We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 115
  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Don't play games, I said nothing of the sort.

    No, it most certainly is not because it was the execution that pushed it over the line. They could have made something like that fit no more poorly than some other classes with a bit of real creative thinking but no, because they were fixated on the elemental theme they were seemingly hell-bent on it being as obtrusive as possible. (And so loud that umpteen people complained and they had to change it).

    If the idea was a mage class based on the power of verbal imagery then that imagery could be anything (like the imagery Finrod Felagund and Sauron used in their duel of magic) and that could have been really, really cool but no, it simply had to be the stereotypical fire, frost and lightning and they phrased it so poorly that it had to be real, not metaphorical. They blew it, in other words. And even with the lightning, it was simply crass to have it flying from someone's fingertips, guaranteeing it looked out of place. That was the first thing people said: that it looked like a Sith Lord's Force Lightning. Sure, you can include imagery that hackneyed in a game but it's pathetically uncreative because we've seen it all before. Likewise with the floating healing rock, it couldn't have been more out of place if they'd tried.

    "It's a game" is so generalised as to be meaningless. Saying that doesn't redeem their lack of creativity or their dubious design decisions, like that bizarre floating healing rock. Hey, let's all invent things that are entirely out of keeping with what the other classes do, and look like something out of WoW (which that thing is anyway, it's basically a direct steal of a Shaman's healing stream totem). Stuff like that is just ill-considered and tasteless, it was like they'd given up even trying.

    As for 'narrative'... you keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

    It's a game. A game that has a narrative and provides a milieu for personal narratives.

    Again, I'm pleased we agree there is a validity to the RK in context to Turbine's derivative narrative. I write this as the various critiques, at the minimum, can infer a suspension of disbelief and acceptance of its validity in the game.

    I do enjoy the irony of:

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    As for 'narrative'... you keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
    As it appears the central theme of the numerous responses offered are based upon "inconceivable".

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,102
    Quote Originally Posted by hallasan View Post
    It's a game. A game that has a narrative and provides a milieu for personal narratives.
    It had a narrative before it had the RK class and it would still have one if they removed it tomorrow. These generalisations of yours have nothing to do with the validity of the RK in particular. "It's a game" is meaningless because even if this game were frighteningly hardcore when it came to lore and the realism of its game mechanics (up to and including permadeath), it would still be a game, however unforgivingly harsh it was; and it would still have a narrative, and provide a milieu for personal narratives (brutally short ones, perhaps, but nonetheless). You're going to have to specify your terms rather more closely than "it's a game".

    Again, I'm pleased we agree there is a validity to the RK in context to Turbine's derivative narrative. I write this as the various critiques, at the minimum, can infer a suspension of disbelief and acceptance of its validity in the game.
    I'm going to make this very clear: I do not in any way accept the validity of an elemental mage class like the RK in any game claiming to be based on LOTR, by virtue of such a class being so grossly out of context. Such a denial does nothing to imply any 'suspension of disbelief', but rather the exact opposite

    As it appears the central theme of the numerous responses offered are based upon "inconceivable".
    I fail to see what that has to do with what I said, or where you imagine the irony supposedly resides.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5,817
    Quote Originally Posted by hallasan View Post
    This is a game, not a memorial.
    Great quote.

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by maxjenius View Post
    Great quote.
    I agree.

    There comes a point where adhering so strictly to the lore of a man who cannot elaborate on it is senseless. Adhering to it fanatically is just stupid.

    Tolkien did not invent Lord of the Rings expecting it to be an MMO, or a series of movies. If you expect something to be 100% lore friendly, then you will always be disappointed no matter what. Always.

    Because to be honest, even if Tolkien's ghost had come back to direct this game in person, there would still be people complaining about how it doesn't fit the lore of the books.

    Stop it. The Runekeeper's justification for existing works within the realm of Turbine's middle-earth. Fact of the matter is, LOTRO wouldn't even exist if the developers had to be so concerned about sticking strictly to the lore, because the lore doesn't allow room for a whole new story. And LOTRO is a whole lot of new stories.

    In short, you've overanalyzed the fun out of something simply because it doesn't fit your interpretation of lore.

    Flexible trees bend but never break against their trials, but stubborn, stiff trees snap under the least amount of stress.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Real Start Date: Mettarë, 2988 T.A.
    Posts
    1,426
    This thread reminds me of an old joke I thought up about 10 seconds ago:

    < cue undead Rodney Dangerfield >

    Guy walks into a JRR Tolkien lore forum to ask a question about JRR Tolkien's lore. Rune-keeper says, "Hey buddy, this is a joke, not a memorial!"


    Hahahahaaaaaaa. Ah.
    [CENTER][I][FONT=Garamond]* * *
    [/FONT][/I][FONT=Palatino Linotype]"From without the World, though all things may be forethought in music or foreshown in vision from afar, to those who enter verily into Eä each in its time shall be met at unawares as something new and unforetold."[/FONT]
    [/CENTER]

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGeyedBUG View Post
    This thread reminds me of an old joke I thought up about 10 seconds ago:

    < cue undead Rodney Dangerfield >

    Guy walks into a JRR Tolkien lore forum to ask a question about JRR Tolkien's lore. Rune-keeper says, "Hey buddy, this is a joke, not a memorial!"


    Hahahahaaaaaaa. Ah.
    +rep for remembering Rodney Dangefield.

