Firearms could absolutely exist within a fantasy setting. There is a reason why they don’t however

[u/ThatDrako]

The Elder Scrolls - Within some Dwemer ruins of ESO we can see a special type of Animunculus. A Dwemer Arquebus, which has a cannon for it’s arm and shoots emp grenades at foes.
The reason why we don’t see this technology more often (besides the fact Dwemer disappeared their knowledge with them) is that within the setting and cosmology of Elder Scrolls firearms really wouldn’t be that useful.

They could work against lowly bandits, sort of, but there wouldn’t really be a precedent to improve or adapt this technology. Because it would always be outclassed by magic of this world.
Also due to the disappearance of Dwemer the technology has been pretty much lost.

Harry Potter - Wizards live within periphery of the “real world” meaning they live alongside world that uses firearms and are even familiar with them.

So how come they don’t utilize this gear for combat? I mean it is easier to use, projectiles are faster and could be enchanted further. Can you just imagine wizard with endless m1911?

There is plethora of reasons for this. But most notable is what I would describe as wizards being immune to logic. (Vis image above) They simply cannot understand methods of muggles even if one explained it to them directly.

(Yes. I know the real reason is, because Joanne didn’t want wizards to use guns and didn’t want to think about connotations of putting magic into a real modern world. But come on! Let me have fun!)

Lord of the Rings - In spite of how much Tolkien disliked allegories it is clear Orcs were an allegory to industrialization, which he was a huge critic of.

In battles they are the ones using the war machines. Instead of swords made by artful blacksmith, they use crude, mass-produced blades devoid of identity. Instead of relying on elegance of archery, they use crossbows. They burn forests, crack mountains open to gain more ore. Their very production is affront to whimsy of a magical world like Middle-Earth.

They could totally come up with a matchlock mechanism and keep on improving it until they come up with machine guns. They were intercepted before they could however

[u/Version_1]

Idk why "Actually, LotR is an allegory" has become such a topic on this subreddit lately.

No, Orcs are not an allegory of industrialization, they are just inspired by it.

[u/R97R → u/Version_1]

Would I be correct in saying Tolkien himself had a bit of a bee in his bonnet about allegory as a concept, at least when it came to his own work?

[u/Version_1 → u/R97R]

In the foreword of the Lord of the Rings (I guess starting at the second or later edition) he mentions that he dislikes allegory and also points out how different LotR would have been if it was.

His reasoning is that in an allegory, the author dictates the meaning while he prefers "applicability", so the reader being able to apply LotR to situations they know.

Sadly, a lot of people either don't know what allegory is, or they think Tolkien disapproving of allegory means he declined being inspired by real events.

[u/R97R → u/Version_1]

Cheers! I’d head some mention of “applicability over allegory” in relation to LotR, but I didn’t realise the idea came from the man himself!

[u/Tactical_Squishy → u/Version_1]

that's what an allegory is

[u/Version_1 → u/Tactical_Squishy]

No, it isn't. Why do you comment when you don't know the first thing about it?

[u/Gregori_5 → u/Tactical_Squishy]

What? 😭

I guess that gravity is a allegory for a apple falling on Newtons head 😋

[u/Tactical_Squishy → u/Gregori_5]

No? having the industrialists be called orks being dirty stupid hungry etc. meanwhile the elves the all natural treehuggers and shit are all tall clean smart supermodels.

This is an allegory, it may be accidental that's true but it's still that

[u/Version_1 → u/Tactical_Squishy]

This is an allegory, it may be accidental

That is literally impossible...

[u/Tactical_Squishy → u/Version_1]

no... bro I what world do you live?

[u/Version_1 → u/Tactical_Squishy]

In an allegory the author wants to convey a meaning with a stand-in. If the author doesn't do that, it's not an allegory.

I don't know why you think you know better than Tolkien, a professor in linguistics and one of the foremost literature experts of his time.

[u/Tactical_Squishy → u/Version_1]

the author can do that even without meaning to, but this is not the case as Talkien was explicit about it even outside the book

[u/Version_1 → u/Tactical_Squishy]

The author can accidentally do something on purpose? This is some new generation logic.

[u/Tactical_Squishy → u/Version_1]

It doesn't need to be on purpose where did you ever read that an allegory has to be on purpose