In my opinion, we can always add things to the map when they don't go against the lore, but we should never add anything that goes clearly against it. The stone is said to have been lost, and for me that means more than just "nobody has found it yet but if you search it you can find it". For me, this lost is the same lost applied to Valinor for the mortal men: no matter how far west you go, you'll never reach it. In my opinion, the stone should not be added because then it could be found and would not be lost anymore. And I think that this goes well beyond the weight of the stone, the speed of the current or the consistency of the river bed. The stone is lost, no matter how, it's not necessary to add it anywhere to try to explain how was it lost. The same way it's not necessary to add a silmaril at the bottom of the ocean and another somewhere underground, they were just lost, that's all. For me, the same happens with the stone. The fact that it's just lost with no further explanation adds to the magic of the stone itself, and trying to rationalize its loss is a mistake. But, again, this is just my opinion.

I always say the same as Lorwel, it's fine to take liberties as long as what you do isn't "Lore breaking", in this case I would advise not adding the stone at all, lost means lost. If the people of middle-earth who would have looked thoroughly for the stone couldn't find it, it doesn't make much sense that it'd be so easy to find on the server. Saying that though I wouldn't be against putting it in and covering it up by the river bed so that it can't be seen.

Lorwel said:

In my opinion, we can always add things to the map when they don't go against the lore, but we should never add anything that goes clearly against it. The stone is said to have been lost, and for me that means more than just "nobody has found it yet but if you search it you can find it". For me, this lost is the same lost applied to Valinor for the mortal men: no matter how far west you go, you'll never reach it. In my opinion, the stone should not be added because then it could be found and would not be lost anymore. And I think that this goes well beyond the weight of the stone, the speed of the current or the consistency of the river bed. The stone is lost, no matter how, it's not necessary to add it anywhere to try to explain how was it lost. The same way it's not necessary to add a silmaril at the bottom of the ocean and another somewhere underground, they were just lost, that's all. For me, the same happens with the stone. The fact that it's just lost with no further explanation adds to the magic of the stone itself, and trying to rationalize its loss is a mistake. But, again, this is just my opinion.

Click to expand...

JordD04 said:

I always say the same as Lorwel, it's fine to take liberties as long as what you do isn't "Lore breaking", in this case I would advise not adding the stone at all, lost means lost. If the people of middle-earth who would have looked thoroughly for the stone couldn't find it, it doesn't make much sense that it'd be so easy to find on the server. Saying that though I wouldn't be against putting it in and covering it up by the river bed so that it can't be seen.

Click to expand...

Very true on both counts, I am sure that the proud citizens of Gondor would have looked far and wide for the precious palantir. Making it very easy to find would be coming very close to lore-breaking IMO, as well as in yours. However, like Jord said, making it very hard to find and inconspicuous (just a small lump on the river bed maybe?) could make this work.

This is what I have found about the Osgiliath stone in the lore:

The Stone of Osgiliath had been lost in the waters of Anduin in 1437, during the civil war of the Kin-strife.

Click to expand...

In the book Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth.

As you can see, Tolkien states that the stone had been "lost". But what did he mean with "lost"?

Some of you guys seem to interpret "lost" in that sentence as "vanished, no longer in existence". In my humble opinion what Tolkien meant was that the stone was unable to be found* and not necessarily vanished. Because well, I don't think it makes much sense for a stone to simply fall in a river and instantly vanish forever. This is not the kind of thing that happens, even in imaginary worlds such as Middle-earth, is it?

This is what I found in this page in the Tolkien Gateway about the Osgiliath stone:

The Osgiliath-stone fell into Anduin during the Kin-strife and burning of that city in T.A. 1437.

Click to expand...

the Osgiliath-stone may have rolled into the Sea, or it may have lain still in the Anduin.

Click to expand...

Other wikis do not say much more than this.

So my very humble opinion on the placement of the Stone of Osgiliath in the river Anduin is that it would be a very interesting Easter egg and would not be "lore breaking". But about where it should be, well I have to research more to be sure. But for today that's it.

*The book Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth also says:

The palantíri were no doubt never matters of common use or common knowledge, even in Númenor. In Middle-earth they were kept in guarded rooms, high in strong towers, only kings and rulers, and their appointed wardens, had access to them, and they were never consulted, nor exhibited, publicly.

Click to expand...

In the same battle that the Osgiliath stone was lost, the current king of Gondor, Eldacar, fled to Rhovanion, and a distant relative of his (Castamir) usurped the throne. Maybe Castamir did not even know the stone existed or was in Osgiliath, so he could not search for it. He just became king after the palantír was lost.

333478 said:

Very true on both counts, I am sure that the proud citizens of Gondor would have looked far and wide for the precious palantir. Making it very easy to find would be coming very close to lore-breaking IMO, as well as in yours. However, like Jord said, making it very hard to find and inconspicuous (just a small lump on the river bed maybe?) could make this work.

Click to expand...

I here is my take and it is much like Jord's take. If we want to place it in the Anduin, then we should bury it deep in the riverbed so that will would not be able to be seen at all. If there was a little hump, in the currents of the river would have revealed it and thus the men of Gondor would have seen it and retrieved their precious stone. So it we dig a two or three block hole and drop it in and then replace the remaining riverbed so that it is flush with the rest of the river, I am cool with that but I do not believe it should be marked except maybe a tree on the bank or a bush but nothing directly related/ placed over the final resting spot of the palantir.

I would put it in the sea somewhere, either far off shore or in the bay between the coast and tol falas, just to say that we have it and yet make it near impossible to find unless you are searching for it. I consider this breaking lore in a small way, but I haven't the qualms some of our other server members do. I would definitely agree not to put it in the river though.

I find it rather amusing that this single block is a larger point of discussion than any of the other major lore inaccuracies on the server. But seriously, it was "lost", and the last time i tried putting an "Easter egg" on the server i got spanked with a belt by a Wookie.

I don't understand why some people still think the stone just disappeared from the world... It just hasn't been found. Maybe it would not even be necessary for it to be totally covered in mud because the Anduin is a great river and a stone would have been difficult to find, even if clean.

But yeah I'm giving up because there is no point in discussing this anymore, since the staff have already decided that won't put it in the river.

I moved all posts arguing about this on the main thread to this thread. The forums however don't recognise when something was moved, just when it was posted, so it is in front of the original first post on this thread.

Yeah, I don't think it was completely lost from the world, just nobody can find it, but if we put it in the river or in the see we are making a clear statement of where it is. We would be making an interpretation and discarding the other option completely. It's like saying "it's not lost, it's right here but nobody has found it". In my opinion we don't have to have it anywhere so it's not only lost "physically" in the sense that nobody is able to find it, but also lost "mentally", in the sense that there's no explanation of it's whereabouts. This is the sense and magic of lost in the lore, at least in my mind.

Just gonna drop in :3

The dome that housed the Palintir was destroyed in 1437 Third Age.

The server is set in September 22nd 3001 Third Age.

That is a difference of roughly 1,564 years.

When something becomes buried it depends largely on 3 things: Weight, Weather, and Time.

The palintir (some of them) were large and required great effort to even move, others were very very small. The weight of the Osgiliath Palintir was described as being too heavy for one man to carry. Therefore, as you can see, one of the things you take into consideration is weight. This thing, while not overly large, was heavy. When something heavy falls in water it does not just simply sink to the bottom and rest, it buries itself in sediment.

If you want a comparison over how "hidden" something like that would be, take a look at this.


That is a box of, you guessed it, buried treasure. Its around the size of the Osgiliath Palintir but more importantly, the weight would probably be similar. Notice how it is half buried in sand.

Now lets move on to factor 2. Weather.

The Anduin is the greatest river in Middle-Earth. Its waters, while not rapidly flowing, are constantly moving. This isn't like the environment of the ocean floor where currents don't play a huge factor due to the depth, this is a river. Something that is constantly moving.

Constant movement = ever changing riverbed.

Ever looked at a rock on the bottom of a river? Every come back a couple days later? I can guarantee you that it would be covered with sand within a few short days.

So again, 1,564 years of sitting on the bed of a river. It almost certainly was probably 1/2 buried to begin with due to the impact of its weight. That thing is going to be buried.

Which moves us into the final factor: Time.

This is an object, of significant weight. Sitting on the bottom of a river that never stops moving. And its been sitting there for 1,564 years.

Years....

Not days, not hours, not minutes. Years.

The palintir would no doubt be covered in at least 5-20ft of sediment (1.5m - 6m). That is enough for it to never be seen. That is a depth of 2-6 minecraft blocks.

Now, it would be all fun and games to be touring someone through Osgiliath and go "There, roughly, in the river is where the Palintir sits after the Dome of the Stars was destroyed."

But to actually go down in the river and be able to see the thing? No.

Sure, they didn't have scuba gear or anything in Middle-Earth, but again, I reference actual history to backup my claim here:

The Nemi ships built by Emperor Caligula were sunk and lost for around 1,800 years (just a bit longer than the Palintir of Osgiliath). The area in which they were lost became a lake, and as early as 1400's people were attempting to raise them and recover the wrecks. Because they knew they were there (much like Gondorians would have KNOWN the palintir was in the riverbed).

They would, and I quote, "often using grappling hooks to pull up pieces, which they sold to tourists."

If mankind knows something exists and it is there, we literally find and invent ways to achieve our goal of getting there. If the Palintir was easy to find, it would have been found. Simple as that.

So no, either it would be buried to the point where it could not be seen to be accurate. Or don't even bother putting it in the river at all because nobody is gonna be able to see it anyway.

- Phe

Tl;Dr : The shit is buried deep, nobody is gonna be able to see it. Either bury it like its supposed to be, or don't even put it in the river.

Well, I think a general consensus has been reached, and the stone will probably not be put in the river. Enforcers, it's your call. If you think that the thread should be locked now, feel free to do it!

I feel that Phe's explanation was sound, and really can't be debated with, because it uses a plethora of pieces of scientific and historical evidence. Also, the majority voted that there is no point in putting it anywhere, so I suppose this discussion is over.