    And in the spirit of cueing undead Rodney:

    "Yeah, I know I'm ugly... I said to a bartender, 'Make me a zombie.' He said 'God beat me to it.'

    - Rodney Dangerfield"

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Gallifrey. I need a Jelly Baby.
    Posts
    19,306
    Quote Originally Posted by hallasan View Post
    +rep for remembering Rodney Dangefield.

    And in the spirit of cueing undead Rodney:

    "Yeah, I know I'm ugly... I said to a bartender, 'Make me a zombie.' He said 'God beat me to it.'

    - Rodney Dangerfield"
    No respect!
    Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"
    Continuing the never ending battle to keep Lobelia Sackville-Baggins in check

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,242
    What I find funny about RKs is that I can use the skill "Ceaseless Argument" against a boar.

    I argued with a boar. It died as a result.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    First, I thank Hallasan for agreeing with me that we all really agree that, in concept, the runekeeper fits in the lore, and the only argument is how far it is from fitting in actuality and for realizing that this thread was designed to debate that, not the Lore V. "good game" stuff which belongs elsewhere. That was one of the reasons I put it here, because I believe that the RK is in the lore (in concept). The other was so all the people posting would be in agreement that the lore is important and mostly in agreement that J.R.R. Tolkien was the best writer ever. (i.e. no "to Angband with the lore people)

    This post will have four parts 1)Explain the Irony of "Inconceivable" 2) Clear up some misunderstandings about me 3) Explain how my "Making stuff up" isn't really making stuff up 4) Address some specific points about the last post aimed at me

    1) The Quote "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means" is from The Princess Bride which is several things:1)A 1987 movie featuring Cary Elwis 2)A 1973 Book by William Goldman 3)a book by a man named S. Morgenstern who lived at some time in the past. The 1973 book is written pretending it is an abridgment of the S. Morgenstern book by the same name, althought S. Morgenstern never existed, making the book a literary satire on the immensely long and boring sections of books written before the 1930's or so (Moby Dick, Les Mislerables, Brothers Karamotzov, etc.) as well as being a very well written novel. The quote is one of many memorable and hilarious lines from it and is hilarious because the subject of the quote uses the word "inconceivable" as a word that can be molded to fit practically any situation. I highly suggest the movie, and the book if you have the time because it is rather long and in depth as is so rare in books nowadays.



    2)I have never played another MMO and never intend to. I am here for the Lore and the lore only (with a little bit of social thrown in). If I felt that Turbine was breaking the lore much more than the necessary for the game to exist at all(Ex. What in the world are you doing outside of your racial home) or for people to play it (Ex. the convenience things, mail and the like) or for Turbine to Remain solvent (Ex. The LOTRO store) I would leave. I have never played a RK and probably never will. I have never seen or heard a RK in damage dealing mode. I feel no sympathy for the RK and have no reason to shape my view of anything Tolkien off of what I want in the game. I do not think that the class is perfect as it is, just that in theory it fits with the lore. I think Turbine made some(understatement) errors in implementation, but the idea itself is sound.

    3)I interpret all knowledge, about Tolkien or otherwise, Philosophically. Radhruin_EU(he is the most apparent) interprets Tolkien Historically. By Historically, I mean one says "Tolkien explicitly stated points A, B, and C and that is all we can know. By Philosophically, I mean one says "Tolkien stated points A, B, and C and from those points you can deduce beyond a reasonable doubt(the farthest you can deduce anything) point D which may not have been explicitly stated by Tolkien. There is a risk involved as there is a risk with all things in life, but it is also how one interprets all things in real life. The best comparison is (and this is just a comparison that most will understand, don't tell me I am violating the code of Conduct) the difference between how Protestants and Catholics interpret the Bible with Protestants(for the most part) interpreting it historically and Catholics(for the most part) interpreting it philosophically. Of course much more is at stake there, but you know how it tends to work out if one of them tries to convert the other to their version of interpreting the Bible(i.e. it doesn't work and isn't very pretty). I can prove, however, that anyone who plays this game, cares about the lore, and interprets the lore historically either allows breakage of the lore or sometimes interprets the lore philosophically because they would know that Tolkien said no such thing about the heroes of the war in the north against Agamar and that five hobbits only left the Shire and returned and that Elves remained hidden in their strongholds and mostly did not venture beyond them and (must I go on).

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    So in other words, that's no more than what you reckon and it's not what Tolkien thought about it himself, going by what he actually had to say on the subject. I don't believe for one second that he made those same distinctions you have, and it's no coincidence you've picked those ones in particular. Come off it, you started with the game and tried to write a justification, making arbitrary choices about those 'means' as you went and pretending they're distinct in some way.

    For example: in using spells, some people would just say it, others chant it, some sing it but it's really all the same thing: a verbal statement of intent. Why some people would sing was that lengthy passages of poetry are easier to remember if there's a tune that goes with them; that's what bards did, to remember all the tales. I'm afraid you're wrong about music, words or symbols being inherently powerful because Tolkien said he considered magic to be an innate power. People would use a mixture of these things. Galadriel, for example, would probably have sung spells: firstly because she was an Elf, and it seems to go with the territory if her brother Finrod is any example and secondly because she'd studied under Melian, who'd also taught Luthien. You're just trying to pigeon-hole her arbitrarily because you imagine this distinction between 'music' and 'nature' just to fit in with what the game does. Lore-wise, though, no such distinction is made.


