a week while making up a great story to tell everyone.' ^_^
...it also notes that Gandalf fought the Balrog -- including stair-running time, presumably without breaks -- for TEN DAYS.[/QUOTE]
Yea, the movie fight might have the better visuals (arguable), but in the book it's more of a titanic struggle between evenly matched/stationed peers on different sides of the aisle.