We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 54

Thread: Lore-breaking

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    27

    Lore-breaking

    What events in the game would you guys consider lore-breaking? I've found that the game is pretty good with maintaining continuity with the books (though I do find the abundance of Oathbreakers iffy), but is there anything that explicitly contradicts them?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    At ease
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by TomSpitzy View Post
    ... but is there anything that explicitly contradicts them?
    Actually, the existence of burglars in the game explicitly contradicts the trilogy. The word isn't even used in any of the three books, and there aren't any particular instances of burgling being done (Pippin taking the palantir from Gandalf is really the only example of burgling). Neither is "rune-keeper" used, though there is ample evidence of the type of class and role.

    The game, though, needs the burglar class in it to make sense of the story, of why the story is happening, so I guess that's why we have them. I'm sure this thread'll get plenty of other examples of "lorebeaking" stuff, so I'll just start it with this example.
    [COLOR="#6666ff"][FONT=Century Gothic]To many people, free will is a license to rebel not against what is unjust or hard in life but against what is best for them and true.[/FONT][/COLOR]

  3. #3
    in hobbit bilbo was a burglar, and i think lotro is based hobbit too

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    At ease
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by bindolf View Post
    ...and i think lotro is based hobbit too
    Actually, no. The game is based on The Lord of the Rings, hence the name of the game. The Hobbit certainly introduces us to LotR, but the game isn't based on it. Turbine's licensing rights are for the trilogy.
    [COLOR="#6666ff"][FONT=Century Gothic]To many people, free will is a license to rebel not against what is unjust or hard in life but against what is best for them and true.[/FONT][/COLOR]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    31
    Actually, they have the rights to the Hobbit as well. Here's a link to an article talking about the extension of those rights through 2014:

    http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/02...-lotr-license/

    If I heard correctly the reason it's called LOTRO and not Middle-Earth Online, which I remember was going to be the original title, wasn't because of licensing. It was because the Lord of the Rings name was more widely known due to the movies than the Middle Earth name. So it was simply a marketing move.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0520a000000323e2c/01005/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Abiyah View Post
    Neither is "rune-keeper" used, though there is ample evidence of the type of class and role.
    Though I don't particularly care for the addition of Rune Keepers, Tolkien never said there WEREN'T any. There IS evidence of Runes having power, ie, the west door to Moria, though Tolkien definitely didn't intend for them to be as explicitly magical. But just because Tolkien never mentioned Rune Keepers doesn't mean they can't exist. 95% of the entire game builds off of things and characters and plotlines Tolkien never mentioned, which is what I love about the game. It expands upon Middle-Earth with out contradicting what has been written, so there's no reason to assume it didn't happen.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,924
    I think the player's contact with both the Grey Company and Gandalf the White is lore-breaking.

    In the books, Aragorn nearly missed meeting the Grey Company, because he had no idea his kinsmen had come from the north, and were looking for him. Moreover, before Gandalf leaves Aragorn to go to Minas Tirith, he strongly advises Aragorn to depart immediately, without any delay (which, if Aragorn had taken the advice, would have resulted in his missing the Grey Company entirely). Gandalf certainly does not advise Aragorn to wait or look for the Grey Company, because Gandalf doesn't know they are nearby either.

    The player, however, knows about the Grey Company, and has also met Gandalf the White in Fangorn. Considering that the player travelled half the length of Middle Earth with the Grey Company, and news of their riding from the north is the one piece of useful information the player might convey to Gandalf, it is not plausible that the player would fail to inform Gandalf about the Grey Company.

    Therefore, since Gandalf the White has spoken to the player, Gandalf the White should know about the Grey Company, and he would not fail to share this information with Aragorn when the two of *them* meet (shortly after Gandalf the White meets the Three Hunters, they talk at length about the current strategic picture in Middle Earth, and the Grey Company is not mentioned; there is another discussion after Helm's Deep, before Gandalf departs, and again the Grey Company is never mentioned).

    If the player encounters Aragorn at any time prior to or immediately the battle of Helm's Deep, that will be even more lore-breaking, since again it would imply that Aragorn was aware of the Grey Company's ride from the north, while the books are absolutely clear that he had no idea they were coming until he actually ran into them on the road by chance.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    I'm starting to wish all threads debating the legitimacy of Rune Keepers were kept in the Runekeeper forum, or maybe a sub forum of its own.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000001019a8/01007/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    "Of course I am the only elf in the village"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Abiyah View Post
    Actually, no. The game is based on The Lord of the Rings, hence the name of the game. The Hobbit certainly introduces us to LotR, but the game isn't based on it. Turbine's licensing rights are for the trilogy.
    Actually, yes, but not any longer. Turbine did originally have licensing for The Hobbit, which is what makes Burglars legit (in general terms, at least). Although Bilbo of course wasn't a real Burglar - having a magic ring that makes you invisible is cheating, rather

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,924
    Another lore-breaking feature is the timeline, and the player's apparent ability to violate the laws of space and time. Of course, this will only get worse as the story moves to its conclusion.