    No, that is not what the Sil says. After the Ainur had made the Music, Eru showed the Ainur a vision of what it meant ('Behold your Music!') and then after that, he made the world based on that grand design. That's it. At no point does it say anything about the Music being or becoming magical in itself, just that it was incredibly complex.


    More arbitrary pigeon-holing and you failed to mention that this was only something you imagined.


    Dwarves were somewhat magical in themselves, most particularly as regarding crafting and the means of keeping their treasures safe, secure and hidden. Turbine have simply taken that known feature of the Dwarves and used it as an excuse for them to be using powerful magic in battle, something which is entirely absent from the books. Lore-wise, the magic of the Dwarves resided almost entirely in the things they made. Elves were a different matter, but then again you don't see Legolas doing any magic, do you?


    Sorry, but that's rubbish because it with major exceptions apparent (the lightning, fire and frost) that's more than enough to demonstrate that the idea of it being just words and the effects being metaphorical is bogus.


    You didn't but Turbine did. So why do they have to have a silly rock instead of a rune-staff? Of course it's not easier to inscribe runes on stone - the benefit of using stone is permanence (which is why there are real rune-stones to be found, acting as memorials and boundary markers, things you'd want to last for a long, long time). And what's that about things catching fire? You only just went and admitted the fire is 'real'. Besides that, Gandalf's staff doesn't catch fire itself when he conjures fire with it. And so stop talking about ringsmiths, that's entirely made up.


    Err, hello, it being based on Celebrimbor is just something else Turbine made up! Celebrimbor was a Noldor craftsman, not someone we know to have possessed powerful magic of any other sort or application.


    Based on what? Jeff Steefel came right out and said the RK wasn't something based on lore, it was just something that a game like this simply had to have. And further, when the game originally launched we were told that the LM (in its original, blander form as it was at the time) was as much of a mage as we would see given the lore of the setting. The RK represented them changing their minds and taking the game in a more commercial direction, i.e. they wanted to get more subscriptions and earn more money. So what did they do? They put in a blatant elemental mage class to make the game more mainstream; they also jazzed up the LM to make it more 'magical'. You're just kidding yourself.


    Nowhere does it say that Galadriel 'attacked'; she used her power to demolish the place after the defenders had been dealt with. ('They took Dol Guldur, and Galadriel threw down its walls and laid bare its pits'). That mirrors how Luthien had done the sort of magical demolition job on Sauron's old fortress at Tol-in-Gaurhoth, she did it after Sauron and his werewolves had been defeated. Sounds like the sort of magic that'd take a while to perform, singing a song as Luthien did to basically unzip the place and make all the walls fall apart. Personally, I imagine it'd require standing there singing for quite some time, hence not something you could do until the place had been taken. And as for Luthien, you'll note that she didn't possess any destructive game-style 'battle magic'; Huan had to deal with the werewolves for her, and it was only the power of her cloak that saved her from Wolf-Sauron when he went for her (making Sauron stumble, and giving Huan time to gather himself and leap on him). She puts Carcharoth to sleep; she sings a song to Morgoth that's so lovely he's forced to listen to it, and 'of such blinding power' that he loses sight of her, and while he's hopelessly ensnared she sings the song that puts him and all his court to sleep. Nowhere does she go around hurling destructive magic at anyone! She didn't just scoot into Angband and attack Morgoth: he made the mistake of having her sing for him, as if she were a minstrel. And besides all that, Luthien would have been a crackly snack for Sauron's werewolves if she hadn't had Huan to look out for her, so she wasn't just relying on magic - she'd got the Hound of Valinor to handle the rough stuff.
    -Please read points 2 and 3

    However, by your own denial that my thought process of "Galadriel, Elrond, and Gandalf are all documented using magic through this medium, therefor Cirdan, who formerly had possession of the thing in common between the three of them(an elven Ring) uses magic through the same means is incorrect, your thought process that since Galadriel studied under Melian and Melian and Finrod, her brother, uses magic through that means, therefor Galadriel does too, is incorrect. Galadriel is only documented using magic in making the Mirror of Galadriel, where she makes no sound nor statement of intent, so by your own logic, either both are wrong or both are right. All I am saying is that the only documented use of magic by those people used that means to accomplish it and am not implying that that is the only means they could use, and I should have left Cirdan out to state that, saying that technically his magic is not documented.

    - Yes, but subcreation is a gift of Eru and he empowers it with meaning, and the subcreation of the Anuir was especially empowered by Eru, but partially after the fact, not completely before as it consistent with all other acts of subcreation. So, if all magic (being a form of subcreation) goes through Eru for his glory, then does not the choosing of your act of Subcreation to be the blueprint for Creation by Eru give the act of Subcreation power unnatural to it?

    -I talked about this above.

    -But could not dwarves make an enchanted item that, when triggered, cause a magical effect in battle, in effect, pre enchanting it so it is not technically battle magic? No, but you do see Noldorim(which Legolas was not) elves use magic, such as Finrod.

    -It's ok, I will look at the descriptions again.

    -Couple of options:1)to Kid Joe Gamer, 2)To stop the class from running and whacking people with no real physical weapon and "spice up" the class 3)because they liked rocks, 4) to give the jeweler more recipes, ect. Basically because nothing is explicitly stated in the lore so they could decide on whatever and decided on magic rocks of power. I edited the original post to explain I meant fire from without(ex. Dragon fire) not fire from within. Except Celebrimbor WAS the ringsmith and the class is supposedly based off of Celebrimbor, so all members of the class would(or could) be ringsmiths. It technically should be a ring, a lesser ring, perhaps one made after Celebrimbor died or one of the essays in the craft before it was finished, but then they would have nothing in their hands at all. After that, Runestaff would probably be the best idea.

    -Yes, but they have the right to decide who each class is "inspired by." Except that Celebrimbor made something that had very powerful magic indeed, The Rings of Power, which were capable of preserving elvendom on earth for several thousand years and stopped the fading of the elves for the same time and would have preserved it for longer, if the power of the rings was not broken. The dwarven rings were the basis for the seven great fortunes of the dwarves and I know you know how powerful the nine were. The only people who might even come close to Celebrimbor magicwise are Feanor and Sauron(the former for the silmarils, the latter for the One Ring)

    -Oh, did he? I do not agree with how the RK was implemeted, but the idea itself was sound. I presume you are only annoyed about the damage dealing part of the class and would be perfectly fine with the healing aspect, because there the inconsistent game mechanic of Morale can work in favor of the class and it is not unheard of for magical healings.

    -True, and I never said they did, I made a mistake of using the word "attacked," I edited the post to fix that error. However, you cannot deny that they did in fact go into a perilous situation with no weapon but magic (Luthien's cloak counts as magic, just fabricated beforehand, as the weapon of the RK, the runestone, is[see subpoints 4 and 6 above]) . It is true that neither of them could survive for long alone, but the Rune Keeper isn't supposed to be able to either(a glass cannon). Finally, as I have said many times before in this post, I do not agree with all the ways they implemented the rune keeper, just that, in theory, it does in fact square with the lore.

    I hope I clarified some things for you and helped convince you that I am not the bad guy. I was first introduced to Middle earth when I was three and my mother read The Hobbit to me and have read the Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, and Silmarillion Annually or Semiannually since I could read them. In contrast, I started playing this game six months ago. Would I really abandon the lore that has been part of my life for all of my speaking lifetime in favor of a little game that I was introduced to less than a year ago?
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg View Post
    First, I thank Hallasan for agreeing with me that we all really agree that, in concept, the runekeeper fits in the lore, and the only argument is how far it is from fitting in actuality and for realizing that this thread was designed to debate that, not the Lore V. "good game" stuff which belongs elsewhere.
    No - we all do not agree and never will. The RK, like much in this game, does not fit but I'm OK with that because it's a game. LOTRO needs a big disclaimer - "A multi-player online game originally based upon certain content and concepts from LOTR by JRRT". Unique content from LOTR can usually easily fit inside LOTRO but it doesn't necessarily work in reverse, nor should it. I'm not the only player who gets a 'lore-geeky' moment when we see some little nugget lifted directly from the book, especially when we were not expecting it. On the other hand I would detest a 'revised' LOTR that tried to accomodate even a minimal amount of LOTRO content.

    I think it's time to agree to disagree, live and let live, etc.
    "You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81



  11. #36
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    Please note the in concept I am not saying that the RK as it is squares with the lore, I am saying that in theory, not execution it squares with the lore. Please read my entire post.
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

  12. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg View Post
    Please note the in concept I am not saying that the RK as it is squares with the lore, I am saying that in theory, not execution it squares with the lore. Please read my entire post.
    You have no idea what I've read so please don't presume otherwise. I've read your arguments, I don't agree with you and I can't help that. In my opinion the RK rests on a foundation worse than sand. They went with words and rocks because anything else would be too much like a Wizard and they found a few vague references to the power of words or letters to pin the concept upon. (The moon-runes, Moria west gate and the Ring inscription being primary.) This doesn't make it a method of combat. To be honest I don't even think the LM fits well into Middle-earth.

    Cheers, enjoy your RK, assuming you play one.
    "You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81



  13. #38
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by tuor66 View Post
    I think it's time to agree to disagree, live and let live, etc.
    Well said.

    There have been many, many threads on Runekeepers and not too many of them end particularly well - exhaustive textual analysis, fandoms called into question, and so forth. All I can ever conclude from any of them is that some people are bothered by the existence of the class, and others aren't. It's that simple. For better or worse, I seriously doubt that Turbine is going to remove the class at this point, so you can either roll RK or stay away from it. Or, play the game or not play the game.

    ...now can we all put our differences aside and agree that flying eagle mounts are a really stupid idea?
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0c2140000000fb565/01006/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  14. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Susuwatari View Post
    ...now can we all put our differences aside and agree that flying eagle mounts are a really stupid idea?
    WHAT !!!!

    But seriously, I would never disagree with you on that one
    I nominate shape-changers into that category as well!
    "You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81



  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    1,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Susuwatari View Post
    There have been many, many threads on Runekeepers and not too many of them end particularly well - exhaustive textual analysis, fandoms called into question, and so forth. All I can ever conclude from any of them is that some people are bothered by the existence of the class, and others aren't. It's that simple.
    Well yes and no. This suggests that both sides are equally valid.

    One side accepts the RK because they either don't know enough about the lore or they don't care enough about it. The other side tolerates the RK because they have no alternative, yet they know how absurd it is. I'd say in the grand scheme of things the latter group stands up to scrutiny far better than the former. Accepting something either because of ignorance or because they can't be asked to care isn't a good argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Susuwatari View Post
    For better or worse, I seriously doubt that Turbine is going to remove the class at this point, so you can either roll RK or stay away from it. Or, play the game or not play the game.
    My experience is that most of these RK threads that have ever been made are made by RK supporters, especially as time has moved on. It isn't the small clique of anti-RKers that keep endlessly bringing up this issue, it's RK supporters - often fairly new to the game - that are seeking for their wizard class to be vindicated by the lore, which it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Susuwatari View Post
    ...now can we all put our differences aside and agree that flying eagle mounts are a really stupid idea?
    Never say never. They did say that a damage-dealing mage wasn't going to be added to the game once upon a time. And there're plenty of other grisly additions apart from the RK that shouldn't have been added.
    [b][color=lightblue]"[i]'Ai! ai!'[/i] wailed Legolas. [i]'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'[/i]

    Gimli stared with wide eyes. [i]'Tolkien's Bane!'[/i] he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."[/color][/b]

  16. #41
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath View Post
    Well yes and no. This suggests that both sides are equally valid.

    One side accepts the RK because they either don't know enough about the lore or they don't care enough about it. The other side tolerates the RK because they have no alternative, yet they know how absurd it is. I'd say in the grand scheme of things the latter group stands up to scrutiny far better than the former. Accepting something either because of ignorance or because they can't be asked to care isn't a good argument.
    My post wasn't really about both sides being equally "right". I'm just saying that this is an issue that has been harangued over many times and there's not much new ground to cover.

    I mean if one's deal is that they just have fun playing Runekeeper and they enjoy it for what it is in-game, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, IMO. But looking for vindication in the lore at this point is not going to take anyone anywhere new. All of these arguments have been done before.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0c2140000000fb565/01006/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  17. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath View Post
    Well yes and no. This suggests that both sides are equally valid.

    One side accepts the RK because they either don't know enough about the lore or they don't care enough about it.

    The other side tolerates the RK because they have no alternative, yet they know how absurd it is. I'd say in the grand scheme of things the latter group stands up to scrutiny far better than the former. Accepting something either because of ignorance or because they can't be asked to care isn't a good argument.

    There is another side which posits LOTRO is Turbine's derivative narrative of Tolkien's legendarium.

    Being a derivative narrative, where the medium presents its requirements, Turbine has licensed a degree of discretionary use of Tolkien's legendarium.

    Similar to the licensors of the legendarium for movies, games and assorted collectibles.

    The medium, and audience, have different expectations and the competitive environment has different rules of engagement.

    The orthodoxy of the legendarium is not at risk as it cannot be amended by a licensor and considered "canon" unless the IP licensing terms have changed.

    This is a game using a derivative narrative for a target revenue audience. It is not an orthodox memorial and simulation of the legendarium.

    Also, I like the irony of lore orthodoxy and using "Beleg-Of-Doriath" as I recall elven names are singular in use (see Glorfindel 1st Age and Glorfindel 2nd/3rd Age). Perhaps this usage can be explained using the last sentence of the above quote.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by hallasan View Post
    There is another side which posits LOTRO is Turbine's derivative narrative of Tolkien's legendarium.

    Being a derivative narrative, where the medium presents its requirements, Turbine has licensed a degree of discretionary use of Tolkien's legendarium.

    Similar to the licensors of the legendarium for movies, games and assorted collectibles.

    The medium, and audience, have different expectations and the competitive environment has different rules of engagement.

    The orthodoxy of the legendarium is not at risk as it cannot be amended by a licensor and considered "canon" unless the IP licensing terms have changed.

    This is a game using a derivative narrative for a target revenue audience. It is not an orthodox memorial and simulation of the legendarium.

    Also, I like the irony of lore orthodoxy and using "Beleg-Of-Doriath" as I recall elven names are singular in use (see Glorfindel 1st Age and Glorfindel 2nd/3rd Age). Perhaps this usage can be explained using the last sentence of the above quote.
    This is exactly how I feel about it.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,102
    Quote Originally Posted by hallasan View Post
    It is not an orthodox memorial and simulation of the legendarium.
    And here's the thing, rejecting the RK as junk fantasy isn't wanting the game to be either a memorial or a simulation. That's a strawman argument. There was no RK pre-MoM and the game back then wasn't any more of a memorial or sim than it is now, it just had less junk in it.

  20. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    And here's the thing, rejecting the RK as junk fantasy isn't wanting the game to be either a memorial or a simulation. That's a strawman argument. There was no RK pre-MoM and the game back then wasn't any more of a memorial or sim than it is now, it just had less junk in it.
    So, and I am confident of a pending correction and clarification, it is agreed that LOTRO, the game, is a derivative narrative created by Turbine referencing the licensed IP of Tolkien's legendarium.

    As a licensor, Turbine has a degree of discretion to introduce elements within the framework of its derivative narrative.

    At issue is whether the application of the Rune-Keeper subplot is well executed.

    The responses range from well-done to junk.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,102
    Quote Originally Posted by hallasan View Post
    So, and I am confident of a pending correction and clarification, it is agreed that LOTRO, the game, is a derivative narrative created by Turbine referencing the licensed IP of Tolkien's legendarium.

    As a licensor, Turbine has a degree of discretion to introduce elements within the framework of its derivative narrative.

    At issue is whether the application of the Rune-Keeper subplot is well executed.

    The responses range from well-done to junk.
    The problem is that unlike all the other classes, the RK as described essentially references nothing from Tolkien's work. It even abuses the idea of runes, extending the term to the tengwar which isn't runic (and by Tolkien's own word, when he says 'runes' he means 'runes'; he says 'letters' when talking about Elvish script). What your talk of 'derivative narrative' fails to recognise is that the RK was introduced not as a natural development of the game or its original 'narrative' but by management fiat, because they insisted that an MMO of this sort 'must' have a powerful mage class. It's essentially an especially cynical example of commercialisation of the IP; it represents something that they originally said they would never do. Inflicting an elemental mage on anything supposedly based on Middle-earth is a contradiction in terms. It's like doing Arthurian myth and having Merlin hurling bolts of lightning at people; it's stylistically wrong for anything that as conceived, was trying to emulate the air of myth and legend. In other words, it ignores what sort of fantasy Tolkien's work was written to be and drags it all the way down to the stereotypical comic-book fare that games are infamous for. They stopped even trying to be honest.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    First, I would like to apologize to Tuor66 and any other I may have offended. I thought that my idea of the difference between theory and implementation was clear and if you did not understand you must not have read the whole thing. I was obviously mistaken, so I will define both in terms of the RK.

    Implementation:a elemental Battle Mage who totes around a magic rock that is the source of their power.

    Idea:a magical class that heals and deals damage, who uses magic through verbal or written statements of intent(as opposed to nonverbal or musical) and can successfully fight but has low survivability if their magic fails. (think Finrod Fegalund)

    I certainly hope that everyone agrees that the idea illustrated above DOES fit inside the lore without deforming it too badly, if at all. I certainly hope no one thinks the Implementation fits(and given the rather aggressive responses to the affirmative I think I can presume that :-D ). I do not and never meant to suggest that it did.

    I took this "If the idea was a mage class based on the power of verbal imagery then that imagery could be anything (like the imagery Finrod Felagund and Sauron used in their duel of magic) and that could have been really, really cool" as where I got my idea that we all really agreed that the idea fits, just not the implementation, and I am sorry if I offended you.

    Its really that the RK as described doesn't fit, whereas the RK could very easily fit with a revamp about the size of the Minstrel one a few years ago. My point was that magic actually does exist in Middle Earth(I have run into many who doesn't think it exists at all) and there could be a primarily magic class(not entirely, just primarily). All they would really have to change would be some of the damage dealing skills and the floating healing rock(does it actually float?). Maybe they could add the warden gambit system to the damage half of the RK to make the RK use a combination of words that can form their skills by combination or something, and then they wouldn't have to come up with a whole new game mechanic.

    I had not seen or heard a RK because I solo on a low population server at odd times with my sound off and level very slowly(my highest is 27) and all of my knowledge of the RK comes from the lorebook skill description, which gives no hint of the visual that accompanies it, so my idea of a RK underexagerrated itself to get as close as possible to the lore, plus I knew that the LM skills that are a little far fetched(like March of the ents), the visual is just for effect(the skill includes an as if in the description).

    I have not gone forum digging to find the threads that popped up about this at the beginning, so I am sorry for stirring it up again. I didn't know that this was as delicate a subject as Flying Mounts or Hunter Pets(or the Hobby horse). I would just like to clarify one point, I have not and probably never will play an RK, and I do not support it. I just didn't know and am a bit of an idealist, so I sometimes gloss over a few facts I really shouldn't. The ideal RK fits, the real RK doesn't.

    As an end, I would like to suggest two things:1)Read The Philosophy of Tolkien by Peter Kreft and 2)create a suggestions thread on how to reconcile the RK with the lore(it is possible).
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    7,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg View Post
    Idea:a magical class that heals and deals damage, who uses magic through verbal or written statements of intent(as opposed to nonverbal or musical) and can successfully fight but has low survivability if their magic fails. (think Finrod Fegalund)
    Please don't try to turn Finrod into an archetype for some robe-wearing 'glass cannon'. The guy was made of epic stuff: he saved Beren's life at the cost of his own when they were being held prisoner at Tol-in-Gaurhoth. He killed the werewolf which had come for Beren with nothing but his bare hands and teeth after bursting free from his chains.

    Its really that the RK as described doesn't fit, whereas the RK could very easily fit with a revamp about the size of the Minstrel one a few years ago.
    Making it fit the setting in the manner you describe was suggested way back when the class was announced, once people had seen the infamous screenshot that led to it being labelled the 'Sith-keeper'. Turbine plainly weren't (and still wouldn't be) interested in anything in the least subtle; showy elemental pew-pew-pew was what was wanted as far as they were concerned, because it's crowd-pleasing.

  24. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg View Post
    First, I would like to apologize to Tuor66 and any other I may have offended. I thought that my idea of the difference between theory and implementation was clear and if you did not understand you must not have read the whole thing. I was obviously mistaken, so I will define both in terms of the RK.

    Implementation:a elemental Battle Mage who totes around a magic rock that is the source of their power.

    Idea:a magical class that heals and deals damage, who uses magic through verbal or written statements of intent(as opposed to nonverbal or musical) and can successfully fight but has low survivability if their magic fails. (think Finrod Fegalund)

    I certainly hope that everyone agrees that the idea illustrated above DOES fit inside the lore without deforming it too badly, if at all. I certainly hope no one thinks the Implementation fits(and given the rather aggressive responses to the affirmative I think I can presume that :-D ). I do not and never meant to suggest that it did.

    I took this "If the idea was a mage class based on the power of verbal imagery then that imagery could be anything (like the imagery Finrod Felagund and Sauron used in their duel of magic) and that could have been really, really cool" as where I got my idea that we all really agreed that the idea fits, just not the implementation, and I am sorry if I offended you.

    Its really that the RK as described doesn't fit, whereas the RK could very easily fit with a revamp about the size of the Minstrel one a few years ago. My point was that magic actually does exist in Middle Earth(I have run into many who doesn't think it exists at all) and there could be a primarily magic class(not entirely, just primarily). All they would really have to change would be some of the damage dealing skills and the floating healing rock(does it actually float?). Maybe they could add the warden gambit system to the damage half of the RK to make the RK use a combination of words that can form their skills by combination or something, and then they wouldn't have to come up with a whole new game mechanic.

    I had not seen or heard a RK because I solo on a low population server at odd times with my sound off and level very slowly(my highest is 27) and all of my knowledge of the RK comes from the lorebook skill description, which gives no hint of the visual that accompanies it, so my idea of a RK underexagerrated itself to get as close as possible to the lore, plus I knew that the LM skills that are a little far fetched(like March of the ents), the visual is just for effect(the skill includes an as if in the description).

    I have not gone forum digging to find the threads that popped up about this at the beginning, so I am sorry for stirring it up again. I didn't know that this was as delicate a subject as Flying Mounts or Hunter Pets(or the Hobby horse). I would just like to clarify one point, I have not and probably never will play an RK, and I do not support it. I just didn't know and am a bit of an idealist, so I sometimes gloss over a few facts I really shouldn't. The ideal RK fits, the real RK doesn't.

    As an end, I would like to suggest two things:1)Read The Philosophy of Tolkien by Peter Kreft and 2)create a suggestions thread on how to reconcile the RK with the lore(it is possible).
    I am not the least bit offended. I'm not prone to forum rage and can easily concede a good point in a debate or an alternative explanation or idea I hadn't considered. Unfortunately 'read my post' is used far to often by some in an attempt to trivialize any counter-argument the poster does not like or can't counter through scholarly debate. Back to the topic however... The implementation is bad. So is the idea. Here's a few reasons why I think so.

    As Rad said, Finrod was epic. Like many of the main First Age characters he lived in the Blessed Realm in the presence of the Valar and Maiar. His singing was so profound he mesmerized Beor and his people to the point they thought he was one of the Valar. Luthien was the daughter of a Maia and one of the Firstborn who had visited Valinor. These are special people. We're not in their league. Those who had seen Valinor and spent time there came away enhanced compared to the Elves who stayed behind in Middle-earth. Daeron was the greatest minstrel who lived East of the Sea and invented the Cirth but there's not one recorded thing about him that suggests any sort of elemental magic to go with his songs or his runes.

    There is magic in Middle-earth but it's subtle except when wielded by the powers. Discounting Sauron, Gandalf, Balrogs and various Ainu (and the enigmatic Tom B.) we have few examples. Rings that heal and preserve, Palantiri, Elvish swords that emit a tinge of light when Orcs are near, the Phial of Galadriel. None of these are what I would term offensive weapons, except for the sharp end of the sword or maybe the Palantir if someone cracked you over the head with it. Nothing here resembles a wielder of fire and lightning. It's possible that Tolkien considered any magic that destroyed as being the arts of the Enemy and off-limits to all but the servants of evil. Even the Nazgul could only come up with a Morgul-knife. Offensive but a far cry from fireballs and lightning storms. As for the RK's healing skills, that was always well satisfied by the Minstrel. I agree with Rad that the RK was and still is all about 'pew-pew magic'. As such I do not think you can bend the lore far enough to support the class. I can only imagine the look the Professor might give you if you were his editor and made a suggestion to change Legolas or Gimli into anything even remotely resembling a RK. In short, I don't think it's possible to reconcile even a re-vamped RK into the lore.

    You should try a RK, it might give you a different perspective from the glossy write-up in the Lorebook. In the Middle-earth I've read about, if you find yourself in a tough spot with only a rock, make like a Hobbit and throw it

    I haven't read this book but I would caution some healthy skepticism when reading other people's analysis, especially if they do not have access to personal items, interviews with contemporaries and others who knew him well. There are many opinions out there, some are insightful and some are ludicrous. Tolkien was as complex as his legendarium and languages. I would consider an in-depth reading of "The Letters" critical to any understanding of Tolkien. His essay on Fairy stories is also important and there's much material in the last couple of books in the "HOME" series that reveal much about the author. In his final years Tolkien spent more time writing about 'why' rather than the 'who' and 'when' of history. If you haven't read any of these yet, you should.
    "You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81



  25. #50
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In my TARDIS
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Please don't try to turn Finrod into an archetype for some robe-wearing 'glass cannon'. The guy was made of epic stuff: he saved Beren's life at the cost of his own when they were being held prisoner at Tol-in-Gaurhoth. He killed the werewolf which had come for Beren with nothing but his bare hands and teeth after bursting free from his chains.


    Making it fit the setting in the manner you describe was suggested way back when the class was announced, once people had seen the infamous screenshot that led to it being labelled the 'Sith-keeper'. Turbine plainly weren't (and still wouldn't be) interested in anything in the least subtle; showy elemental pew-pew-pew was what was wanted as far as they were concerned, because it's crowd-pleasing.
    Don't worry, I am not trying to, all I am saying is that he was in no shape to run up and stab Sauron in the foot after being defeated.

