Need ideas for enchanted mundane items.

For the enchanted pen writing the truth idea, why not have it in conjunction with a pair of spectacles So that you give the witness/ defendant the pen to write their statement, & when you read the statement with the spectacles on you read the truth behind the words. Pretty sure if I was thinking one thing whilst writing & something completely different appeared on the page I wouldn't write too much.

Of course nothing would be admissable, but may help your character in knowing if he should take a case or not.
 
How about a blindfold (justice is blind) that has some magical enchantment to it?
Maybe he puts it on and can "see" or "experience" some act through another person's eyes, or see details of a case that may have been overlooked.

In keeping with the justice theme, maybe a set of scales that can weigh out choices or truth.
 
Personally I think the more mundane an object the more likely it is to be enchanted. pencils, pens, tic-tacks. MM! Tic-tacks (you know the breath mints in the clacky plastic case) that make your presence perfectly plausible.
I came up with a name for the tic-tacks I mentioned.
Breath Of Fresh Air :cool:
 
Sorry, this is off topic, but I'm in a rantish mood. I'm not havign a go at Fantasyfan, but rather those who try to be 'funny' while using this supposed observation. I put this 'argument' in the same bin of resignation as the loss of the word invitation (now firmly, apparently, replaced by 'invite') the constantly incorrect use of the word 'literally' and the way my blood boils when people say 'You have two choices, this or that'. Actually, you'll find that's only one choice.

Lord of the Rings wouldn't be a great story if Frodo and Gandalf had just ridden one of those bird things at the end all the way to Mordor.

I've said it before and I'll say it again (and will again, I suspect)...so remember this whenever someone seeks to big themselves up by ragging on LotR (again, not saying you were doing so Fantasyfan, by the way):

Scenario:

Annoying person:
I hate stupid fantasy, why didn't the eagles just take them there? I hate things that force me to use my imagination!

You:
Well, I think you'll find that the eagles couldn't possibly fly to Mordor while Sauron (and especially the flight-enabled Nazgul) were there to defend it. The whole point, which I can only assume you missed because you got a text, is that Frodo and Sam can sneak in unnoticed. A pack of giant eagles just might have been seen by the giant, half-a-mile-wide glowing eye through which Sauron could see anything bigger than, say, a hobbit. Now, go back to watching the Hangover.

Annoying person:
Sorry, what? Ooh, a photo of Robert Pattison!
 
Sorry, this is off topic, but I'm in a rantish mood. I'm not havign a go at Fantasyfan, but rather those who try to be 'funny' while using this supposed observation. I put this 'argument' in the same bin of resignation as the loss of the word invitation (now firmly, apparently, replaced by 'invite') the constantly incorrect use of the word 'literally' and the way my blood boils when people say 'You have two choices, this or that'. Actually, you'll find that's only one choice.



I've said it before and I'll say it again (and will again, I suspect)...so remember this whenever someone seeks to big themselves up by ragging on LotR (again, not saying you were doing so Fantasyfan, by the way):

Scenario:

Annoying person:
I hate stupid fantasy, why didn't the eagles just take them there? I hate things that force me to use my imagination!

You:
Well, I think you'll find that the eagles couldn't possibly fly to Mordor while Sauron (and especially the flight-enabled Nazgul) were there to defend it. The whole point, which I can only assume you missed because you got a text, is that Frodo and Sam can sneak in unnoticed. A pack of giant eagles just might have been seen by the giant, half-a-mile-wide glowing eye through which Sauron could see anything bigger than, say, a hobbit. Now, go back to watching the Hangover.

Annoying person:
Sorry, what? Ooh, a photo of Robert Pattison!

And of course there's the obvious unanswered question: why did the winged Nazgul pose such a threat when the Fellowship had Sam?
 
Taking this derailing thoroughly into the ditch; Sam is one of my favorite Characters of all time. Precisely because he doesn't start out that way. I start out the book completely indifferent to his existence, but of all the characters I have ever read he grows the most. And he is an INCIDENTAL character until the very last bit, even then he keeps his "I'm just here to help" attitude.
(ps I agree with you about the choice thing. there are lots of choices, not all of them rational, but that doesnt make them any less choosable.)


OHOHOH (back on topic) what about suspenders that have an enchanted parachute in them, you know encase he falls out of something.
 
Even more back on topic, I have had some non-Lord of the Rings thoughts about this. I actually think you should consider trimming back on items, especially ones that 'make him a better lawyer'. Anything that makes his job easier comes under:

Dubrech rule #1: 'The Sword of Ultimate Slaying'

To explain, any items that a character has that improves his or her ability to overcome what the antagonist has placed in his or her path directly subtracts from the quality of their achievements.

So, if a character has a sword that he or she can point at anything and say 'die', then this renders their peril (and therefore their achievement) meaningless. Ever played a video game on god mode? Gets pretty boring. By all means have a few trinkets, but I think that overall his 'victory' should come from who he is, his own intelligence and talent for law. Case in point: Die Hard, widely regarded as the best action movie of all time, largely because Bruce is up against it, without even the benefit of shoes. It's all about him and him alone.
 
Controvertially, if I was Tolkein, I think I would have explained that somewhere in the book. The fact that so many people ask the same question surely suggests that something's up: if it wasn't, the question wouldn't be asked.

But I agree about the Sword of Slaying. Any magical item should have an equal if not larger disadvantage attached: on the one hand, you turn invisible, but on the other you slowly become Gollum and every evil thing in the world wants you dead. Incidentally, have you considered having the personification of Justice as a character?
 
I think the Sword of Shannarra is the best example of an exception to that rule. Because Terry Brooks has the characters who wield it grow despite having "the ultimate weapon" also by hyping up what it can do, and making the MC make up the difference. I love the consequence of using it too, bad enough to face down an impossibly angry and powerful enemy who thinks your sword will be the doom of his existence when really all it does is :spoiler: tell the truth. and then on top of that you have to :spoiler: face your own truth before you can make anyone else face theirs. :end spoiler:
 
Controvertially, if I was Tolkein, I think I would have explained that somewhere in the book. The fact that so many people ask the same question surely suggests that something's up: if it wasn't, the question wouldn't be asked.

I think the bigger concern is that Elrond didn't kill Isildur when they defeated Sauron last time. I mean, nobody else was standing around the pit, he was an elf, and therefore should have been the go-to guy for greater good sacrifices, Isildur was basically lost to the ring...I mean geez. And think of all the heartache it would have saved the Ents. The Ents, you heartless elf, the ENTS!

But, back on topic, yeah, lawyers and stuff.
 
How about a bookmark that always finds the relevant case law.

Have you considered flawed enchantments that work unpredictably or cursed items to provide some contrast?
 

Similar threads


Back
Top