    Rise of Isengard ended with the Theodred's death at the Battle of the Fords of the Isen, which according to the Appendices occurred on February 25. The player had a dream the night after the battle, so the "Great River" part of the story could have begun no sooner than February 26. That is the day the Fellowship broke and Boromir was killed.

    At the end of Riders of Rohan epic story, where we are now, it is either February 30 (yes, February has 30 days in Middle Earth...) or March 1 at the latest. Eomer met Aragorn on February 30, after destroying the orc-band that had captured Merry and Pippin, and the player meets Eomer after this has occurred. It cannot be as late as March 2, since on March 2 Gandalf heals Théoden, and we clearly see the unhealed Théoden in the Edoras instance.

    So, somehow, in the five days that have intervened since the Fords of the Isen, the player is supposed to have travelled:

    1) From the Fords of the Isen back to Enedwaith (to meet Nona's father), then
    2) To Lothlorien (to ask Galadriel about the dream), then
    3) To the Brown Lands, to discover the fate of shot-down Nazgul, then
    4) Back to Lothlorien to collect Nona (after she has spent some amount of time recovering...), then
    5) To the Argonath by boat, then
    6) All the way across Eastern Rohan to the interior of Fangorn Forest, then
    7) All the way to Edoras, then
    8) All the way back to Eastern Rohan from Edoras

    Of course, it will only get worse.

    In 2 days from "now" Gandalf will heal Théoden
    In 3 days from "now" the Ents will destroy Isengard while the Battle of Helms Deep is fought
    In 5 days from "now" Saruman will parley with Gandalf and Théoden, and Gandalf will leave for Minas Tirith
    In 6 days from "now" Aragorn will finally run into the Grey Company
    In 15 days from "now" the Battle of the Pelennor Fields will end
    And in 25 days from "now" the story will end

    All of which makes the 44-day long project to rebuild Hytbold, while the fate of Middle Earth for the next Age is decided in half that time, look pretty silly, IMO...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,617

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by TomSpitzy View Post
    Though I don't particularly care for the addition of Rune Keepers, Tolkien never said there WEREN'T any. There IS evidence of Runes having power, ie, the west door to Moria, though Tolkien definitely didn't intend for them to be as explicitly magical. But just because Tolkien never mentioned Rune Keepers doesn't mean they can't exist. 95% of the entire game builds off of things and characters and plotlines Tolkien never mentioned, which is what I love about the game. It expands upon Middle-Earth with out contradicting what has been written, so there's no reason to assume it didn't happen.
    The "he never said there weren't any so there can be" line is weak as hell. A silly example illustrates this: he never said there weren't ostriches in pink tutus dancing in the streets of Bree, either. The proper question is whether additions fit in stylistically and whether they break any other lore along the way, and that's where things like RKs fail. (The devil's in the details).

    That said, if you are imagining that the game expands upon Middle-earth without contradicting anything, then you need to look a bit more closely. First off, a small example: Trestlebridge. Its existence is impossible (the description of the Bree-land in FOTR makes it so, there are simply not supposed to be any settlements of Men round there). Take a big example, Angmar: that certainly didn't rise again. Consider for a second - from Sauron's point of view, what purpose would it serve, when its purpose had been entirely fulfilled a thousand years before? It had been created to destroy the North-kingdom, and had eventually done so before being destroyed in turn by the Gondorians and the Elves. Sauron had no strategic concerns about Eriador any more - no kingdoms, no armies to speak of, nobody capable of challenging him in any significant way.

    We also know that the Dwarves didn't try to take Moria back then. The game's plot is downright crazy there because the Dwarves had better things to worry about - Dain had defied Sauron. He'd been made one of those offers you can't refuse by Sauron's sinister messenger, for help in finding information relating to a certain ring ('the least of rings') and the person who had it, but of course he'd not done any such thing. Now, spurning the Dark Lord's oh-so generous and totally trustworthy offer would inevitably mean big trouble, and the Dwarves were having to prepare for that even before the Council of Elrond (there were Easterlings massing on Dale's borders even then, the Dale-folk were freaking out about that, and so things were looking generally dicey). Not a time for lunatic adventuring.