    Sadly, it will never happen, but we can hope and draft ideas to fix it :-D

    Quote Originally Posted by tuor66 View Post
    I am not the least bit offended. I'm not prone to forum rage and can easily concede a good point in a debate or an alternative explanation or idea I hadn't considered. Unfortunately 'read my post' is used far to often by some in an attempt to trivialize any counter-argument the poster does not like or can't counter through scholarly debate. Back to the topic however... The implementation is bad. So is the idea. Here's a few reasons why I think so.

    As Rad said, Finrod was epic. Like many of the main First Age characters he lived in the Blessed Realm in the presence of the Valar and Maiar. His singing was so profound he mesmerized Beor and his people to the point they thought he was one of the Valar. Luthien was the daughter of a Maia and one of the Firstborn who had visited Valinor. These are special people. We're not in their league. Those who had seen Valinor and spent time there came away enhanced compared to the Elves who stayed behind in Middle-earth. Daeron was the greatest minstrel who lived East of the Sea and invented the Cirth but there's not one recorded thing about him that suggests any sort of elemental magic to go with his songs or his runes.

    There is magic in Middle-earth but it's subtle except when wielded by the powers. Discounting Sauron, Gandalf, Balrogs and various Ainu (and the enigmatic Tom B.) we have few examples. Rings that heal and preserve, Palantiri, Elvish swords that emit a tinge of light when Orcs are near, the Phial of Galadriel. None of these are what I would term offensive weapons, except for the sharp end of the sword or maybe the Palantir if someone cracked you over the head with it. Nothing here resembles a wielder of fire and lightning. It's possible that Tolkien considered any magic that destroyed as being the arts of the Enemy and off-limits to all but the servants of evil. Even the Nazgul could only come up with a Morgul-knife. Offensive but a far cry from fireballs and lightning storms. As for the RK's healing skills, that was always well satisfied by the Minstrel. I agree with Rad that the RK was and still is all about 'pew-pew magic'. As such I do not think you can bend the lore far enough to support the class. I can only imagine the look the Professor might give you if you were his editor and made a suggestion to change Legolas or Gimli into anything even remotely resembling a RK. In short, I don't think it's possible to reconcile even a re-vamped RK into the lore.

    You should try a RK, it might give you a different perspective from the glossy write-up in the Lorebook. In the Middle-earth I've read about, if you find yourself in a tough spot with only a rock, make like a Hobbit and throw it

    I haven't read this book but I would caution some healthy skepticism when reading other people's analysis, especially if they do not have access to personal items, interviews with contemporaries and others who knew him well. There are many opinions out there, some are insightful and some are ludicrous. Tolkien was as complex as his legendarium and languages. I would consider an in-depth reading of "The Letters" critical to any understanding of Tolkien. His essay on Fairy stories is also important and there's much material in the last couple of books in the "HOME" series that reveal much about the author. In his final years Tolkien spent more time writing about 'why' rather than the 'who' and 'when' of history. If you haven't read any of these yet, you should.
    I know, its just that on online forums tone can easily be misunderstood.

    Agreed, we really aren't at his level, no one in the third age is(except maybe Galadriel and only because she was a first generation elf)

    Yes, but it actually does exist, subtly, and not elemental(excusing the same you excused) so if Turbine insists on Pew pew magic, then ah well there goes something that we must live with, but I think that with creativity and taste it would be possible to create a class that relies on a bit more magic than all the others, while still fitting. I wasn't bending the lore to fit the class, I was bending the class to fit the lore.

    I unfortunately cannot, I am Free to play and don't particularly like TP farming, except for quest packs. Perhaps after I stock up a little or if I ever fall off the F2P wagon.

    Don't worry, the author is a philiosoper who holds the same views as Tolkien (Catholic, monarchistic, Traditionalist, antiprogressive, antimodernist, European style conservative) Please note that all of those views are in the philisopical sense. Here is the book description "While nothing can equal or replace the adventure in reading Tolkien’s masterwork, The Lord of the Rings, Peter Kreeft says that the journey into its underlying philosophy can be another exhilarating adventure. Thus, Kreeft takes the reader on a voyage of discovery into the philosophical bones of Middle earth. He organizes the philosophical themes in The Lord of the Rings into 50 categories, accompanied by over 1,000 references to the text of Lord. Since many of the great questions of philosophy are included in the 50-theme outline, this book can also be read as an engaging introduction to philosophy. For each of the philiosphical topics in The Lord of the Rings, Kreeft presents four tools by which they can be understood: an explanation of a key question; a key quotation showing Tolkien's answer; quotes from other writings of Tolkien that clarify the theme; and quotes from his close friend C.S. Lewis, which state the same philosophical points directly. " Don't worry, he's not someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. I do in fact read the Letters, I am going to pick up On Fairy Stories next time I pop to someplace that has it. I read some of HOME but reading An unexpected Party Twenty times with only slight variations wore on my perservearance. If it gets more interesting after the History of the Lord of the Rings, I would happily try again. However, HOME is the work in progress, so if it contradicts something in LotR, the Sil, or the Letters, I will listen to the Completed version, not HOME
    Lore-Monkey(not a Lore Guardian) and proud of it.

    .

 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 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