But Tolkien's lore is a contradictory and evolving substance. For instance, there remains some debate as to whether Elrond was an Elf Lord, based on the fact that typically Tolkien does not directly refer to him as such. In the hobbit for instance he is called as fair in face as an Elf Lord, as wise as a wizard, and as resolute as a king of Dwarves. Likewise, when the council of Elrond discusses Elf-Lords it notes Glorfidel and excludes Elrond. There is a confusion in Tolkien's writings prior to 1948 as to whether Elrond of Rivendell and Elrond son of Earendil are one and the same. Likewise, there is a similar problem with respect to Glorfidel's return, whether he returned in the third age with the Istari, whether he came in the Second to aid in the resistance to Sauron or even whether he was a different elf entirely. The point that I am trying to make here, is that the legendarium is itself confused and contradictory, especially in the material published by Christopher Tolkien. If we are going to use the lore, it should surely stand that the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy must hold a higher weighting factor in a practical sense, to enable the management of these contradictory and confusing stories. I was not being rude as you say, merely exasperated, I would like a consistent point of argument, not this jumping around between gameplay and lore. I am an academic by profession, it is impossible to argue without agreeing a proper frame of reference, and we have lacked this almost the entire way through. So thus to reiterate. From the Lord of the Rings we have a direct statement inferring a special level of foresight. In the Hobbit we have a direct statement with respect to the validity of the advice of Elrond with respect to future action. These taken together infer a peculiar ability to divine what will occur. The movies themselves go much further as to visually represent Elrond as possessing full blown waking prophetic vision. These arguments taken together strongly suggest that the power of foresight is an ability or quality that is innate to the identity of the character. Now, gameplay-wise their is an argument that it is unnecessary as their are others means to access the ability. This is something that is an entirely different discussion. I would suggest removing one of those other sources in favour of giving it to a character who in the Hobbit preforms a role in which one of the primary purposes of his character is to provide a level of insight and guidance to future action.