    Changes like that are arguably needed for a game, but they do contradict things. Same goes for the Elves of Lorien attacking Dol Guldur at the time they do in the game - in the book they did not do so before Sauron had fallen. (It was strategically impossible - they were pinned in Lorien, because there wasn't just Dol Guldur to worry about but Orcs from Moria and the Misty Mountains, too). As for the whole business with the Grey Company, LagunaD is quite right - it's dodgy as hell. The real howler is that there were only thirty of them when they met up with Aragorn at the Muster of Rohan because that was all who could be gathered in haste - it wasn't because they messed about the whole way across Eriador and a bunch of them got killed!
    Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Nov 21 2012 at 07:02 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    The game's plot is downright crazy there because the Dwarves had better things to worry about - Dain had defied Sauron. He'd been made one of those offers you can't refuse by Sauron's sinister messenger, for help in finding information relating to a certain ring ('the least of rings') and the person who had it, but of course he'd not done any such thing. Now, spurning the Dark Lord's oh-so generous and totally trustworthy offer would inevitably mean big trouble, and the Dwarves were having to prepare for that even before the Council of Elrond (there were Easterlings massing on Dale's borders even then, the Dale-folk were freaking out about that, and so things were looking generally dicey). Not a time for lunatic adventuring.
    I'd just like to point out that we only have some fat, stinky Dorf's word for what transpired between Dain and Sauron's messenger.

    Based on their history of greed, cowardice and dishonesty, I think it far more likely that the Dorfs actually took Sauron up on his offer and sold out Bilbo and Frodo.

    What we *know* is that shortly after the final negotiations between the Dorfs and Sauron's emissary ended, Black Riders turned up in the Shire, looking for someone named Baggins.

    Gloin's trip to Rivendell may have been part of the deal with Sauron, to help lead the Black Riders to Bilbo, or it may have simply been a smokescreen to provide a cover story in case word of the Dorfs' negotiations with Sauron leaked out.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Memory of Laurelin
    Posts
    1,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Morthaur View Post
    I'm starting to wish all threads debating the legitimacy of Rune Keepers were kept in the Runekeeper forum, or maybe a sub forum of its own.
    I'm just wishing the mad derailing of threads would end...

    As for lore-breaking...
    "The devil can site scripture for his own purpose" applies here, like the phrase about the beauty being in the eye of the beholder, too.
    There are people who'd happily have tea with Khamul in the middle of Pelennor fields.
    There are people who'd cry foul the moment a character uses a word Tolkien never stated that specific character to have used.
    And everyone else falls somewhere between.

    Personally, I've either ignored or missed the 'worst offenders'; it seems like the endgame/raid content (Helegrod, Rift, DG, ToO, etc.) might be the ones with the lightest connection to the lore, but lacking personal experience of said content, I cannot say for sure.
    Talking for myself, I play the game as a way to relax and connect with like-minded; I look at it and concentrate on all the things there are to love, all the things they've gotten 'right' imo, and give little heed to what I'd perceive to be 'wrong' unless it directly, irredeemably affects my own enjoyment, understanding that since I'm not Turbine, their version of Middle-earth cannot be an exact reflection of the version I 'saw' while reading the books.

    And that's really the thing here: it's Turbine's game, and thus Turbine's vision, and no matter what else, Turbine's rules concerning conduct apply the moment one enters either the game or the forums.

    If something bothers one, they should complain to Turbine via appropriate channels. Harassing others for enjoying something one detests is not appropriate channel, but in fact forbidden.
    Especially true if you're into RP, and frequent either Laurelin, Belegaer, Esteldin or Landroval, and thus fall under the official rules and policy regarding RPing...

    If something pleases one... there are appropriate channels for the praise, too.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by LagunaD View Post
    All of which makes the 44-day long project to rebuild Hytbold, while the fate of Middle Earth for the next Age is decided in half that time, look pretty silly, IMO...
    The 44 days cannot be regarded as actual in-game days. It's simple game mechanics that keep you from repeating the Aiding quest unless 16 hours have passed. "Actual in-game time" only moves forward when we are told so by events or text in the epic quests. (Of course your character can obviously jump around in time, since there's nothing keeping you from talking to Gandalf in Rivendell when working on earlier book quests even if you already found his hat in Moria...)

    Of course I agree to most of your points, I just think that you shouldn't equate months spent to raid for Rift armour with actual in-game story time moving forwards Telling linear stories in a persistent game world is iffy, but it's something you have to work around to keep the game fun. I don't think it's necessarily lore-breaking in itself. If you really want the game to only take 20 days, the game would've had to shut down it's servers pretty soon after launch


    Back to topic: many of the mob types Turbine made up are pretty lore-breaking IMO. After reading the books or watching the films, honestly, would you ever have thought you'd encounter hundreds of thousands of giant spiders, insects, worms? Or all those drakes and avancs or, my personal most hated mob type, the snow beast?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Memory of Laurelin
    Posts
    1,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Autistic_Cucoo View Post
    ---Back to topic: many of the mob types Turbine made up are pretty lore-breaking IMO. After reading the books or watching the films, honestly, would you ever have thought you'd encounter hundreds of thousands of giant spiders, insects, worms? Or all those drakes and avancs or, my personal most hated mob type, the snow beast?
    Kergrim (which, according to the game, are related to the snow beasts) and merrevail are my own personal headaches, off the top of my head... though their status as such is not entirely related to lore.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    100
    Oh yes, how could I forget about the bipedal bat-vampire-succubus-things. Awful.

    I mean seriously, I can see how the game might get boring with only the enemy types we know from the book, but some of that stuff is just too much.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Daeross View Post
    There are people who'd cry foul the moment a character uses a word Tolkien never stated that specific character to have used.
    Not round here, there won't be. Absolutists like that would never play a game like this. Everyone here must have at least a certain minimum tolerance for game-related BS or they wouldn't touch LOTRO with a bargepole.

    As for that line about 'harrassment', you keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means. Evidence suggests that the mods don't think it means what you think it means, either. If something's bothering you, I suggest you use those 'appropriate channels' you mentioned

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,648
    IMO, lore-breaking has more to do with a person's own idealogies than anything Turbine has done to date. It's quite subjective.

    I don't claim to be a Tolkien scholar by any stretch of the word (I might consider myself a lore buff, though), even though I've read nearly all his accesible works serveral times over. I've been playing LotRO since a month after launch and my immersion has yet to be irreparably broken by any blatant abuse of the lore.

    It just depends how far you're willing to go with it. One could easily fail to suspend their desbelief enough to think that a gaggle of dwarves colonized the entirety of Moria a few weeks after the Fellowship passed through. One could also fail to see the possiblity of hundreds of adventurers sprawling out across Eregion fighitng countless hordes of goblins, orcs, an undead dragon, a balrog, etc... Scouring the Tower of Orthanc toward a battle with Saruman himself... But then (IMO) you can't prove that these events weren't taking place simply beceause Tolkien didn't write about them. No one has to approve of it, but no one can prove they didn't happen just because the events central to us weren't written about.

    A lore buff likely has to let go of their preconceved notions from time-to-time in order to not be turned-off by Turbine's creative license. I do think they used to do a better job of it than they have recently - their storylines of late haven't drawn me in the way Book 1 did... but then someone who appreciates the lore also probably has a variable degree of "I would have done it this way" - and that certainly influences their appreciation of what Turbine does.

    I don't think the writers/developers have disregard for the lore to the degree that would be needed to blatantly break it. To me, a blatant breaking of the lore would be something that couldn't possibly co-exist with events in the books. For me, this would not include timeline issues because I frankly don't care to get that nit-picky about it... but to each their own. However, while I don't feel they break it, they certainly stretch the hell out of it sometimes...
    Last edited by Southpa; Nov 22 2012 at 05:53 PM.
    [CENTER]
    [SIZE=1][COLOR=White]The [/COLOR][/SIZE][URL="http://thenoldor.guildlaunch.com"][SIZE=3][B]NOLDOR[/B][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1][COLOR=White] of Arkenstone[/COLOR][/SIZE]
    [/CENTER]

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Southpa View Post
    IMO, lore-breaking has more to do with a person's own idealogies than anything Turbine has done to date. It's quite subjective.
    Not when it's right there in your face, with them gainsaying things from the books. It's not just a matter of making up things the players did which might perhaps not have made it into the tale, they invent huge events as well (like the Elves of Lorien attacking Dol Guldur before Sauron's fall rather than after). Things like that couldn't possibly have happened without becoming part of the account, when what 'really' happened is clearly described.

    I don't think the writers/developers have disregard for the lore to the degree that would be needed to blatantly break it. To me, a blatant breaking of the lore would be something that couldn't possibly co-exist with events in the books.
    Of which there are undoubted examples, some of which were mentioned earlier. You give Turbine way too much credit.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cornwall, UK
    Posts
    1,383
    To my mind, Lore breaking is when the game has or does something that Tolkein said couldn't or didn't happen;

    For example we keep hearing about Rune Keepers being Lore breaking, but Tolkein never said that there weren't any Rune Keepers, he just never mentioned any. So Rune Keepers are not strictly speaking Lore breaking.

    However Tolkein did say that Dwarves and Hobbits were not physically able to ride into battle in Rohan, they were carried as pillion passengers to the battle ground but dismounted before battle commenced. So Hobbits and Dwarves in mounted combat IS Lore breaking.

    Having said that Tolkein Lore is different to Turbine Lore and guess which one we are governed by?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    Dain rides a horse to the battle of five armies, the dwarves and Hobbit all ride ponies in the hobbit, to the best of my knowledge dwarf and hobbits in Lotro cant equip a man sized horse. As to whether you can ride a pony into battle, the mongols of today are still getting around on cute little ponies as the did when the golden horde terrorised the world.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000001019a8/01007/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    "Of course I am the only elf in the village"

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,925
    Story-wise, the only very bad example from the newer game content would be the BIG ANCIENT CURSE the Rohan rulers are facing.

    It's much like Aragorn riding over a cliff in the films, just to kiss his horse.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,617
    Quote Originally Posted by podgie_bear View Post
    To my mind, Lore breaking is when the game has or does something that Tolkein said couldn't or didn't happen;

    For example we keep hearing about Rune Keepers being Lore breaking, but Tolkein never said that there weren't any Rune Keepers, he just never mentioned any. So Rune Keepers are not strictly speaking Lore breaking.
    Here we go again. Since when did Tolkien have Dwarves using magic in battle at all, ever? Or having any talent for magical healing, for that matter? We have accounts of them in battle: in the books they're all about physical violence when they have to be, they're like stumpy little Vikings, and their magic is all about crafting or stuff like keeping their treasures safely hidden from thieves. Much the same goes for common Elves of the sort player-characters are supposed to be, no magic in battle but rather just fiercely-wielded spears, swords and bows. (But maybe some magical healing afterwards, being Elves). It's a clear case of game over lore: to Tolkien, it was quite fantastic enough to have battles featuring Elves and Dwarves and Orcs (and other such fantasy beings or creatures), and with other fantasy elements like glowing Elvish swords and so on; he didn't feel the need to have the fighting punctuated by anybody hurling lightning around. When magic does play a part, it's as some big set-piece thing, some crucial one-off use of power by somebody really powerful. Magic is used completely differently in the game, and that is lore-breaking in its entirety because it's wholly foreign to the setting, an imposition. Inevitably so, arguably, but nonetheless.

    One thing that's beyond contention is the way Turbine pretend that the tengwar characters are runes. They're not; by his own word, when Tolkien says 'runes' he means runes (cirth). So that's half the RK gone at a stroke. That class is just generic fantasy dressed up a bit to sound vaguely Tolkienish, and they couldn't even get that right.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cornwall, UK
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Morthaur View Post
    Dain rides a horse to the battle of five armies, the dwarves and Hobbit all ride ponies in the hobbit, to the best of my knowledge dwarf and hobbits in Lotro cant equip a man sized horse. As to whether you can ride a pony into battle, the mongols of today are still getting around on cute little ponies as the did when the golden horde terrorised the world.
    Mongols are not dwarves or hobbits. And in all cases Tolkein mentions dwarves or hobbits riding, not one ever includes mounted combat, in fact in all cases it is said that they had to dismount before combat. That is why it is breaking Tolkein Lore. But as I said previously, Tolkein Lore doesn't matter in this game, Turbine Lore is the governing factor.

    When it comes to playing in Rohan, typical gamers can engage in mounted combat with a clear conscience, as Turbine says they can. Only real roleplayers need worry about Lore there.
    Last edited by podgie_bear; Nov 23 2012 at 04:37 AM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Memory of Laurelin
    Posts
    1,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Here we go again.---
    You could choose to ignore it, adhere to a desire you've stated elsewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    One thing that's beyond contention is the way Turbine pretend that the tengwar characters are runes. They're not; by his own word, when Tolkien says 'runes' he means runes (cirth).---
    Funny thing about that...
    Cirth is consistently referred to as 'dwarf-runes' throughout The Lord of the Rings. And then we have mentions of 'Elf-runes'.

    However... runes aren't lore-breaking; nor is what Turbine chooses to call whatever's in their game.
    Back to topic!

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload