At last, is the Big Battle of Helm's Deep Lore-Breaking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

Lol, trying to discredit what is being said by trolling who's saying it isn't going to work on me. I stick to the subject at hand.

What I am saying is, tone matters. Unfortunately for Turbine, they don't get to set the tone. Historically they've done a good job staying consistent with the tone with a few gaffs on the way. Lately they seem to be nearly utterly abandoning that. Given the fact that without the IP this game is probably somewhere on the C-List now (being generous) in terms of engine, mechanics, support and infrastructure, it needs to be very strict in tone to make me want to continue to play it.

---

Tone is an extremely subjective assessment, one that is honestly hard to take seriously as a critique of a sprawling MMO. LOTR itself varies widely in tone, and trying to compare the tone of a 60 year old novel with that of a 6 year old video game is specious, to say the least.

You also do a terrible job of sticking to the subject at hand. The subject is lore, and specifically perceived contradictions to who and what was where and when, not tone. Nice try, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

In Star Wars, as the Rebel Alliance was attacking the Death Star, instead of shooting a laser beams from turrets at the ships, what if the Death Star open up on its axis and started eating the x-wing fights in giant robot crunches like Homer Simpson with a bag of pork rinds in slow-motion. It would certainly have been doable. Its science fiction after all.

But I guarantee you, there would not have been an Empire Strikes Back.

---

This isn't remotely close to the lore situation of players at the Battle of the Hornburg. This situation is more like this: A New Hope only shows Vader, Luke, Wedge, Han and Chewie surviving the attack on the Death Star. Later another medium adds in a storyline where new character X was piloting Red 15 and somehow also survived the battle. Or new character Y was flying a Black Squadron TIE fighter and survived. This situation has happened, in several different media, and has generally been accepted by fans since the movie was the story about Luke and the other heroes, not a detailed historical account of the rebellion against the Empire. There is room for things to happen around the central story.

If you're here in big part for the lore (trust me, I am, no other mmo ever held my interest because of the lack), then you must remember that it all gets graded on a curve. In other words, even after hobbits escaped the Shire, even after RKs were born, even after [insert your favourite lore break here] was introduced, LotRO still gets an "A" for its application of LotR to the MMO game genre. Why? Because look at how all the other LotR-based MMOs out there are doing! Or, for that matter, all the other cool epic-fantasy/SF-book-based-MMOs like Wheel of Time Online and Harry Potter Online and Sword of Truth Online and Game of Thrones Online are all doing. Yep, it still gets an "A". That darn grading curve. ;) So I ain't going nowhere any time soon, and I suspect you probably aren't either....if you're driven by the lore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whheydt

You forgot the possibilities of Options C, D, and so on.

The 20Q thread already made mention fo thinking "outside the box", so why are you restricting Turbine's choices to being inside the previous boxes?

---

Then I'll make it even simpler for you.

Would you rather;

• Have 10% of the playerbase happy?
  Or
• Have 75% of the playerbase happy?

You can take a nab at what those two different percentages refer to (player-wise).

So what was the reason for not using class-based session play in a layered environment for grouping?
I mean, the technology is there. Why not use it? That way lore is kept and people can still have the fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

So what was the reason for not using class-based session play in a layered environment for grouping?
I mean, the technology is there. Why not use it? That way lore is kept and people can still have the fun.

---

Because huge swathes of the playerbase hate session play. That is why the session play ranger interludes for the latest epic book were optional. Turbine had tons of complaints about session play in the prior epic books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

So what was the reason for not using class-based session play in a layered environment for grouping?
I mean, the technology is there. Why not use it? That way lore is kept and people can still have the fun.

---

If I had to guess, it's because they have found that customizing toons is a very popular part of the game and people don't want to play themselves-but-not (name and class and skills/traits/etc. attached, but a male Rohirrim) in such huge endgame content. I would also speculate that the challenges of creating the Big Battle tech are significant enough that layering on top of it class-based session may have been a developmental bridge too far.

Not to mention wanting to make it part of the Epic, and some place your character actually goes, rather than being told about or reading or flashing back to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

This is not the same as categorically stating that these things did not happen. There's very little that Tolkien categorically stated did not happen, and it's actually very reasonable to infer that where he made sweeping generalizations in the text, the author of the Red Book may have been ignoring a sea of details in order to paint a broad picture. There is room in the text for all of this.

---

You're making a very good point (do I smell a whiff of unreliable narrator? rawr~), and the places in LOTRO where they try to fill in those gaps (some bits with the Rangers, Angmar in some places) manage to tread that delicate line with appreciable subtlety.

That being said, a story that would use the extra room in the text would by definition have to stay away from the familiar (and marketable) places, narratives and people from the book and be about LotR while being about everything that's not in it (a hard sell indeed).

And I don't even think that the pseudo-lore-ayatollahs would like it because although that would certainly alleviate some lore-related guilt, it still wouldn't change the fact that this is a friggin MMO, one of the least creative and most exploitative genre of barely-art out there - and if you're buying (literally) into that, you're definitely not as respectful of the lore as you'd like to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

If I had to guess, it's because they have found that customizing toons is a very popular part of the game and people don't want to play themselves-but-not (name and class and skills/traits/etc. attached, but a male Rohirrim) in such huge endgame content. I would also speculate that the challenges of creating the Big Battle tech are significant enough that layering on top of it class-based session may have been a developmental bridge too far.

---

So...they couldn't think of any endgame besides just Hornburg battle?
No Isengard assault and/or cleanup, no Huorn watching, no Uruk-survivor hunting? Or maybe even an entirely original skirmish that wasn't mentioned in the books, like securing the other end of Helm's Deep for the Rohan refugees? No? Just Hornburg?
I know I should be surprised, but I'm not.

Quote:

---

Not to mention wanting to make it part of the Epic, and some place your character actually goes, rather than being told about or reading or flashing back to.

---

Why? What is wrong with being told about it?
And by that I mean, why *must* our character be present at every single event that ever happens during WOTR, even to the point when it regularly conflicts with the timeline and breaks spatial physics by being in several places at once?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taravith

You're making a very good point (do I smell a whiff of unreliable narrator? rawr~), and the places in LOTRO where they try to fill in those gaps (some bits with the Rangers, Angmar in some places) manage to tread that delicate line with appreciable subtlety.

That being said, a story that would use the extra room in the text would by definition have to stay away from the familiar (and marketable) places, narratives and people from the book and be about LotR while being about everything that's not in it (a hard sell indeed).

And I don't even think that the pseudo-lore-ayatollahs would like it because although that would certainly alleviate some lore-related guilt, it still wouldn't change the fact that this is a friggin MMO, one of the least creative and most exploitative genre of barely-art out there - and if you're buying (literally) into that, you're definitely not as respectful of the lore as you'd like to believe.

---

Believe you me, I love me some unreliable narrator. Though I think this is even simpler, just relating to simple point-of-view restriction. The narrator might be offering an honest, good-faith retelling of everything he remembers of what the named characters remember, but that still leaves some massive-yet-reasonable gaps in the "actuality" (something absolutely impossible to determine with any accuracy) of Middle Earth. If we treated LOTR as a primary text for the period it is from (which is essentially what the lore monkeys are trying to do in their own way), we would take almost nothing at face value.

And yeah, everyone has their line in the sand on lore, to some extent or another. Everyone has their threshold. But making oneself the arbiter of lore, based on that threshold, is bogus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

So...they couldn't think of any endgame besides just Hornburg battle?
No Isengard assault and/or cleanup, no Huorn watching, no Uruk-survivor hunting? Or maybe even an entirely original skirmish that wasn't mentioned in the books, like securing the other end of Helm's Deep for the Rohan refugees? No? Just Hornburg?
I know I should be surprised, but I'm not.

---

Because it would be awesome, that's why. We spend SO MUCH time not tagging along right behind the fellowship, they need to make the most of the intersections we do have. Part of the attraction of the game is those times when our story touches theirs; ironically, Helm's Deep is one of those places where it's easier to touch the story of the fellowship, since it's so chaotic and cast-of-thousands. Things like the float down the Anduin and Moria and so on are much harder because they are so clearly alone and strangers would be too remarkable. And that's why I'm genuinely croggled that people are up in arms over this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Why? What is wrong with being told about it?
And by that I mean, why *must* our character be present at every single event that ever happens during WOTR, even to the point when it regularly conflicts with the timeline and breaks spatial physics by being in several places at once?

---

We're clearly not present at every single event, so the hyperbole is a little misplaced, though again, understandable. But, well, it's customer expectation. As others have said, the session play/flashback/whatever method of seeing other parts of the story has been massively unpopular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

So...they couldn't think of any endgame besides just Hornburg battle?
No Isengard assault and/or cleanup, no Huorn watching, no Uruk-survivor hunting? Or maybe even an entirely original skirmish that wasn't mentioned in the books, like securing the other end of Helm's Deep for the Rohan refugees? No? Just Hornburg?
I know I should be surprised, but I'm not.

---

Would that not be just as lore-breaking? Most objections to HD come from the fact that JRR didn't explicitly state that outsiders other than Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli fought there. By that same logic, he also didn't explicitly state that outsiders helped secure the other end of Helm's Deep. In fact, I don't think he mentioned any forces securing the other end at all. That is the problem with falling back on that very narrow lore argument- everything that our characters do and have done breaks lore, and everything Turbine could have us do breaks lore, because we were not part of JRR's manuscript.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

Sorry you took offense, but not sure why you did. if every response you make refuses to acknowledge the point, eventually I have to come to the conclusion that you can't grasp it.

---

My. You're quite the little charmer aren't you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Believe you me, I love me some unreliable narrator. Though I think this is even simpler, just relating to simple point-of-view restriction. The narrator might be offering an honest, good-faith retelling of everything he remembers of what the named characters remember, but that still leaves some massive-yet-reasonable gaps in the "actuality" (something absolutely impossible to determine with any accuracy) of Middle Earth. If we treated LOTR as a primary text for the period it is from (which is essentially what the lore monkeys are trying to do in their own way), we would take almost nothing at face value.

And yeah, everyone has their line in the sand on lore, to some extent or another. Everyone has their threshold. But making oneself the arbiter of lore, based on that threshold, is bogus.

---

Which would be true, if we did. But we take more from Tolkien's letters, UT and HoME, because people kept asking Tolkien about these things, so he clarified them where needed;
Filling gaps is good, but conflicting directly with what the author and creator of the world said and wrote down is not.
It is one thing to have, for example, a never-mentioned Balrog because it was hidden and defeated before it rose to the surface. In a way that makes sense; very few knew about it, it was no longer a threat, it never made a history for itself, and so it was not written down.
And it also makes sense to have us face 'lesser' versions of much more iconic and powerful enemies, like Mordirith instead of Witch-king, Cargul instead of Nazgûl, Regmyl instead of Belryg, Drakes instead of Dragons, etc. The more iconic versions' histories and fates are already known so we can't fight them, but the lesser versions are Turbine's own creations which could be made to fit within Tolkien's lore because they do not contradict the writings. All of the above are simply filling gaps or creating new material that does not contradict old.
BUT the ugly side of "creative license" shows itself when making things that go directly against what Tolkien wrote. Examples are the Iron Garisson, Rune-keepers, the Golden Host, Draigoch, Lieutenant of DG being everywhere at once, and so on. This recent Helm's Deep thing is just one in a long line of lore-breaks. We know those particular things I just mentioned could not have happened because Tolkien was very specific about them. These are the directly contradicting ones.
In this case, we know that Tolkien specified the warriors at the Hornburg as being our beloved Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn, fighting alongside roughly 3,000 Rohirrim. 1,000 were of King Théoden's own cavalry, ~1,000 were infantry already garrisoned at Helm's Deep, and ~1,000 were of Rohirrim army troops that were rallied by Erkenbrand and Gandalf, after they had been scattered during Isengard's taking of the Isen Crossing. None of those three groups would be able to contain an Elf, Hobbit, Dwarf, or any man from outside Rohan. And the only way a (male) player character from Rohan would be able to participate would be by somehow joining Théoden's cavalry, because they cannot be part of the latter two groups for obvious reasons. A disguise would be a possibility, but Dwarves and Hobbits would not get away with that.
It's a case of Filling Gaps vs Direct Contradiction.(*)


I'm assuming most people play this game for the story, since the game itself is mediocre at best (when compared to other MMORPGs, the combat system is poor, the graphics are 'meh' and the PvP system is probably the worst I've ever encountered). When you throw the story out the window, the above is all that you're left with and this is what the game has already become: mediocre.
But it doesn't have to be. They could go for following lore and bring in the storyphiles, or they could try spending money and making a quality game in terms of gameplay itself. OR even both. But currently both gameplay and lore are severely lacking when compared to the competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sthrax

Would that not be just as lore-breaking? Most objections to HD come from the fact that JRR didn't explicitly state that outsiders other than Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli fought there. By that same logic, he also didn't explicitly state that outsiders helped secure the other end of Helm's Deep. In fact, I don't think he mentioned any forces securing the other end at all. That is the problem with falling back on that very narrow lore argument- everything that our characters do and have done breaks lore, and everything Turbine could have us do breaks lore, because we were not part of JRR's manuscript.

---

Incorrect, see above. There's a difference between filling gaps and going specifically against what Tolkien wrote. We know who the warriors at the Hornburg were. We did not know if any warriors at the other side of Helm's Deep were present to secure the cave exits. So we can fight there because it isn't mentioned, but we can not fight at the Hornburg because it's mentioned we are NOT there (only Men of Rohan). The former would be creating new material where none exists, the latter would be contradicting existing material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Because it would be awesome, that's why.

---

That is an opinion, and I do not share it.

Quote:

---

We spend SO MUCH time not tagging along right behind the fellowship, they need to make the most of the intersections we do have.Part of the attraction of the game is those times when our story touches theirs;

---

I agree, but only to the extent that it follows Tolkien's story. We can meet them before, we can meet them after, we can meet them at Edoras, we can meet them at Dunharrow. But we can NOT meet them in the Paths of the Dead or at the Hornburg, because we know who went to those locations; and we weren't them.

Quote:

---

ironically, Helm's Deep is one of those places where it's easier to touch the story of the fellowship, since it's so chaotic and cast-of-thousands.

---

Thousands of Rohirrim. If you're a (male) Rohirrim, go ahead and fight. If you're female Rohirrim, a Man from somewhere else, or and Elf, you maaay get away with it if you disguise yourself well. If you're a Dwarf or Hobbit, you're out of luck.

Quote:

---

Things like the float down the Anduin and Moria and so on are much harder because they are so clearly alone and strangers would be too remarkable. And that's why I'm genuinely croggled that people are up in arms over this.

---

People are up in arms over this because it breaks lore. There were no lore breaks by meeting the fellowship in Moria or floating down the Anduin. Because we never did, even in this game.
You can't compare an actual lore-break vs an imaginary lore-break that never occured and act surprised that people complain about the actual lore-break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalladi

Then I'll make it even simpler for you.

Would you rather;

• Have 10% of the playerbase happy?
  Or
• Have 75% of the playerbase happy?

You can take a nab at what those two different percentages refer to (player-wise).

---

And yet 87% of the playerbase expressed joy with the Session Play mechanic three years after it had been introduced. Have those numbers changed in recent years? Now you.

What's that? You want my source?
Oh I'm sorry I thought we were playing the Make-Up-Statistics-As-We-Go-Along-In-An-Attempt-To-Make-A-Point Game. Guess the joke's on me.






(*) Please note that filling gaps and creating new material that doesn't contradict Tolkien's writings doesn't mean "anything goes". In order to sustain a sense of belief, there has to be a certain connected logic to the newly created material and the world in which it is set. Which is why I am against laser guns, giant goat mounts, space ships and house-sized, immortal turtles in LOTRO. Nothing about them makes sense in the context of Tolkien's Middle-earth.

Hey guys, I think that everyone should calm down. We are debating about The Lord of The Rings, but for some it looks like they are debating about the Bible...

If you are so concerned about breaking the lore, then simply do not play: as Sapience has mentioned, you broke it the moment you stepped into Middle Earth. Instead of whining, spend the same energy to have fun on the game, and I am sure we will with HD. Let's be constructive. We are not talking about an instance where Darth Vader will appear, just of a battle where our character will be there despite not being explicitly mentioned in Tolkien's books. So let's relax :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalladi

Then I'll make it even simpler for you.

Would you rather;

• Have 10% of the playerbase happy?
  Or
• Have 75% of the playerbase happy?

You can take a nab at what those two different percentages refer to (player-wise).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sthrax

Because huge swathes of the playerbase hate session play. That is why the session play ranger interludes for the latest epic book were optional. Turbine had tons of complaints about session play in the prior epic books.

---

The "statistics" are unprovable. We know that there are people who hate session play because a small number of people on the Forums have said so.

We don't know how many people who *don't* post on the Forums liked, disliked, or just shrugged their shoulders and moved on over session play.

So far as I can tell, the reason why the session plays (which were pretty good, but with one really "out of the blue" unexplained point) were optional is because they were actually unrelated to Vol. III Book 10 altogether. They were a kind of "meanwhile, back at the ranch..." sort of thing. Not doing them would have no effect on understanding the story line of III.10.

I'll grant that there would have been more unhappy people if they couldn't take their characters to Helm's Deep. I submit that the ones that would be really upset about it would probably be no more numerous than those who dislike what is being done, so long as they were given something else to do with enough combat in it together with some activities that tied in the story of the battle (session plays, cut scenes, etc.). After all, the hot and heavy raiding commenters on the Forums have been whinging all over THIS Forum for the last two months about the ABSOLUTE NEED to have an instance cluster with raids--more and better raids--and how an expansion isn't a REAL expansion without the inclusion of an instance cluster with raids.

Nowhere has there been much fuss over whether or not the Battle of the Hornburg just HAD to be the raids in question. Suppose instead (to create an example) a classic raid were built around Second Isen instead? Would that be an adequate substitute for letting PCs into the Hornburg for the battle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

If you don't want to engage with my critique of the lore, that's fine, but don't set yourself up as some kind of arbiter of what is and is not "true to the lore." It's what's acceptable to you. I find your vision of the lore depressingly narrow, and I wish you would stop smearing it through every thread where it's even remotely germane.

---

Would you prefer that I make my points in threads where it *isn't* germane?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tourquoise

Hey guys, I think that everyone should calm down. We are debating about The Lord of The Rings, but for some it looks like they are debating about the Bible...

---

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL at dismissing a debate about a work of fiction by offering as example another work of fiction.
The first one is MUCH better written btw.

PS: You don´t like my message? do you think it demeans your religion? well then I submit a simple solution: do NOT bring your religion into these forums.

As for the Lore debate... I tend to side with the "you broke it as soon as you entered Middle Earth" crowd. I LOVE the books, but I really don´t mind that much. If Turbine can create an enjoyable experience that keeps LOTRO motoring till we get to the very end, I´m happy with a few lore breaks (including giant goats! but that´s for another thread ahem).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Did you see what I said before about the lore-within-the-lore? The historicity of the Red Book itself?

The "lore" itself, within its own construction, is a memoir of sorts, assembled out of the remembrances of some of the people who experienced it, long after it was over. According to the text, Legolas did not run around fighting wood trolls in the Trollshaws. But, it also doesn't say that he didn't. It doesn't say that there were any other adventurers abroad, just that the fellowship didn't encounter any that they could recall years later AND that the author felt were significant enough to include in the Red Book.

This is not the same as categorically stating that these things did not happen. There's very little that Tolkien categorically stated did not happen, and it's actually very reasonable to infer that where he made sweeping generalizations in the text, the author of the Red Book may have been ignoring a sea of details in order to paint a broad picture. There is room in the text for all of this.

Tolkien worked in legend and fable. By their nature these things present a world that is very simple, almost impressionistic. It is not meant to be a detailed, "realistic" detail of every bit of working of Middle Earth, if it existed as a real place. Treating it that way, I would argue, is just as disrespectful to the text as having a hobbit juggling chainsaws on the top of Barad-dur.

---

This is simply using historicity as an excuse for trying to jam hugely unlikely things into the story by brute force, while forgetting what sort of fantasy it is natively (hint: it's not sword-and-sorcery like the game is, with these 'adventurers' turning up out of the blue all the time and joining battles). If there were any more outlandish (literally) people at Helm's Deep, people would have noticed. They'd have stuck out like a sore thumb amongst the Rohirrim defenders. It's as simple as that. And besides, you'd have to make an excuse for why these outlandish folk didn't stop by to say hello to Aragorn & Co., who they know and have even fought alongside before. So where are they supposed to be, hiding at the back for no good reason?

The story itself has no room for this, because it would have had some obvious consequences. Changing the story is another matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Which would be true, if we did. But we take more from Tolkien's letters, UT and HoME, because people kept asking Tolkien about these things, so he clarified them where needed;
Filling gaps is good, but conflicting directly with what the author and creator of the world said and wrote down is not.

---

Here's another fun irony. The letters, UT, and HoME are actually technically off-limits to Turbine. If Tolkien clarified anything in them, that is not stated explicitly in the text of LOTR and The Hobbit, I'm pretty sure they can't actually use it. I don't know how nitpicky it can get, but Christopher Tolkien has made sure to defend the bounds, as it were, of the intellectual property he inherited from his father rather vigorously. I'm not saying he created a toon in LOTRO to police it himself, but I'm sure Turbine is well aware of how ornery he can get if they step off of the SZC reservation.

That said, you can also get into a lovely theory of story. And that is that, once you release it into the wild, in some sense it's no longer yours. I know that when I first read LOTR (admittedly between the first and second movies--I was always more sci-fi than fantasy), I was fascinated by the gaps in the story, the glimpsed but unseen places, the history unexplained. And imagining what might have filled those gaps made the story mine, and it's one of the things I love to do when rereading the books, I love to peer again into those gaps. But, with the game, I also love to explore the way the artists and writers at Turbine have chosen to fill those gaps, I love to understand how other people engaged with the story. The only thing that really gets up my nose is when people insist that there are no gaps, and when they set themselves up as the arbiters of "too much." Again, we all have lines, but it's not really anyone's place, as consumers, to get up and say, "Here and no further! You shall not p-- enjoy this thing, because I do not find this thing enjoyable!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

BUT the ugly side of "creative license" shows itself when making things that go directly against what Tolkien wrote. Examples are the Iron Garisson, Rune-keepers, the Golden Host, Draigoch, Lieutenant of DG being everywhere at once, and so on. This recent Helm's Deep thing is just one in a long line of lore-breaks. We know those particular things I just mentioned could not have happened because Tolkien was very specific about them.

---

Tolkien was not specific (within LOTR) about the Iron Garrison, Rune-Keepers, the Golden Host, Draigoch, or the specific and precise whereabouts of the Lieutenant of DG throughout the events of LOTR. He wasn't. I've read the books. That stuff is definitely "in the gaps" stuff. And, to be very precise, given how Tolkien sets up LOTR as the Red Book, written by Bilbo, Frodo, etc. and passed down, and collected recollections after the fact, he was also saying very clearly that this is not a complete and exhaustive record of everything that happened, or even everything that happened to these people. That uncertainty, that remove of the narrative from the events is itself part of the lore. Even if "absence of mention is mention of absence" were not a screaming logical fallacy, and it so, SO is, the way the story is constructed is both very clear and very fuzzy. There are very concrete details about the immediate surroundings and immediate experiences of the fellowship themselves, but as soon as you attempt to look around them, everything is slightly fuzzy and out of focus, and details drop off the further you get away from them.

(As an aside, sometime, you should go watch the BBC series Wallander. They actually literalize this as a technique of cinematography. There are a number of scenes where the characters will be in very sharp focus, but the surroundings, even to, say, the chair next to them, is actually out of focus. This is a deliberate technique, and a fascinating literalization of memory.)

As the details drop off, so does the reliability of the chronicler to be authoritative about the areas beyond the focus of the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

In this case, we know that Tolkien specified the warriors at the Hornburg as being our beloved Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn, fighting alongside roughly 3,000 Rohirrim. exactly 1,000 were of King Théoden's own cavalry, ~1,000 were infantry already garrisoned at Helm's Deep, and ~1,000 were of Rohirrim army troops that were rallied by Erkenbrand and Gandalf, after they had been scattered during Isengard's taking of the Isen Crossing. None of those three groups would be able to contain an Elf, Hobbit, Dwarf, or any man from outside Rohan. And the only way a (male) player character from Rohan would be able to participate would be by somehow joining Théoden's cavalry, because they cannot be part of the latter two groups for obvious reasons. A disguise would be a possibility, but Dwarves and Hobbits would not get away with that.

---

But that argument rests on the notion that because he didn't mention any others, that there could not have been. Yes, there is some sense of this in commenting on how remarkable Legolas and Gimli are to them, but again you have to think of how even in the context of LOTR as presented that remarkableness is filtered through recollection, in a story specifically meant to highlight the remarkable heroism of these particular people. I'm not trying to do the "Gandalf was really a jerk, but portrayed as a hero" thing, but just because Legolas was awesome, doesn't mean that Begolas wasn't running around being awesome somewhere in the same zip code. You didn't hear about Begolas because it wasn't his story. But there's room, so much room!, for all these other stories.

And that's not to say that even within what's there and what's reasonable for them to believe is "actually" what happened, and it's not to say that "in the gap" is some unlimited license to invent whatever. (We've answered why the eagles didn't just fly Frodo to Mount Doom in the beginning! They were schlepping our butts around, ah-ha! It fits!)

What it is saying is: everyone's threshold is different and no one has been appointed by Eru as the arbiter of the threshold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

I'm assuming most people play this game for the story, since the game itself is mediocre at best (when compared to other MMORPGs, the combat system is poor, the graphics are 'meh' and the PvP system is probably the worst I've ever encountered). When you throw the story out the window, the above is all that you're left with and this is what the game has already become: mediocre.
But it doesn't have to be. They could go for following lore and bring in the storyphiles, or they could try spending money and making a quality game in terms of gameplay itself. OR even both. But currently both gameplay and lore are severely lacking when compared to the competition.

---

I'm assuming that's a poor assumption. In fact, the only thing I'm willing to assume is that anyone who assumes anything about a diverse playerbase is almost certainly wrong beyond a very general level of commonality. I enjoy the story as presented and I think it's very well done. You can have your own idea of what would be better, but I'm content for the moment to follow along with Turbine's collective creative vision. I don't think I'm alone. I also think I enjoy the gameplay well enough, and I've tried other MMOs that have been released since, and found them lacking, and not just in the presentation of their IP. There's something I find compelling beyond the ability to visit places mentioned in the books and seeing polygonal representations of the heroes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whheydt

Would you prefer that I make my points in threads where it *isn't* germane?

---

I'd prefer you take it as granted that Turbine is well aware of your opinion, and could probably predict your opinion for any particular element of the game going forward with a high degree of reliability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

This is simply using historicity as an excuse for trying to jam hugely unlikely things into the story by brute force, while forgetting what sort of fantasy it is natively (hint: it's not sword-and-sorcery like the game is, with these 'adventurers' turning up out of the blue all the time and joining battles). If there were any more outlandish (literally) people at Helm's Deep, people would have noticed. They'd have stuck out like a sore thumb amongst the Rohirrim defenders. It's as simple as that. And besides, you'd have to make an excuse for why these outlandish folk didn't stop by to say hello to Aragorn & Co., who they know and have even fought alongside before. So where are they supposed to be, hiding at the back for no good reason?

The story itself has no room for this, because it would have had some obvious consequences. Changing the story is another matter.

---

Your definition of "hugely unlikely" is... strange. Until you see how Turbine chooses to integrate our characters into the fight, it's premature at best to opine on how much they would have "stuck out like sore thumbs," or otherwise been remarkable enough to have made it into the account of the Red Book.

Further, it's somewhat silly to talk about "what sort of fantasy it is natively" as if to suggest that some arcane assignment of a fantasy subgenre dictates what could or could not happen in its world, given that Tolkien predates the parceling of fantasy into subgenres, as well as predating most of fantasy as a genre altogether. If you want to take it on its face, it's no kind of fantasy at all, but legend, and one of the defining aspects of legend is to redraw as larger-than-life the formative events of an earlier age. The redrawing itself obliterates much of the historical representation of the "actuality" of the events. (True fact: many considered Troy itself to be a fictitious place because it was the setting of the clearly-fictitious Iliad, and were surprised when someone went out and actually dug up what seems to be historical Troy in the place described in the Iliad. This does not, however, mean Achilles was actually the almost-invulnerable son of a no-kidding Greek god.)

But, let's keep saying it: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This isn't a blank check, but please be more creative than this particular (fallacious) train of thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Further, it's somewhat silly to talk about "what sort of fantasy it is natively" as if to suggest that some arcane assignment of a fantasy subgenre dictates what could or could not happen in its world, given that Tolkien predates the parceling of fantasy into subgenres, as well as predating most of fantasy as a genre altogether. If you want to take it on its face, it's no kind of fantasy at all, but legend, and one of the defining aspects of legend is to redraw as larger-than-life the formative events of an earlier age.

---

It makes many of the points being dealt with into a meta-discussion. It's an old SF fannish discussion technique. Discuss what could or could not occur in a particular piece of fiction by assuming that the work is factual and historically real. It even gets back into fiction itself. Poul Anderson wrote some fiction based on the idea that everything Shakespeare wrote was factual, such as "Bohemia has a coastline". One can also use the techniques to cross two or more different fictional "universes", such as, what would happen if you dropped the (OS) NCC Enterprise into the Lensman universe? (Spock winds up with a Lens and Kirk does not, for instance.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Your definition of "hugely unlikely" is... strange. Until you see how Turbine chooses to integrate our characters into the fight, it's premature at best to opine on how much they would have "stuck out like sore thumbs," or otherwise been remarkable enough to have made it into the account of the Red Book.

---

What, because Dwarves and hobbits wouldn't stand out among all those big, strapping Northmen types who live in Rohan? And I seem to remember that the player-characters are supposed to be heroes (super-heroes, really, given the plot of the game) but you're now trying to imply that at this one battle they're going to do so little of note that nobody will even notice them.

To call this unconvincing would be putting it mildly.

Quote:

---

Further, it's somewhat silly to talk about "what sort of fantasy it is natively" as if to suggest that some arcane assignment of a fantasy subgenre dictates what could or could not happen in its world, given that Tolkien predates the parceling of fantasy into subgenres, as well as predating most of fantasy as a genre altogether.

---

The sort of OTT heroic fantasy the game engages in actually predates LOTR and even The Hobbit, it's got far more in common with 'pulp' fantasy written by the likes of Robert E. Howard. The trope of the solo hero overcoming all obstacles is notably lacking in LOTR, in case you hadn't noticed. Likewise the casual flinging about of magic.

Quote:

---

If you want to take it on its face, it's no kind of fantasy at all, but legend, and one of the defining aspects of legend is to redraw as larger-than-life the formative events of an earlier age.

---

It's constructed legend, which is a type of fantasy.

Quote:

---

But, let's keep saying it: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This isn't a blank check, but please be more creative than this particular (fallacious) train of thought.

---

You've not shown it to be fallacious, and the only creative thing I'm seeing from you is in the manufacture of one excuse after another. Take what you said earlier:

Quote:

---

Tolkien was not specific (within LOTR) about the Iron Garrison, Rune-Keepers, the Golden Host, Draigoch, or the specific and precise whereabouts of the Lieutenant of DG throughout the events of LOTR. He wasn't. I've read the books. That stuff is definitely "in the gaps" stuff.

---

Not even close: those things cannot be said to simply fill gaps in the story because it is beyond credibility that they could have happened and not had consequences, nor passed unnoticed. Diverting resources away from Erebor when it was about to be attacked by Sauron? That would have had consequences. We know the Galadhrim did NOT attack Dol Guldur until after Sauron's fall, because there's a clear if very brief account of what happened in LOTR itself so that one is a straightforward (and significant) change. RKs are simply not credible (even if the idea behind them was even self-consistent, which it isn't, much less consistent with Tolkien's take on magic) because their existence could hardly have passed unnoticed for thousands of years, yet accounts of Dwarves in battle simply (and only, and always) have them going all medieval on the foe, not using any sort of magic (other than that in their weapons and armour). Draigoch? What, everyone just forgot to mention a dragon, of all things? People do tend to remember dragons, you know. And the people who kill them. Stuff of legend and all that. (Especially when they're so far off the beaten track for dragons, too). Real filling-in of gaps would be relatively low-key derring-do that might feasibly pass unnoticed among the general mayhem, not all this massively OTT epic stuff that Turbine are so fond of because it's exactly the sort of thing that people would tell stories about.

You can't have continual epic goings-on and then try to pretend everyone forgets everything about them every single time. They're changes to the story, not things that fit neatly into gaps. There's nothing wrong with such changes in principle but to try to pretend they're not changes is disingenuous at best. And that's before I point out what should be the obvious fact that the player-characters couldn't 'really' have been involved in all those events because there simply wouldn't be enough time to do all the travelling that would be involved, at Middle-earth's true scale. The game's story is a fudge, which should make it even more obvious that you shouldn't try to treat it as something that dovetails neatly with the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

Really? So you've played since April 2007 and yet have only managed to compile one 85 character?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

Lol, trying to discredit what is being said by trolling who's saying it isn't going to work on me. I stick to the subject at hand.

---

uh, ok.

I don't understand the arguments about lore, but I do respect those that do when it's not delivered with arrogance. I do have a serious question for those that know and strive to adhere to the lore. I have read the entire thread but did not see this answered, though I could have missed it.

There were many 'nameless' there at HD, what's the issue with our character being one of the nameless?

Heh, Radhruin does bring up a point in his posts of this thread (and likely elsewhere) that I find particularly interesting. Turbine have, over the past six years, frequently been able to put us, the players, into places explicitly described in the book. Without, I submit, breaking the lore. Simply because we were less note-worthy than the Fellowship and other key players like Elrond or Galadriel. In other words, since the narrator is focused on the fellowship, as Dave Among Us rightly points out, we have the luxury of being a bit more anonymous, in SPITE of the fact that we are ourselves the cat's meow in our own ways. But HERE is the interesting point: the more the storytellers (devs, etc) of Turbine make us into super cool cats, the harder it is for them to keep using that anonymity...there DOES come a point, as Radhruin brings out, where it becomes unrealistic for us not to have been mentioned. Talk about being foist on your own petard, eh Turbine! I find this amusing. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ericpae1

uh, ok.

I don't understand the arguments about lore, but I do respect those that do when it's not delivered with arrogance. I do have a serious question for those that know and strive to adhere to the lore. I have read the entire thread but did not see this answered, though I could have missed it.

There were many 'nameless' there at HD, what's the issue with our character being one of the nameless?

---

Because player-characters are consistently portrayed as mighty heroes, people of note - not nameless people nobody notices.

Because the nameless masses aren't the ones who do the epic deeds and save the day. (If Joe Average does do something notably heroic, he makes a name for himself right then and there).

Because hobbits, Dwarves and Elves wouldn't blend in terribly well among all those Rohirrim. (And nor would anyone with the sort of fancy gear that player-characters have)

Because the player-characters are supposed to know Aragorn & Co. personally and wouldn't just ignore them or stand at the back so nobody saw them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Because player-characters are consistently portrayed as mighty heroes, people of note - not nameless people nobody notices.

Because the nameless masses aren't the ones who do the epic deeds and save the day. (If Joe Average does do something notably heroic, he makes a name for himself right then and there).

Because hobbits, Dwarves and Elves wouldn't blend in terribly well among all those Rohirrim. (And nor would anyone with the sort of fancy gear that player-characters have)

Because the player-characters are supposed to know Aragorn & Co. personally and wouldn't just ignore them or stand at the back so nobody saw them.

---

Thanks for the response, appreciated. I understand and can see your point on all your examples, but there is one that sticks for me most. The fact that they know us and wouldn't ignore us when noticed. It is a huge battle and much is on their minds, but if they recognized our character and remembered our heroics they would want us in a key position, if not with them.

just my thoughts on it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Because player-characters are consistently portrayed as mighty heroes, people of note - not nameless people nobody notices.

Because the nameless masses aren't the ones who do the epic deeds and save the day. (If Joe Average does do something notably heroic, he makes a name for himself right then and there).

Because hobbits, Dwarves and Elves wouldn't blend in terribly well among all those Rohirrim. (And nor would anyone with the sort of fancy gear that player-characters have)

Because the player-characters are supposed to know Aragorn & Co. personally and wouldn't just ignore them or stand at the back so nobody saw them.

---

You make four good points. One and two halves of which I agree with to some extent. ;)

(1) Yes, but the world can be filled with people of note, who nonetheless go about their lives without fanfire. In my military career, I'm known some real heroes, I mean honest to god super cool cats who did wondrous things. To run into many of them on the street, you might think they were lawn guys or insurance adjustors (who can also be cool people, don't get me wrong). Don't think all books can be judged by their covers.

(2) Agreed. We are extraordinary. I can live with that. I think the lore can too, even if I end up at Helm's Deep. This is the one I fully agree with.

(3) Here's one I only half-agree with. Yes, elves and dwarves are uncommon in Rohan. But not necessarily lore-breakingly so. Not going to belabor the host of points made over two threads and the past three days, please feel free to refer to the rest of this thread and the 20 questions one if you haven't already followed our debates on this particular point. As for our gear being super-cool and shiny, I don't know about you but some of my toons tend to wear subdued clothing that blends into the terrain, and the others have very high quality armour that is nevertheless plain and unadorned. None of them is garishly dressed or outfitted.

(4) The other that I half-agree with. No one says we're ignoring Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, or them us. All that is required for the lore not to be broken is that the narrator of the tale not relate to the reader how we ran into each other and talked, slapped each other on the back, high fived, shared skins of wine, whatever. After all , why would the narrator mention every single social interaction the fellowship members had with others? He was focused mainly on them, not those around them.

I do respect your perspective, even if I don't agree with the other two and two-halves of it. Thanks for your post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Because player-characters are consistently portrayed as mighty heroes, people of note - not nameless people nobody notices.

Because the nameless masses aren't the ones who do the epic deeds and save the day. (If Joe Average does do something notably heroic, he makes a name for himself right then and there).

Because hobbits, Dwarves and Elves wouldn't blend in terribly well among all those Rohirrim. (And nor would anyone with the sort of fancy gear that player-characters have)

Because the player-characters are supposed to know Aragorn & Co. personally and wouldn't just ignore them or stand at the back so nobody saw them.

---

Your statements are just plain absurd.

Just because we may be "Mighty Heroes" doesn't mean everyone in Middle-Earth has any clue as to what we have done. The majority of our accomplishments are known only to a few people, perhaps a few dozen? How would anyone in Rohan let alone in West Rohan know of our feats assisting the Fellowship in Vol I or of the trials and tribulations of Amarthiel. A few Dwarves and Elves in Moria and Lothlorien may know of what we did in Moria and less during the diversion that was the Mirkwood campaign. Then there was the secrecy of the Dunland fiascoes and our low key assistance in Rohan.

Ill agree about Hobbits, but Dwarves didn't start to diminish from Middle-Earth until the 4th age after the reclaiming of Khazad-Dum. It wasn't uncommon for Dwarves to have trading caravans all over the place. And as for Elves. I'm pretty sure one or more elves in a throng of 1000+ men wouldn't be sticking out like a bright lighthouse beacon.

As for your last statement. Who says we would even run across them before, during, or after the battle. It's not like they would have these bright beams of light pulsing over their heads and loud horns blaring "Hey Look at Me I'm Special!"

You know, if you really wanted the game (and it is a game) to be completely lore-compliant, then the only characters we should have to choose from are those from the Fellowship itself and all of the quests should be only things that are recorded in the book. It would be like one giant session play. Personally I think that would be rather boring. I know full well that there are things in the game that aren't found in the book, but after all it is a game. I think they've done wonderfully in creating Middle Earth and keeping as true to the book as possible, but who's to say that the things that aren't recorded in the book didn't happen and just didn't get mentioned? ;) Lots had to be going on while the Fellowship was off doing their thing. If you're getting so very upset that things aren't just so, maybe you should re-evaluate why you're playing. Play to have fun. It's a game. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by genseerian

You know, if you really wanted the game (and it is a game) to be completely lore-compliant, then the only characters we should have to choose from are those from the Fellowship itself and all of the quests should be only things that are recorded in the book. It would be like one giant session play. Personally I think that would be rather boring. I know full well that there are things in the game that aren't found in the book, but after all it is a game. I think they've done wonderfully in creating Middle Earth and keeping as true to the book as possible, but who's to say that the things that aren't recorded in the book didn't happen and just didn't get mentioned? ;) Lots had to be going on while the Fellowship was off doing their thing. If you're getting so very upset that things aren't just so, maybe you should re-evaluate why you're playing. Play to have fun. It's a game. :)

---

Yeah, lotro is after all an MMORPG. The whole point of a MMORPG is to make your own unique character. Definitely can't have a bunch of Aragorns or Legolases running around on a single server. The only way to play Aragorn or Legolas is to play an offline RPG based on LotR, not a massively multi-player RPG.

For me, Lore bending is alright, so far as its handled delicately. So far I`ve found Dave`s interpretations to work within the context. I use to think for example that the Golden Host attacking Dol Guldur was absurd, but when you read the story, it makes more sense. I will give a few examples that others have listed and give my own interpretations based off what the in game story has told:

Siege of Mirkwood - According to the main story, Mirkwood doesn`t have its full force gathered, with Mordor reinforcing it shortly. Therefore, Celeborn`s goal is to cripple Dol Guldur`s garrisons and forces already in the forest enough so that it`ll take more time before Lothlorien is attacked. They all know this will happen regardless, but they just want to hinder Sauron`s forces. Then you have the side purpose, of distracting Dol Guldur from searching for the Ring, since its passing right down the river close at hand. Then you have the third goal of the epic with the Hidden Guard. One of my favorite parts is when one of the NPC`s in Thanguilhad mentions how the main Golden Host will keep the enemy busy, while a small kinship have already infiltrated the tower (aka Barad Guldur raid), and how you`ll strike from the underground passage. Once this is all done, the story is suppose to end with you helping the Golden Host finish off any last tasks before they depart. Sadly, since zones are locked in time, we don`t get to see this process, though its implied.

Draigoch - Draigoch from the brief stories about him is a dragon that some of the Dunlendings have worshipped for who knows how long. Supposedly he could even be the cause for their clan name, the Draigh-luth (or Dragon Clan). Since Tolkien gives no history on the Dunlendings, besides when they were removed from Gondor, and their few campaigns against Rohan. So perhaps there was a Dragon that only the Dunlendings knew about. And since none of the other races of Man seem to know about their culture, it could be squeaked in that one was under the radar. Not even the Wise like Gandalf and Elrond knew everything (Tolkien makes a note in one of his works that only Gandalf ever bothered to learn about Halflings). So since our characters actually learn some Dunlending culture, we learn about Draigoch, and take care of him accordingly.

I could also try to explain more about such ideas as the Iron Garrison or other locations that Tolkien doesn`t list. The overall point is that Turbine to me has done a very good job setting tones in their vision of the Lore that could possibly have existed, but just were never written about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angadan

(1) Yes, but the world can be filled with people of note, who nonetheless go about their lives without fanfire. In my military career, I'm known some real heroes, I mean honest to god super cool cats who did wondrous things. To run into many of them on the street, you might think they were lawn guys or insurance adjustors (who can also be cool people, don't get me wrong). Don't think all books can be judged by their covers.

---

Sorry, but that hardly applies that given the fuss the game makes about the player-characters. It doesn't make them out to be quiet, unassuming heroes - there's all that Hero of Eriador business, remember? Hero with a capital 'H', the comic-book variety.

Quote:

---

(2) Agreed. We are extraordinary. I can live with that. I think the lore can too, even if I end up at Helm's Deep. This is the one I fully agree with.

---

Well no, lore can't really live with that because extraordinary heroes do great deeds, get noticed and get tales told about them. That's rather than point of the thread.

Quote:

---

(3) Here's one I only half-agree with. Yes, elves and dwarves are uncommon in Rohan. But not necessarily lore-breakingly so. Not going to belabor the host of points made over two threads and the past three days, please feel free to refer to the rest of this thread and the 20 questions one if you haven't already followed our debates on this particular point. As for our gear being super-cool and shiny, I don't know about you but some of my toons tend to wear subdued clothing that blends into the terrain, and the others have very high quality armour that is nevertheless plain and unadorned. None of them is garishly dressed or outfitted.

---

Remember that player-characters are toting legendary weapons and other items made by Dwarves or Elves - that stuff is all worlds away from the mundane gear the Rohirrim had. They'd stand out. Also try to remember that the Rohirrim didn't pal around with Elves (they didn't know them, and were superstitious about them) or Dwarves (who they didn't like very much) and would be very surprised to see them turning up at Helm's Deep. Unless the Dwarf just happened to be there to try to sell them something, which would be more typical behaviour.

Quote:

---

(4) The other that I half-agree with. No one says we're ignoring Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, or them us. All that is required for the lore not to be broken is that the narrator of the tale not relate to the reader how we ran into each other and talked, slapped each other on the back, high fived, shared skins of wine, whatever. After all , why would the narrator mention every single social interaction the fellowship members had with others? He was focused mainly on them, not those around them.

---

Oh, sure, the narrator has to conveniently fail to mention that this Hero-with-a-capital-H turned up, fought alongside Aragorn & Co. and did mighty deeds. The only way not to be noticed would be to not do any mighty deeds, which would rather obviate the point of being there, yes? Given the way the game has puffed up the player-characters, you don't get to pretend they're nobodies - and it's just not on at all if they're Dwarves, Elves or hobbits because they'd attract immediate attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Remember that player-characters are toting legendary weapons and other items made by Dwarves or Elves - that stuff is all worlds away from the mundane gear the Rohirrim had. They'd stand out. Also try to remember that the Rohirrim didn't pal around with Elves (they didn't know them, and were superstitious about them) or Dwarves (who they didn't like very much) and would be very surprised to see them turning up at Helm's Deep. Unless the Dwarf just happened to be there to try to sell them something, which would be more typical behaviour.

---

Maybe the Rohirrim should just go out and kill a few orcs. They'll get a boatload of 3rd Age 'Legendary' items that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryvick

our low key assistance in Rohan

---

Low key? What about that business of ending up as Thane of Thingummybob, then? :p

Quote:

---

Ill agree about Hobbits, but Dwarves didn't start to diminish from Middle-Earth until the 4th age after the reclaiming of Khazad-Dum. It wasn't uncommon for Dwarves to have trading caravans all over the place. And as for Elves. I'm pretty sure one or more elves in a throng of 1000+ men wouldn't be sticking out like a bright lighthouse beacon.

---

They'd notice, They'd talk, because an Elf would stand out among them (unless disguised, but why on earth would they try to hide their presence given that Legolas is there?). So unless you imagine a player-character would do absolutely nothing to draw attention (i.e. no heroic deeds, no saving the day, no interaction with major characters at all) then they could hardly escape notice. The Men of Rohan weren't at all used to having Elves among them. (Or having Dwarves fighting alongside them, for that matter).

Quote:

---

As for your last statement. Who says we would even run across them before, during, or after the battle. It's not like they would have these bright beams of light pulsing over their heads and loud horns blaring "Hey Look at Me I'm Special!"

---

Because Helm's Deep wasn't all that big, and because they were with Theoden King who you most certainly would notice. And because your character damn well knows them, and has fought alongside them, and has no reason whatsoever not to do the same again. And above all, no reason to be acting all coy all of a sudden and trying not to be noticed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Here's another fun irony. The letters, UT, and HoME are actually technically off-limits to Turbine. If Tolkien clarified anything in them, that is not stated explicitly in the text of LOTR and The Hobbit, I'm pretty sure they can't actually use it.

---

Oh but they can, and they already have (like Fingolfin being mentioned in the game). They just can't use certain things by name when they are only mentioned outside LOTR (and possibly The Hobbit, since WB owns that now too). They have to remain vague about it.
However, this does not mean they have to contradict Tolkien's other writings. They could go along with it, but for whatever reason they choose not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Tolkien was not specific (within LOTR) about the Iron Garrison, Rune-Keepers, the Golden Host, Draigoch, or the specific and precise whereabouts of the Lieutenant of DG throughout the events of LOTR. He wasn't. I've read the books.

---

Except for the Golden host part, you are correct (their non-existence is in Return of the King). But try not to forget that Lord of the Rings is only a small fragment of a very long history, and Tolkien wrote much more. Both history books as well as more novels. It is unfortunate that WB only posseses a fragment of the story, but again, they could have chosen to make material that does not contradict the author. But they did.

Quote:

---

And, to be very precise, given how Tolkien sets up LOTR as the Red Book, written by Bilbo, Frodo, etc. and passed down, and collected recollections after the fact, he was also saying very clearly that this is not a complete and exhaustive record of everything that happened, or even everything that happened to these people.

---

Correct, which is why he has other works, in which some of the gaps are filled or more details are given. Turbine chose to create materials that contradicts those filled gaps.

Quote:

---

That uncertainty, that remove of the narrative from the events is itself part of the lore.

---

In the cases where there is, certainly. But in the cases I mentioned, there isn't. Tolkien filled them.

Quote:

---

Even if "absence of mention is mention of absence" were not a screaming logical fallacy, and it so, SO is,

---

I agree. Which is why I'm baffled that you would argue for it. You claim that because something isn't in LOTR, it therefor doesn't exist here and shouldn't concern Turbine because of license?
Oh dear me and lawks.

Quote:

---

But that argument rests on the notion that because he didn't mention any others, that there could not have been. Yes, there is some sense of this in commenting on how remarkable Legolas and Gimli are to them, but again you have to think of how even in the context of LOTR as presented that remarkableness is filtered through recollection, in a story specifically meant to highlight the remarkable heroism of these particular people. I'm not trying to do the "Gandalf was really a jerk, but portrayed as a hero" thing, but just because Legolas was awesome, doesn't mean that Begolas wasn't running around being awesome somewhere in the same zip code. You didn't hear about Begolas because it wasn't his story. But there's room, so much room!, for all these other stories.

---

When you're an omnipotent creator-god of a world and mention a specific point in history and space, then proceed to list the characters present, it can be assumed you do it pretty accurately. It's pretty hard to believe you "forgot" the 12 characters that were the most notable among them and did the most work. Yes, it's we with the different races present, it's we with the First Age glowing weaponry, it's we with the heterogeneous and sometimes ridiculous looking armour, and judging by the preview of the battle: it's once again we who defend the walls, repair things and kill the baddies while the Rohan NPCs will be milling around like headless chickens.
And you really think an omnipotent spectator would fail to mention that, when mentioning so many details?

Quote:

---

What it is saying is: everyone's threshold is different and no one has been appointed by Eru as the arbiter of the threshold.

---

Indeed. But it's no use pretending that Tolkien didn't write this stuff down. You can plug your ears and go la-la-la-la-la all day, he still wrote it. When he says something about his own created world, we can take it to be correct and true. When Turbine directly contradicts it, you can expect people to be up in arms about it, again and again as we have seen in the past 6 years.

Quote:

---

I'm assuming that's a poor assumption. In fact, the only thing I'm willing to assume is that anyone who assumes anything about a diverse playerbase is almost certainly wrong beyond a very general level of commonality. I enjoy the story as presented and I think it's very well done. You can have your own idea of what would be better, but I'm content for the moment to follow along with Turbine's collective creative vision. I don't think I'm alone. I also think I enjoy the gameplay well enough, and I've tried other MMOs that have been released since, and found them lacking, and not just in the presentation of their IP. There's something I find compelling beyond the ability to visit places mentioned in the books and seeing polygonal representations of the heroes.

---

I did not say everyone plays this game for the story. I said I think most people do. Just like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Why? What is wrong with being told about it?
And by that I mean, why *must* our character be present at every single event that ever happens during WOTR, even to the point when it regularly conflicts with the timeline and breaks spatial physics by being in several places at once?

---

You forget that the battle of Helms Deep was one of the most defining moments in the war of the ring. winning that battle is even more important than defeating Khamûl and Mordirith. I'd hate to participate in Helms Deep through session plays. all this lore fuss, all they do is allowing your character to participate in the fight. He's already saved/helped a large part of Rohan, not to mention the giant in Wildermore. Of course your character is going to be in the most defining battle Rohan has ever fought. Or do you intend to skip the battle of Minas Tirith and the black gate aswell? Why should they even bother making a castle like helms deep if we're not going to interact with it?

If all this fuss about the timeline was true we wouldn't have the time to leave Eriador at all.

Regarding session play.

Turbine have created a new game technology they call Big Battles. It is the new end-game content and for now there are going to be no raids or instances associated with the next release.

Even if most players quite like the odd one-off session play your can sure as heck bet they wouldn't want to park their toon and spend the next 6 months playing a generic rohirrim. No way. It would be commercial suicide.

As an aside - please people - stop using the term 'lore monkeys' - it is insulting. Address the arguments, don't name call.

It's a lore break. There were not dozens of superheroes at the battle.

But most of us don't care. Just like most of us accept that to make an appealing MMO lore has had to be heavily compromised all the way through. As lore breaks go this one is pretty minor. The unbelievable spectrum of bad guys and our superhero powers when facing them permeate the whole game as one giant lore-break. Gandalf himself wouldn't be invited into a t2 raid for heaven's sake.

Turbine have had to walk a commercial tightrope and I have no doubt that if they made this battle session play or had us off elsewhere while it all went down then there would have been an enormous, bad publicity outcry.

Instead they are getting great publicity, even from critics like me, for what sounds like a great new gameplay development. I yield to few when it comes to respect for JRR and the world he created. I've read the trilogy and the Silmarillion many more times than a grown man should. But standing with King Theoden, Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn and the people of Rohan at the Hornburg, in the face of overwhelming odds is one of those moments i've been looking forward to.

I'm sure I speak for many when I say that I would have been crushingly disappointed to not have my character there. Now I just hope the Big Battle system is at least 60% as great as they are cracking it up to be.

I can understand why people who value lore might not like this but I think you are in the minority. You have the option of not taking your elf, hobbit or dwarves there. Or your rune-keepers, minstrels and lore-masters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witch0King

You forget that the battle of Helms Deep was one of the most defining moments in the war of the ring. winning that battle is even more important than defeating Khamûl and Mordirith. I'd hate to participate in Helms Deep through session plays. all this lore fuss, all they do is allowing your character to participate in the fight. He's already saved/helped a large part of Rohan, not to mention the giant in Wildermore. Of course your character is going to be in the most defining battle Rohan has ever fought. Or do you intend to skip the battle of Minas Tirith and the black gate aswell? Why should they even bother making a castle like helms deep if we're not going to interact with it?

---

The difference is that we could participate at the latter two battles because the participating warriors are much less specified. We could already be in the city. We could come with Aragorn via the river. We could even pledge our swords to Denethor and become part of a garisson.
Point is, there is no defining reason for us not to participate in them, unlike in the Hornburg battle.

Quote:

---

If all this fuss about the timeline was true we wouldn't have the time to leave Eriador at all.

---

Why's that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Oh, sure, the narrator has to conveniently fail to mention that this Hero-with-a-capital-H turned up, fought alongside Aragorn & Co. and did mighty deeds. The only way not to be noticed would be to not do any mighty deeds, which would rather obviate the point of being there, yes? Given the way the game has puffed up the player-characters, you don't get to pretend they're nobodies - and it's just not on at all if they're Dwarves, Elves or hobbits because they'd attract immediate attention.

---

Well, the narrator obviously forgot to mention about the hero that -during the war of the ring and the chase of Sauron's Ring- killed 2 dragons (one of them ressurected by a vicious wight and a Nazgul which you also killed), killed thousands of Orcs, helped Aragorn reforge his blade by killing a huge turtle in Evendim, killed the Witch King and a few of the other 9, killed dozens of giants, and humongous spiders (possibly spawns of Ungoliant), and helped hundreds of people by doing thousands of quests in Middle-Earth.
Tolkien failed to mention all those deeds (most among them being mighty). Therefore corroding the very core of your game. But not mine.
For some reason you won't accept this. Instead you will only go mad at Dwarves battling among Rohirrim at Helm's Deep (after of course they aided hundreds of them and becoming more known among them).

Is it so far fetched for somebody that helped a whole country to be fighting among those people in their time of need?
No. Not at all. In fact it's most logical to do so. And to even be asked by the king to help.

Is it Lore Bending?
Yes, in the sense that it doesn't explicitly being said that no such claim was made in the Two Towers book or elsewhere.

Is it Lore Breaking?
No, it doesn't ruin the whole Lore. At least for me. Lore breaking would be if Manwe would suddenly create a tornado and sweep the 10.000 Uruks among the battle.


There's a big difference between Lore-Bending and Lore-Breaking. Thanks for throwing the term by the way (at whoever did it). I wasn't aware of it.
The term Lore-Breaking includes the Lore-Bending term. But it is not the same with the latter. They don't overlap.
When you fought dragons and killed drakes in Angmar, just because a dwarf in Gabilsthatur (??? does it really exist?) told you so, it's lore-bending and lore-expanding.

Fighting as your character in the battle of Helm's Deep, is the most logical thing i'd expect in a MMORPG that has to do with LOTR.
Would i like to session play as Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas (or even -i have to laugh- Haldir)?
No, why should i? It's been done several times in many Single Player Games.

Would i like to session play or even group instance as a Rohir?
Heck no. I created my character from scratch only to participate with HIM in the big Battles of the Third Age.
Being there as a Rohir, would ruin the whole advancement i made and the whole purpose of me playing (my purpose and i believe many others' too, not yours).
In fact playing as a Rohir would create one big gap. Those that only had a Rune Keeper...well what were they supposed to do?
Play and learn a whole new class to satisfy the whims of -as i witness here- the vocal few?
Not a good idea at all.


Even if somebody considers this a lore-breaking i have to say this :
You've had many Lore-Bendings and Lore-Breakings, along the way. Maybe playing as a hobbit in Helm's Deep is Lore-Breaking, but that must be the last time this can happen. And i totally forgive Turbine and of course i understand their decision (not just because i like it).

One more thing. Defending the women and children in the caves is not "Lore-Breaking" and fighting Uruks outside is?
Why's that? There was stated (and it was your argument) that other races (dwarves, elves, hobbits) didn't even set foot inside the fort.
What place do they have in there protecting the children?
What exactly where they supposed to do at this instance? Look at each other maybe, since Tolkien didn't mention that there were any Uruks that broke into the caves.
And if there were supposed to be Hobbits, Dwarves and Elves there protecting them, why isn't it ok for them to wear their armour and repel the Uruks?
Isn't there were they're most needed if they're able warriors? It's far more logical even though "Lore-Breaking".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Correct, which is why he has other works, in which some of the gaps are filled or more details are given. Turbine chose to create materials that contradicts those filled gaps.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

When he says something about his own created world, we can take it to be correct and true.

---

Finally. So there is something in his other works that "fills the gaps" on that specific topic? Not Angmar, Iron Garrison or Mirkwood or other distractions - Helm's Deep, as in: defenders, numbers, races, places, order of battle.

It would be so nice to see something else than pieces of Two Towers. So... any specifics? Preferably something that does not need additional interpretation. Also - let's exclude any third-party books if they are based on TT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

When you're an omnipotent creator-god of a world and mention a specific point in history and space, then proceed to list the characters present, it can be assumed you do it pretty accurately.

---

True. But "omnipotent creator-god" works only for letters, interviews and other means of speaking about M-E without 4th wall present. Since Tolkien decided his books were written by "someone else" - and it's author's prerogative, not subject to interpretation - they no longer can be treated in the same manner. If he said books were what Bombadil wrote after "mistakenly" eating too many strange mushrooms, it would have the same effect: readers would have to deal with it or invent their own lore. Treating Red Book (and, to some extent, elements of appendices etc) as a set of imperfect accounts is the former - insisting they provide the exact and the most important details of what happened (or "omnilore") - the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

It's pretty hard to believe you "forgot" the 12 characters that were the most notable among them and did the most work. (...) And you really think an omnipotent spectator would fail to mention that, when mentioning so many details?

---

Forgetting is not the only possible reason. As for failing to mention "important bits", they can simply be not important enough in the eyes of narrator(s), who have simple goal (not only in HD): talk about Fellowship members and add PoV of royalty, which was something you could hardly exclude. We certainly know any Rohirrim warriors that distinguished themselves that day, did something extraordinary that would've been additionally inflated by the moment (so: in the eyes of those who saw it) and the meaning battle had for the country (so: later on, with the information being gathered for "songs"), were not "interesting". Hama died, that's about it. That speaks volumes about credibility of narrator(s) as "omniscient". Which is not even necessary, as they don't get that badge on principle: because Tolkien decided who the narrators were and that alone makes them flawed, limited and biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferthcott

Forgetting is not the only possible reason. As for failing to mention "important bits", they can simply be not important enough in the eyes of narrator(s), who have simple goal (not only in HD): talk about Fellowship members and add PoV of royalty, which was something you could hardly exclude. We certainly know any Rohirrim warriors that distinguished themselves that day, did something extraordinary that would've been additionally inflated by the moment (so: in the eyes of those who saw it) and the meaning battle had for the country (so: later on, with the information being gathered for "songs"), were not "interesting". Hama died, that's about it. That speaks volumes about credibility of narrator(s) as "omniscient". Which is not even necessary, as they don't get that badge on principle: because Tolkien decided who the narrators were and that alone makes them flawed, limited and biased.

---

From what I remember at the very end of the battle there were very few left alive to ride out with Theoden. If there were a dozen 'mightier than the Maia' types among them I'm sure they'd have got a mention.

It's a giant and completely necessary lore break.

I just accept this is an alternate Middle Earth to the one JRR writes about and go with the flow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Why's that?

---

Because we would still be riding back and forth between Laerdann and Golodir...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kongas

From what I remember at the very end of the battle there were very few left alive to ride out with Theoden. If there were a dozen 'mightier than the Maia' types among them I'm sure they'd have got a mention.

It's a giant and completely necessary lore break.

I just accept this is an alternate Middle Earth to the one JRR writes about and go with the flow.

---

Why are our characters mightier than the Maia? When did we best a Maia (solo or even in a raid)? As far as i know, Balrogs didn't belong in Maia.
I haven't yet fought the last chapter of the Tower of Orthanc raid, as i think this is what you're reffering to. But do we really beat Saruman with only 12 people and not the help of anyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent_Price

Why are our characters mightier than the Maia? When did we best a Maia (solo or even in a raid)? As far as i know, Balrogs didn't belong in Maia.
I haven't yet fought the last chapter of the Tower of Orthanc raid, as i think this is what you're reffering to. But do we really beat Saruman with only 12 people and not the help of anyone else?

---

Compared to Legolas and Aragorn we're unbelievable. We're superheroes among these mere mortals. We slay dragons, we slay trolls by the bucket load. We shoot lightning from our fingers, we wield awesome weapons and are festooned with magical jewellery, we face down Saruman and slay super-dragons, demons and balrogs (with the help of our Super-Friends), we slay more uruk-hai than it took to take down Bormir while AFK making coffee. We are super-awesome. We're not 'some guy' that slip people's memories.

Half a dozen of us, so long as we had a Warden a Minstrel and a Hunter with crit chaining rain of arrows in the team, could have held the hornburg on its own from Saruman's pathetic bunch of orcs probably. If we're not Maia w're the next best thing.

My point is it's no use twisting and bending lore to say we might have been there, sitting inconspicuously in the corner somewhere. We're about as inconspicuous as Liberace headlining Vegas.

We're in a Middle Earth where orcs and uruk-hai barely cut it as cannon-fodder. Sauron's forces are chocked full of stuff, from trolls to demons that barely get a mention anywhere in Tolkein and the super-heroes swarming all over the place are the forces for good's equivalent.

None of it fits lore so I'm not going to get in the slightest bit upset with being in Helms Deep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Did you see what I said before about the lore-within-the-lore? The historicity of the Red Book itself?

The "lore" itself, within its own construction, is a memoir of sorts, assembled out of the remembrances of some of the people who experienced it, long after it was over. According to the text, Legolas did not run around fighting wood trolls in the Trollshaws. But, it also doesn't say that he didn't. It doesn't say that there were any other adventurers abroad, just that the fellowship didn't encounter any that they could recall years later AND that the author felt were significant enough to include in the Red Book.

This is not the same as categorically stating that these things did not happen. There's very little that Tolkien categorically stated did not happen, and it's actually very reasonable to infer that where he made sweeping generalizations in the text, the author of the Red Book may have been ignoring a sea of details in order to paint a broad picture. There is room in the text for all of this.

Tolkien worked in legend and fable. By their nature these things present a world that is very simple, almost impressionistic. It is not meant to be a detailed, "realistic" detail of every bit of working of Middle Earth, if it existed as a real place. Treating it that way, I would argue, is just as disrespectful to the text as having a hobbit juggling chainsaws on the top of Barad-dur.

---

This is a key point that some folks just aren't comfortable with. I've seen no definitive quotations of Tolkien that would bar Turbine from placing us at the battle.

Now if Turbine were doing something with the War of the Last Alliance you'd have them dealing with something like this: "All living things were divided in that day, and some of every kind, even of birds and beasts, were found in either host, save the Elves only. They alone were undivided and followed GIl-Galad. Of the Dwarves few fought upon either side; but the kindred of Durin of Moria fought against Sauron." (Silmarillion, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age) Clearly, they could not depict some renegade elves fighting for Sauron.

The problem we run into is we love Tolkien's work and have strong impressions of what things were like and how things were in his world and when something goes against that, we recoil. We Tolkien loves like our Lore untainted. Peter Jackson and Turbine are Orcs trodding in the clean waters of the Nimrodel with their foul feet! In order for their ventures to be successful, they had to piss off a few puritans.

It's pretty easy for me to say 'There should not be any other elves or hobbits or dwarves at Helm's Deep'. It's not possible for me to say 'There were not.' Therein lies the wiggle room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kongas

From what I remember at the very end of the battle there were very few left alive to ride out with Theoden.

---

If by "ride out" you mean that charge, then there's no number present in TT, it's merely a common sense that a number of them died during the battle. If you mean "ride to Isengard", then he simply "chose Éomer and twenty men of his household". Now that at least looks as a proper challenge - we seem to be unable to get a ride to Isengard to gloat, way more detailed description than that of the battle is directly in the way. Unless... we will simply go on our own, killing 12 boars and burning 10 corpses on the way, and meet them there. Huh, some challenge... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kongas

If there were a dozen 'mightier than the Maia' types among them I'm sure they'd have got a mention.

---

DM: You are standing on the wall, looking at thousands of angry orcs and hillmen. They are storming the gate, carrying ladders, shooting arrows, waving swords and corpsejumping those who were not fast enough to flee. You are tired, thirsty, scared, wounded, suffering from a slight sleep deprivation. Some of your friends are dead, there's no way out, they blow up the stones with some devilry from Saruman. Next wave is hitting the wall in seconds.

Warrior 1: I take a long look at the First Age weapons that dude to the right is carrying. Oh, come on, Desperate Flight Cooldown legacy? Are we supposed to fight with this noob?
Warrior 2: Nevermind his LIs. He's a frikkin elf. No one trust elves. Who even let him in here? Do we have no standards anymore?

DM: You are hopelessly outnumbered...

Warrior 2: Oh, please, this place has never been taken. I say we throw him out, or at least imprison. He could be an orc spy. Foreigners, they all look alike to me.

DM: He just completed Orc Slayer (Advanced).

Warrior 2: Psh, Saruman has a lot of orcs to sacrifice. It's a clever ruse.
Warrior 1: Oh, all right, all right, let him stay, it's not like he's going to pull aggro to us with that LI.
Warrior 3: But remember to fill a complaint with our union rep. Our jobs are supposed to be protected. They might as well start letting in dwarves too.
Warrior 2: Dwarves, lol. Keep your gold close and your ore closer. Weren't there some merchants around earlier anyway?
Warrior 3: Yes, but they were breaking a number of tax regulations and we told them to leave. Those orcs are 95lv, Dwarven Steel crafted pieces are ridiculous at this point anyway.
Warrior 2: Strange though, dwarves, elves, you'd think this was a fortress of Rohan. What is happening to our country... we clearly need a bigger wall. Or a fence.
Warrior 1: Strange times indeed. I'll let that hobbit know after we are done here. It's certainly important to pass on to later generations that there were some strange folk around.
Warrior 3: Oh, that Frodo guy? Yeah, I read his earlier works, kinda childish to my taste though. You sure about it?
Warrior 1: Nah, newb, that was Bilbo. Frodo is blogging about serious stuff. Though personally, I think he has a ghostwriter.

DM: *Ehm* Ladders have reached the wall, orcs started to climb.

Warrior 2: Oh, right. Anyone remembers what we were supposed to do?
Warrior 1: Man, how many times do I need to explain T2C to you. Wait for hobbit minstrel over there start singing. He will draw the aggro since we have no crazy dwarven tanks around and we will be clear to shoot some. If you are hurt wave to that elf of ours, he should do something using his progress bar thingy. No idea how he does it, but it works. Clearly an exploit.
Warrior 3: Hm, which leg piece should I use? This one has more Might. Also, anyone with Fear pots?
Warrior 1: Damn it, we are already in the instance, you should've sorted that out earlier. Now look at you, two hits and you'll go down like a... you'll be demoralized.
Warrior 2: Tsk. You are making us look bad in front of an elf. Wait, wait... there's something that I missed. What hobbit? Who let a hobbit in here too?
Warrior 1: Oh, chill, it's a solo instance, but they can bring two. I am sure they are serious about it and not trying to farm stuff in ezmode.
Warrior 2: Stop confusing me with mechanics. Why is he here? Wasn't one elf enough?
Warrior 3: Technically, he's a side character. Like you and me, just cooler. And with more cosmetics. And skills. Nevermind, our elf is the only one who is "seriously" here.
Warrior 2: But what about that one earlier, when those 6 killed a troll?
Warrior 3: No, no, you are looking at it wrong. Look closer at that elf.

DM: That orc arrow in your head is blocking the view.

Warrior 2: I use my Wound potion. So what about him?
Warrior 3: See that title engraved on his helmet? "Slayer of Mordisomething"? He's the only one with that title. Whoever gave him that quest, gave it only once. Whoever gathered those 6, they were his temporary sidekicks. You know, like you two and me.
Warrior 1: I'll remember that when you are stuck on a rock again.
Warrior 2: Or when you pull three more orcs for no reason.
Warrior 3: Hey, I just wanted that champion to stop wasting my time and AoE them all. Is that too much to ask? It was like he never even learned he has those skills.

DM: The first orc has reached the wall. For crying out loud, can I get some serious rp-ing in here for once? You'll worry about elves and hobbits after the battle. If you survive. If anyone writing down stories is even interested in your blabbering.

Warrior 1: All right guys, you heard the man, this small stuff should not be so important in a moment like this.

DM: Thank you. That orc has scored a critical hit and applied a nasty debuff. It's ticking down and will result in AoE stun if not removed.

Warrior 2: I use Wound potion, baby.

DM: You are still on cooldown.

Warrior 1: *Sigh* here we go again. Westemnet noobs...
Warrior 3: Just tell the elf he's lagging, always works.
Warrior 1: Elf has just went afk.
Warrior 3: Oh, right, multibox Platinum farm after all?

DM: Your friend dies from his wounds, terrible debuff is placed upon you and you feel irresistible urge to run around in terror, picking up every orc along the way.

Warrior 3: So... about those Fear pots?

Trying to figure out how several people who clearly all enjoy the lore of LotR can be coming to such vastly different conclusions about the lore-appropriateness of our showing up at the Battle of the Hornburg. Clearly Dave Among Us, myself, and a number of others think we fit nicely in without busting any seams, while Radhruin, W.W. Heydt, Bird of Hermes and others see our presence as a huge lore quandary. People have different opinions and perspectives, of course, but such strongly divergent views, well, there must be a reason for it. After re-reading several posts, I think maybe I have it at least partially figured out: Some buy the hype, others don't.

Practically from the day we get to Bree, but most certainly by the time we're into Volume I, Book 7, running around Angmar exacting vengeance and saving the day, we are told by very important people like Elrond and Gandalf that we are some really awesome cats. We are super-hot, smoking, and the only reason we aren't carrying the ring to Mordor ourselves is because we have more important places to be, we are that awesome! Yes, I'm poking fun at the game (and ourselves) a little with exaggeration, but you get my point. We are told through most of three large Volumes that we stand apart.

So some of us begin to believe the hype. At first, we just smile with pride that we're making a difference. After a while, we begin to feel a little annoyed at having to do anything that doesn't smack of epicness. What? No, I'm not going to pick that flower, don't you know who I AM? And by the time we slash our way through the Great River region and swing into Rohan, we're convinced that there is an aura of holy light around our beings, a tinkling sound like angel's bells ringing when we pass, and no lack of other noticeable clues that EVERYONE must see, pointing out how we are Really Cooler Than Them.

So how could we POSSIBLY show up at the Battle of the Hornburg and not immediately be noticed by all 2,000-4,000 good folk who are there? It is simply impossible to imagine that the narrator of the story failed to mention us, and PROMINENTLY I must note, even if he was focused on some other guys instead of us (it's even more galling that those other guys are our buds, who have the job that MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE HAD, I MEAN LOOK AT US!). Sorry, got carried away there. You see what I mean.

Heh, yes, I'm having a bit of fun at the expense of the people who think a little too much of their own characters' importance in the world. I don't mean it maliciously, you CAN point the finger at Turbine devs if you want, who do tend to pat us on the back a lot (as most good game designers will do, of course).

Could we be at Helm's Deep and fit within the lore? Absolutely. The other people there, they just don't understand how super cool we are, and that gives us the opportunity to fit right in. ;)

POST SCRIPT: There's a video out on the webs, I'm sure you could find it at YouTube or such, that began life as a psychological experiment. Some of you will have seen it in your professional lives, because business development/efficiency consultants tend to use it to make one of their key points. I think the video was made at Stanford or Berkeley, some place like that. It has a half-dozen college kids tossing two or three basketballs back and forth in a room. Lasts about two minutes. Before the video starts, you're told by the moderator that you should carefully count every time a basketball is tossed from one person to another. Your observational skills are being tested. Because there are 2 or 3 balls, it will be a bit challenging to notice every one, so watch closely. So the video starts, and you start counting. About the time you get to 10 or 15, a person in a huge gorilla suit walks into the side of the frame. He stands there a little while, then walks right through the middle of the people throwing the balls and stands on the other side a little while, then eventually wanders off screen at the opposite side. He was visible for over half of the 2-minute video. Here's the cool part: over half of the people who watch that video are so focused on counting ball tosses that they never see the gorilla, and are shocked to find out it was there. True story, go look it up.

How does that apply to our Lore Quandry? Just this way: the narrator of the story (either a hobbit with a quill pen in hand or a guy named Tolkien, depending on your preference) was probably too busy following the movements of his subjects, the Fellowship of the Ring, to notice even awesomesauce people like us showing up nearby from time to time. It's just human nature. It can be forgiven, and we can enjoy the opportunity it presents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angadan

People have different opinions and perspectives, of course, but such strongly divergent views, well, there must be a reason for it.

---

I'd start with what is being considered "lore" or "lore-breaking", on a semantic level, looking for private definitions and individual modifications. It's not a culprit every time, but often enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angadan

Heh, yes, I'm having a bit of fun at the expense of the people who think a little too much of their own characters' importance in the world. I don't mean it maliciously, you CAN point the finger at Turbine devs if you want, who do tend to pat us on the back a lot (as most good game designers will do, of course).

Could we be at Helm's Deep and fit within the lore? Absolutely. The other people there, they just don't understand how super cool we are, and that gives us the opportunity to fit right in. ;)

---

Hey I can one-shot trolls and my friends shoot lighting from their fingers and conjure giant trees to fight with them out of thin air. That pretty much qualifies as 'awesome' in my book. :-)

And in the game we are all but members of the fellowship, we're Gandalf's, Galadriel's and Elrond's Go-To guys. In the story we clearly are not 'ordinary'. And at the end, when Aragorn is 'praise himming' the hobbits I'm pretty sure there'll be a big shout-out cut scene for us.

Besides - I don't play games to be 'ordinary'. My alternate reality middle earth is full of extraordinary heroes and villains in a way the Middle Earth Prime as recounted by JRR isn't.

We're all in our own stories and I choose to go with the flow and have fun because when it comes to a choice of lore vs profit lore is going to lose out every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferthcott

I'd start with what is being considered "lore" or "lore-breaking", on a semantic level, looking for private definitions and individual modifications. It's not a culprit every time, but often enough.

---

Yes, you're absolutely right. Delved into that a bit in the 20 Questions thread (https://www.lotro.com/forums/showthr...Battles/page17). Look at post 409, that's probably along the lines of what you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kongas

Hey I can one-shot trolls and my friends shoot lighting from their fingers and conjure giant trees to fight with them out of thin air. That pretty much qualifies as 'awesome' in my book. :-) ... I don't play games to be 'ordinary'. My alternate reality middle earth is full of extraordinary heroes and villains in a way the Middle Earth Prime as recounted by JRR isn't.

---

Yes yes, you are really rocking, you are smoking hot! You've just validated my point in a way I could never do without you, thanks very much! Just keep in mind that even people who shoot lightning from their fingertips put their pants on one leg at a time. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferthcott

DM: You are standing on the wall, looking at thousands of angry orcs and hillmen. They are storming the gate, carrying ladders, shooting arrows, waving swords and corpsejumping those who were not fast enough to flee. You are tired, thirsty, scared, wounded, suffering from a slight sleep deprivation. Some of your friends are dead, there's no way out, they blow up the stones with some devilry from Saruman. Next wave is hitting the wall in seconds.

<etc>

---

:-)

(and a whole bunch of characters to get the post length)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angadan

Yes yes, you are really rocking, you are smoking hot! You've just validated my point in a way I could never do without you, thanks very much! Just keep in mind that even people who shoot lightning from their fingertips put their pants on one leg at a time. ;)

---

Magic Pants that grant a bonus against Ancient Evil I'll have you know.

EDITED To Add:

The advantage of my more laid back, having fun approach is I'm not going to have my fun ruined by getting bent out of shape each time Turbine trample Lore underfoot. Which is pretty much every time they do something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

What, because Dwarves and hobbits wouldn't stand out among all those big, strapping Northmen types who live in Rohan? And I seem to remember that the player-characters are supposed to be heroes (super-heroes, really, given the plot of the game) but you're now trying to imply that at this one battle they're going to do so little of note that nobody will even notice them.

---

I knew Marines who were 5'0" and 6'4". Put them in body armor, running and crouching and crawling, among a thousand other Marines? You could not pick out the differences very easily. Much less at night. Again, it remains to be seen how exactly our PCs are going to be integrated into the battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

The sort of OTT heroic fantasy the game engages in actually predates LOTR and even The Hobbit, it's got far more in common with 'pulp' fantasy written by the likes of Robert E. Howard. The trope of the solo hero overcoming all obstacles is notably lacking in LOTR, in case you hadn't noticed. Likewise the casual flinging about of magic.

---

I don't recall slaying any dragons single-handedly; nor, actually, doing much of anything single-handedly, as much of a soloer as I tend to need to be. In fact, at several points in the story recently, the NPCs have called out my character's defining strength as being able to get people to work together. They rarely (never?) praise my single-handed skill in battle.

Just out of curiosity, are you also one of the folks who complains about how so many of our quests are fetch-and-carry and literal and figurative fence-mending?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Not even close: those things cannot be said to simply fill gaps in the story because it is beyond credibility that they could have happened and not had consequences, nor passed unnoticed. Diverting resources away from Erebor when it was about to be attacked by Sauron? That would have had consequences. We know the Galadhrim did NOT attack Dol Guldur until after Sauron's fall, because there's a clear if very brief account of what happened in LOTR itself so that one is a straightforward (and significant) change. RKs are simply not credible (even if the idea behind them was even self-consistent, which it isn't, much less consistent with Tolkien's take on magic) because their existence could hardly have passed unnoticed for thousands of years, yet accounts of Dwarves in battle simply (and only, and always) have them going all medieval on the foe, not using any sort of magic (other than that in their weapons and armour). Draigoch? What, everyone just forgot to mention a dragon, of all things? People do tend to remember dragons, you know. And the people who kill them. Stuff of legend and all that. (Especially when they're so far off the beaten track for dragons, too). Real filling-in of gaps would be relatively low-key derring-do that might feasibly pass unnoticed among the general mayhem, not all this massively OTT epic stuff that Turbine are so fond of because it's exactly the sort of thing that people would tell stories about.

---

Diverting what resources from Erebor? The Iron Garrison came from Eriador side of Moria and entered through the Hollin Gate. I think they're explicitly said to have come from Ered Luin. Yes/no?

But, you want to get lore monkey? Let's get lore monkey. Now, in a narrative passage, it says that "after the Shadow passed, Celeborn came forth and led the host of Lorien over the Anduin in many boats." But then, in the timeline it says that on March 28, Celeborn crossed the Anduin and the destruction of Dol Guldur began. And by April 6, Celeborn and Tharanduil are meeting "in the midst of the forest." So, if you're correct, that's what... 8, 9 days to cross the river, fight through Southern Mirkwood, tear down Dul Guldur, and then walk halfway to the Lonely Mountain to take tea with Tharanduil? WOW. Mighty impressive. Or... again, invoking the conceit that every word of LOTR is written and compiled after the fact by explicitly named chroniclers, hobbits in fact who did not have personal knowledge of what went on there and were only hearing it, very likely, third-hand... Celeborn sent counter-attacks into Mirkwood, beseiged Dol Guldur, and killed or drove off some top leaders of the orcs there prior to final victory. Celeborn has not crossed the Anduin himself yet, and Dol Guldur has not been destroyed yet. You see it, at best, as splitting hairs, I see it as a neat and elegant way to slide some fun action into the uncertainty and gaps.

Tolkien didn't really, himself, have a consistent "take on magic." I find RKs to be fairly credible. The visual effects might be a tad over the top, but I think that there is power in words and runes, beyond simple communication, is a fairly significant theme through LOTR. And here's the thing about Tolkien's accounts of battle: they're often fairly vague. Rather vague, in fact. You can only get from him the basic nature of the battle, very few of the actual specifics. So, here's a challenge, if you want to be a lore monkey about what happened in Tolkien's battles: show me mention of a crossbow. (Then you can go on to greater heights and you can show mention of recurve bows, longbows, and for your crowning achievement, explicit mention of a trebuchet.) Then we can talk about how one thing or another might make such a spectacular difference in a battle so as to earn historical mention, and one or another be a significant leap in how we understand the level of technology available at the end of the 3rd Age. As a special bonus hint to what I'm getting at, I'll leave this here: Agincourt.

Within the lore itself, LOTR is written by the hobbits about their friends. If you can demonstrate how any member of the fellowship must have been aware of the existence AND defeat of Draigoch, I'll concede your point. But this is not 2013, and my character wasn't whipping out his iPhone so he could tweet: "0wnz0red Draigoch!! http://twitpic.com/blahblah" so my buddy Aragorn could reply "@daveamongus LOL! You go, bro!" You can't complain about the travel time restrictions, then lay out the expectation that medieval communication is so good that everyone knows everything of note that happens everywhere in Middle Earth as soon as it happens, no matter how few witness it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

You can't have continual epic goings-on and then try to pretend everyone forgets everything about them every single time. They're changes to the story, not things that fit neatly into gaps. There's nothing wrong with such changes in principle but to try to pretend they're not changes is disingenuous at best. And that's before I point out what should be the obvious fact that the player-characters couldn't 'really' have been involved in all those events because there simply wouldn't be enough time to do all the travelling that would be involved, at Middle-earth's true scale. The game's story is a fudge, which should make it even more obvious that you shouldn't try to treat it as something that dovetails neatly with the books.

---

Actually, as Sapience said, they're aware where they're bending the lore, so I don't think they're pretending anything. I'm taking the contrary position to yours because I find your view a depressingly narrow view of the lore.

But let me try another tack. This one's a little political, a little lit-crit, but... answer me this:

Other than the hobbits, can you name one character in LOTR who performs deeds of note who is not of royal lineage?

I can think of one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ericpae1

uh, ok.

---

What? I caught the dude in a very obvious lie and considered calling him to the carpet for it, but then passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Tone is an extremely subjective assessment, one that is honestly hard to take seriously as a critique of a sprawling MMO. LOTR itself varies widely in tone, and trying to compare the tone of a 60 year old novel with that of a 6 year old video game is specious, to say the least.

You also do a terrible job of sticking to the subject at hand. The subject is lore, and specifically perceived contradictions to who and what was where and when, not tone. Nice try, though.

---

I feel your desperation, friendo. I can empathize; wriggling on the hook that I've got you on must feel mighty uncomfortable. I can always tell when the discussion turns, and the debate partner I've been engaged with realizes in his subconscious that he lacks the intellectual superiority over me that he thought he had. When he says "oh, well it's art, it's all subjective anyway" all the while lacking the self awareness to realize the same could be said of his own position. That's when his posts start to troll instead, usually joined in by others who hold his apologist view-point and sees him losing. All the while the ever vigilant community team remains curiously oblivious.

Que Sera, Sera. It's not like I expected to win this debate anyway. Turbine is long past caring about the source material.

But maybe you can explain to me, or someone can someday, honestly, what makes an apologist an apologist. Do you feel that you "get" something if Turbine likes you? I've never understood the blind devotion, personally. Turbine doesn't even respect their most long termed customers who play every day and spend more money than anyone. Why would they care about you and why do you want them to? General questions at this point. I'd be interested in anyone's response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

(whole bunch of good stuff, ending with)
But let me try another tack. This one's a little political, a little lit-crit, but... answer me this:

Other than the hobbits, can you name one character in LOTR who performs deeds of note who is not of royal lineage?

I can think of one.

---

Wormtongue putting an end once and for all to Saruman! No, Farmer Maggot staring down a Black Rider! No, Tom Bombadil defeating a Barrow Wight prince as easily as you'd smoosh a fly! (oops, maybe he is royalty, who knows? lol) ... hmm, I'm going to have to go with ... Beregond denying his king to save his prince. :) Lol, sorry, I busted your point here I think, but it was just too tempting and fun to bypass. I agree with all else you said above it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Within the lore itself, LOTR is written by the hobbits about their friends. If you can demonstrate how any member of the fellowship must have been aware of the existence AND defeat of Draigoch, I'll concede your point. But this is not 2013, and my character wasn't whipping out his iPhone so he could tweet: "0wnz0red Draigoch!! http://twitpic.com/blahblah" so my buddy Aragorn could reply "@daveamongus LOL! You go, bro!" You can't complain about the travel time restrictions, then lay out the expectation that medieval communication is so good that everyone knows everything of note that happens everywhere in Middle Earth as soon as it happens, no matter how few witness it.

---

If you had a Minstrel in your party they'd have been singing the story the length and breadth of the land. Not instantly - but certainly when it's over and you're kicking back with the new King and your other friends in the Fellowship.

And probably a bird will have twittered it all to Radagast. ;-)

I'll get my coat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kongas

If you had a Minstrel in your party they'd have been singing the story the length and breadth of the land. Not instantly - but certainly when it's over and you're kicking back with the new King and your other friends in the Fellowship.

And probably a bird will have twittered it all to Radagast. ;-)

I'll get my coat.

---

You, sir, absolutely rock. I do love a person with a well-developed sense of humour. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferthcott

Finally. So there is something in his other works that "fills the gaps" on that specific topic? Not Angmar, Iron Garrison or Mirkwood or other distractions - Helm's Deep, as in: defenders, numbers, races, places, order of battle.

It would be so nice to see something else than pieces of Two Towers. So... any specifics? Preferably something that does not need additional interpretation. Also - let's exclude any third-party books if they are based on TT.

---

Yes. The Two Towers, Return of The King - Appendices, History of Middle-earth Volumes I and II - The Book of Unfinished Tales, and History of Middle-earth Volume 8 - The War of the Ring.

Quote:

---

True. But "omnipotent creator-god" works only for letters, interviews and other means of speaking about M-E without 4th wall present. Since Tolkien decided his books were written by "someone else" - and it's author's prerogative, not subject to interpretation - they no longer can be treated in the same manner. If he said books were what Bombadil wrote after "mistakenly" eating too many strange mushrooms, it would have the same effect: readers would have to deal with it or invent their own lore. Treating Red Book (and, to some extent, elements of appendices etc) as a set of imperfect accounts is the former - insisting they provide the exact and the most important details of what happened (or "omnilore") - the latter.

Forgetting is not the only possible reason. As for failing to mention "important bits", they can simply be not important enough in the eyes of narrator(s), who have simple goal (not only in HD): talk about Fellowship members and add PoV of royalty, which was something you could hardly exclude. We certainly know any Rohirrim warriors that distinguished themselves that day, did something extraordinary that would've been additionally inflated by the moment (so: in the eyes of those who saw it) and the meaning battle had for the country (so: later on, with the information being gathered for "songs"), were not "interesting". Hama died, that's about it. That speaks volumes about credibility of narrator(s) as "omniscient". Which is not even necessary, as they don't get that badge on principle: because Tolkien decided who the narrators were and that alone makes them flawed, limited and biased.

---

Correct. Which is why I rely more on his letters and HoMe instead in this particular case. But they only reaffirm what is already present in the Appendices and in The Two Towers, so in this case both sources confirm it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witch0King

Because we would still be riding back and forth between Laerdann and Golodir...

---

We are given several months to do this, time enough I'd say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent_Price

Why are our characters mightier than the Maia? When did we best a Maia (solo or even in a raid)? As far as i know, Balrogs didn't belong in Maia.
I haven't yet fought the last chapter of the Tower of Orthanc raid, as i think this is what you're reffering to. But do we really beat Saruman with only 12 people and not the help of anyone else?

---

Belryg, just like Sauron, were counted among Maiar. Whether or not they lost that title after joining Melkor is irrelevant, it didn't diminish their power or change their nature of existence.
Yes, we beat Saruman with only 12. Then we get a lame ending where he's so frightened he tries to knock us off Orthanc (which fails), and then the eagles take us away before we can finish him.
We also slay 2 dragons with little to no effort, we destroy a Balrog (and also a Balrog illusion), we defeat and/or scare off 3 Nazgûl (one ALL ON OUR OWN I might add), we defeat a wraith nearly equal to the Witch-king in power (four times over, that same wraith), we slaughter a few dozen 'lesser' Maiar, we kill wraiths on a regular basis, we can somehow banish hundreds of spirits by pointing a sword at them when others can not, we vanquish the Watcher in the Water, we kill the Gaunt Lords several times over during the story, we have to do the dirty work for a number of Maiar we encounter during our travels because they can't do it, we kill hundreds of Trolls and Giants, not to mention the several thousand orcs all on our own, we annihilate those monstrous, tentacled, Lovecraftian Nameless Horrors from the Void, etc.
We are beyond superheroes in this game, we're demi-gods. At the rate our power is going up, we'll be fighting Sauron in Barad-dûr and beating him in a 6-man instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Diverting what resources from Erebor? The Iron Garrison came from Eriador side of Moria and entered through the Hollin Gate. I think they're explicitly said to have come from Ered Luin. Yes/no?

---

No. They did indeed come from the West side, but only because they made a detour over the mountains to talk to Gloin (or Balin, I can't remember which of the two). They originally set out from the Iron Hills. Why they didn't just send some messengers over the Mountains is beyond me, but that's Turbine's writing for you.

Quote:

---

But, you want to get lore monkey? Let's get lore monkey. Now, in a narrative passage, it says that "after the Shadow passed, Celeborn came forth and led the host of Lorien over the Anduin in many boats." But then, in the timeline it says that on March 28, Celeborn crossed the Anduin and the destruction of Dol Guldur began. And by April 6, Celeborn and Tharanduil are meeting "in the midst of the forest." So, if you're correct, that's what... 8, 9 days to cross the river, fight through Southern Mirkwood, tear down Dul Guldur, and then walk halfway to the Lonely Mountain to take tea with Tharanduil? WOW. Mighty impressive.

---

Thranduil had also been fighting off Dol Guldur. It is far more likely they met at Dol Guldur, since the text goes on to describe how they then divided the surrounding forest.

Quote:

---

Tolkien didn't really, himself, have a consistent "take on magic." I find RKs to be fairly credible. The visual effects might be a tad over the top, but I think that there is power in words and runes, beyond simple communication, is a fairly significant theme through LOTR.

---

In runes, no. Runes are just a means of written communication. Runes can be used to convey/express/explain the meaning or the trigger for magic, but they themselves are by no means magical. If they were, any literate inhabitant of Middle-earth could use magic.
Power in words however is indeed debatable, because Sam uses words he does not understand to invoke great hope. That is however the exception in Tolkien's otherwise personal-nature based magic, hence being debatable. It is possible Eärendil and/or the Valar and/or Eru simply lent him the hope in a time of great need because they felt it was for the best. We simply don't know and that's the fun of the mystery.

Quote:

---

Within the lore itself

---

Quote:

---

, LOTR is written by the hobbits about their friends. If you can demonstrate how any member of the fellowship must have been aware of the existence AND defeat of Draigoch, I'll concede your point. But this is not 2013, and my character wasn't whipping out his iPhone so he could tweet: "0wnz0red Draigoch!! http://twitpic.com/blahblah" so my buddy Aragorn could reply "@daveamongus LOL! You go, bro!" You can't complain about the travel time restrictions, then lay out the expectation that medieval communication is so good that everyone knows everything of note that happens everywhere in Middle Earth as soon as it happens, no matter how few witness it.

---

Already explained twice now. The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings may have been written from the West's point of view, but many other novels and history books were not, nor were Tolkien's letters.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...4ws7LW_gldcN5w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

What? I caught the dude in a very obvious lie and considered calling him to the carpet for it, but then passed.

---

You're so magnanimous.

For what it's worth, I've been playing since... just before Moria dropped, and I only have on 85. Your assumptions are...telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

I feel your desperation, friendo. I can empathize; wriggling on the hook that I've got you on must feel mighty uncomfortable. I can always tell when the discussion turns, and the debate partner I've been engaged with realizes in his subconscious that he lacks the intellectual superiority over me that he thought he had. When he says "oh, well it's art, it's all subjective anyway" all the while lacking the self awareness to realize the same could be said of his own position. That's when his posts start to troll instead, usually joined in by others who hold his apologist view-point and sees him losing. All the while the ever vigilant community team remains curiously oblivious.

---

Oblivious is, I'm sure, the wrong word entirely. I don't think they're allowed to be oblivious of stuff that happens on the forums. Sitting on the sidelines, perhaps, but not oblivious.

And my response was very far from "it's all subjective anyway." Tone is very subjective. Textual analysis of the lore is rather less so. You declined to debate on the textual analysis level, so you took it to tone, changing the subject (then accusing me of changing the subject!), and flying right off into "full patronizing."

You're not nearly as clever as you think you are, and your rhetorical methods are about as subtle as an anvil dropped off a cliff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

Que Sera, Sera. It's not like I expected to win this debate anyway. Turbine is long past caring about the source material.

But maybe you can explain to me, or someone can someday, honestly, what makes an apologist an apologist. Do you feel that you "get" something if Turbine likes you? I've never understood the blind devotion, personally. Turbine doesn't even respect their most long termed customers who play every day and spend more money than anyone. Why would they care about you and why do you want them to? General questions at this point. I'd be interested in anyone's response.

---

Well, speaking for myself, it's actually out of empathy. Real empathy, not your sarcastic variety.

See, I empathize with people who work hard every day to create, to build, to offer something of value, and so I feel the "slings and arrows" of those who casually call them oblivious and uncaring. I also empathize with people who find genuine joy in a creation, be it derivative or original, adaptive or transformational, and again feel the sting of phrases like "blind devotion." It's hard to create, and it's hard to protect your personal joy, especially these days when everyone's opinion is flying at them from a thousand different directions. No matter what you make, no matter who you are, you don't have to look very hard to find someone calling you dumb, or lazy, or incompetent for creating this thing, or a sheep, or mindless consumer, or thoughtless, or lazy for finding joy in a particular creation. No one is immune from it, and I would guess very few have not felt that sting at some point or another in their lives.

That's not to say I think anything is above critique, or constructive criticism, or that anything gets a free pass. But what I have found is that there are few, very few who will wade into forums to defend things they love, be it their own creation or their personal joy, from those that seek only to tear it down, to defile it, to destroy it. I have enough criticisms over the game, even over its handling of the source material, but I have more than enough empathy to know that the people behind the game are attempting a difficult task, balancing the demands of a number of different "masters," be they explicit or implicit, and I'm sure they are only too acutely aware, as only creators can be, of the shortcomings of their work. And I know they do value feedback, as most honest creators do, but what they don't need, what no one actually needs, is to have their character attacked based solely on the jaundiced implications created in some anonymous commenter's mind.

You don't know me, son. You don't know where I feel blind devotion and where I grit my teeth and carry on despite misgivings. You don't know my character or purpose, my sense or my struggle, my intelligence or my ability. You don't know theirs either. And as much as I think they might like to remain oblivious to your words, to your disdain and scorn, to your pitiless dismissal of their best efforts, they can't, it's become virtually impossible.

Am I looking for a cookie?

No, no that's not why I do this. I do this because your words, to me, are like orcs in the Pelennor. Dirty, nasty, caring nothing for the effort or beauty of a thing's creation, for the joy of the people who choose to live in it and revel in it and find peace from the world there. And I want to defend it, because it's worth defending, because I want the people who build and create to find joy in my joy, to share in the wonder and peace and excitement that I find in what they make. I want them to know that their efforts are worth more than just a paycheck, and I want to let others know that it's okay to express their joy, too, to celebrate unafraid the things that they love, and not live in fear of the dark and pitiless words of anonymous commenters, lacking all true empathy, and their seemingly bottomless hatred for anything that they don't love themselves.

I'm doing this because I'm tired of mindless, destructive criticism. I'm doing this because I love this game, flaws and all, and I love the creators behind it for making it. I'm doing this because this game is my refuge, my Last Homely House, and I am sick to death of people calling me stupid for loving it, and I want to stop feeling like I need to be furtive in my love for it, out of fear of comments like yours, trying to make me feel bad for loving it, defending it, calling me an "apologist" as though that were a wholly negative term, an insult lobbed across like a challenge.

Challenge accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

We are given several months to do this, time enough I'd say.

---

Not even close. Someone cleverer than me, and very experienced with horses, worked out distances in ME and "minimum" and "average" travel times. Minimum assumes max travel speed is only sustained over a day or two at most, and even if you split the difference between the minimum and average, you still get stuff like 9 days (a third of a month!) just to get from Imladris to Bree. Never mind clear up into Angmar. Assuming no resistance or trouble on the road. See: http://www.theoriginalseries.com/traveltimes.htm

Resting on your particular "blindspots" with regards to the acceptable realism of the events of game and attacking others' is not very rigorous, intellectually. Understandable, but still, not actually cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

We are beyond superheroes in this game, we're demi-gods. At the rate our power is going up, we'll be fighting Sauron in Barad-dûr and beating him in a 6-man instance.

---

So, if we're demigods, what does that make Bard? Slew a dragon with a single, well-placed arrow. Slew Smaug. What's Eowyn? Or Merry? Merry brought the Witch-King to his knees with a single blow to the "leg" and Eowyn vanquished him with a single stab to the face. I don't know about your experiences, but it took a lot more work than that just to get a Nazgul to run away, and more than just me. Heck, Aragorn scares him off in the opening cut scene with a torch and some flaming thatch.

Your hyperbole, while amusing, does not serve your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Thranduil had also been fighting off Dol Guldur. It is far more likely they met at Dol Guldur, since the text goes on to describe how they then divided the surrounding forest.

---

Try again, lore monkey. They met "in the midst of the forest." I'm sure they would have said if they met at Dol Guldur. And they split ALL of Mirkwood, not just the southern bit. Tharanduil was way up in the northern bit, and only took the northern bit to the west of him, while Celeborn took the southern bit due east of him, and left the great swath in the middle to the Beornings and such.

So, again, did they cross the river, defeat the hordes, and start destroying Dol Guldur on the same day? Then journey up to meet with Tharanduil? How did that work, exactly? You have all the letters and such, lay some knowledge on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Already explained twice now. The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings may have been written from the West's point of view, but many other novels and history books were not, nor were Tolkien's letters.

---

In brief, I am playing Lord of the Rings Online, not Lord of the Rings and Letters and History of Middle Earth and All That Other Stuff Online. Just to be very, very clear.

Bard was clearly a pretty awesome shot to hit the single weak spot Frodo had told him about.

Merry had an dagger with enchantments deadly to the witch-king and Eowynn embodied the power of prophecy. I consider them all 'exceptional' people singled out and empowered to play the part laid out for them in the music of Illuvitar.

They're demi-gods, I tell ya! Just ask Demi Moore, she can clear this all up. We are AWSUM-sauce. :) EDIT: ok that was lame. sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angadan

They're demi-gods, I tell ya! Just ask Demi Moore, she can clear this all up. We are AWSUM-sauce. :) EDIT: ok that was lame. sorry.

---

Demi Moore should know a super-hero when she sees one, if 'sees' is the word I'm looking for here. She was married to John McClane for God's sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Yes. The Two Towers, Return of The King - Appendices, History of Middle-earth Volumes I and II - The Book of Unfinished Tales, and History of Middle-earth Volume 8 - The War of the Ring.

---

Perhaps my quick glance over appendices was too quick - but neither "The House of Eorl" nor "The Tale of Years" offers any significant amount of details that could decide the matter, the rest is focused on much different things (technically Appendices are also written by "someone else", though at least more competent than hobbits). As of Unfinished Tales, at least the part that treats about Third Age, I found a lot about Fords of Isen. And that's about it (interestingly enough, I am using two different sets of books, UT being a translation that does not, entirely, overlap with English version, so I admit you might have access to more material). It offers a decent amount of information when we are wondering what happened before the battle - but that's not a thing we were looking for, right?

Finally, Volume 8 contains earlier drafts of Helm's Deep. So... discarded, why would they matter? Even if they could show some intent, that intent can very well be considered discarded along with everything else. Then there's a commentary from Chris. He is neither the author nor has anything close to the "deity" level of authority over the matter, a priest at best. More, when compared with us, peasants, but still not enough to offer a definite statement. With that in mind, I didn't see any statement that could be valuable to the subject at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

Correct. Which is why I rely more on his letters and HoMe instead in this particular case. But they only reaffirm what is already present in the Appendices and in The Two Towers, so in this case both sources confirm it.

---

Again, HoMe contains earlier drafts and a commentary, so it can't "reaffirm" anything that matters (in some cases - even on the contrary) - and Chris is not John anyway. Appendices have little to say. Now letters... I have and went through Appendices and HoMe and, unsurprisingly, found nothing of value. Definitely not going to waste my time with letters, not to mention trying to get a hold of them. If you have a relevant piece, please provide it. After two out of three have failed to deliver, it looks more like you simply listed all good sources of information... but in general, not sources of a specific information on a specific topic. And I kinda deserve a small prize for reading through that tiresome mess HoMe is for someone not interested in linguistic exercises, even if only a small part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

You're so magnanimous.

For what it's worth, I've been playing since... just before Moria dropped, and I only have on 85. Your assumptions are...telling.

---

I will give you a dollar if you can tell me what my assumption is.

Quote:

---

Oblivious is, I'm sure, the wrong word entirely. I don't think they're allowed to be oblivious of stuff that happens on the forums. Sitting on the sidelines, perhaps, but not oblivious.

And my response was very far from "it's all subjective anyway." Tone is very subjective. Textual analysis of the lore is rather less so.

---

Lol. I wonder, do you believe what you're saying or do you just expect me to believe it?

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciated at least the kernel of truth in there, that basically you find anything you disagree with as offensive. I missed though why you find it disagreeable. But it may be because you've veered so far off topic to try and find a defense for your position, a position that ultimately boils down to "Hey turbine, here I am, look at me!" that I skimmed in boredom. If you decide to actually debate points, then I'll come back to you. Let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

We are given several months to do this, time enough I'd say.

---

Well some were blessed with steeds, other with ponys. not to mention the need of a 2nd breakfast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kongas

Bard was clearly a pretty awesome shot to hit the single weak spot.

---

He was more than awesome. "Normal" heroes, like ourselves, can only see "Immune" after using Bard's Arrow against much less than a dragon :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciated at least the kernel of truth in there, that basically you find anything you disagree with as offensive.

---

You should probably stop making this kind of thing up. It's not helping you make whatever point it is you are trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

So, if we're demigods, what does that make Bard? Slew a dragon with a single, well-placed arrow. Slew Smaug. What's Eowyn? Or Merry? Merry brought the Witch-King to his knees with a single blow to the "leg" and Eowyn vanquished him with a single stab to the face.

---

I'm not so sure it's the characters themselves that have exceptional powers (I mean, it's still just a regular arrow and a regular stab) but their fate that is exceptional. A lot of such events have always reminded me of the Iliad and its treatment of both prophecy/fate and aristeia: the "prophecy" of the Witch-King's death, Bard being helped by the thrush (especially seeing birds as messengers/avatars of Manwë in other works), the death of Theoden being another textbook example, etc.

Basically it's more of a narrative staple of western epic than something to take literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kongas

And in the game we are all but members of the fellowship, we're Gandalf's, Galadriel's and Elrond's Go-To guys. In the story we clearly are not 'ordinary'. And at the end, when Aragorn is 'praise himming' the hobbits I'm pretty sure there'll be a big shout-out cut scene for us.

---

Ever since this thread got started, the only possible completely lore-friendly narrative arc I could imagine was: you start as a regular Dale dude, and for a couple of years you eat, sleep and work until you're called to fight against the Easterlings and die from a stab wound on the battlefield. The end ~

Not sure that it would make for an entertaining game though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirnir

You should probably stop making this kind of thing up. It's not helping you make whatever point it is you are trying to make.

---

It works for politicians.

I started trying to figure out where all that exchange factored into the 'Helm's Deep Lore Break?' discussion but gave up. Normally this ends with the forum mod closing the thread. For me, whomever stops responding to the other first is the winner, because after having gone on this long, winning a 'point' doesn't stop the other from posting or conceding the point, and the points are so far away from the original topic that it's hard to give points to either. The advice given to Nixon about Vietnam was most appropos here: Declare victory and go home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taravith

I'm not so sure it's the characters themselves that have exceptional powers (I mean, it's still just a regular arrow and a regular stab) but their fate that is exceptional. A lot of such events have always reminded me of the Iliad and its treatment of both prophecy/fate and aristeia: the "prophecy" of the Witch-King's death, Bard being helped by the thrush (especially seeing birds as messengers/avatars of Manwë in other works), the death of Theoden being another textbook example, etc.

Basically it's more of a narrative staple of western epic than something to take literally.

---

And that, I think, is part of what I find so frustrating about the lore-lawyering, and part of what I've tried to get at; the text of LOTR is not intended to be, and never was intended to be, a "photorealistic" factual account, unambiguously and exhaustively correct in all particulars. I find reading history, in some ways, just as fascinating and exciting as reading an epic fantasy like this, because all I can see are the gaps, big and small, for fascinating, exciting stories. And while I don't expect everyone to share that particular joy, I find it really frustrating that others can't stand to let a person have that engagement, and have to draw arbitrary lines all over the place. It's maddening.

But yeah, I recognize that it's fate/prophecy/legend. To go back to the Troy analogy I made before, it's like the Achilles thing. If there was an Achilles, he was probably just a really good warrior, an ancient Macedonian Wyatt Earp who had somehow made it through battle after battle without a scratch, until some guy happened to defeat him outside of Troy by getting him in the eponymous tendon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirnir

You should probably stop making this kind of thing up. It's not helping you make whatever point it is you are trying to make.

---

What are you talking about? He said it:

Quote:

---

I do this because your words, to me, are like orcs in the Pelennor.

---

Look, obviously we're at this point now because you people have lost your argument. The objective now for you is to troll and flame to get this thread closed as quickly as possible. Nothing new there. I'm sure the powers that be will come to your collective rescue in due time. However, if you're going to continue to attack me because you can't impeach what I've had to say, then at least try not to make yourselves look bad in the process, would ya?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

What? I caught the dude in a very obvious lie

---

No you didn't, you just made an incorrect assumption based on my characters levels.

Back on topic.

Whilst us being at the Hornbug as Dwarves, Hobbits, Elves is probably unlikely if not obviously incorrect based on the text I still don't believe session play (or something like it) offers a better alternative, especially from an entertainment point of view. I think a stretch of the lore in this instance (and in some previous instances, dwarves in Moria for example) actually make for a better game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Runesi_EU

I think a stretch of the lore in this instance (and in some previous instances, dwarves in Moria for example) actually make for a better game.

---

No S$@%, that's why the root of this argument is pretty pointless. It appears some people don't want an MMORPG but prefer to have a guided virtual retelling of every word of the books in which this game is based on.

Want a true LotR experience? Go read the books.

Want a little bit more of a theatrical experience? Listen to the audiobook (Robert Inglis does a very nice job narrating).

Want to quickly get your Middle Earth fix for the day and relax? Watch the movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent_Price

Well, the narrator obviously forgot to mention about the hero that -during the war of the ring and the chase of Sauron's Ring- killed 2 dragons (one of them ressurected by a vicious wight and a Nazgul which you also killed), killed thousands of Orcs, helped Aragorn reforge his blade by killing a huge turtle in Evendim, killed the Witch King and a few of the other 9, killed dozens of giants, and humongous spiders (possibly spawns of Ungoliant), and helped hundreds of people by doing thousands of quests in Middle-Earth.
Tolkien failed to mention all those deeds (most among them being mighty). Therefore corroding the very core of your game. But not mine.
For some reason you won't accept this. Instead you will only go mad at Dwarves battling among Rohirrim at Helm's Deep (after of course they aided hundreds of them and becoming more known among them).

---

This is a fallacy. Oh no, you can't complain about {gameplay feature} unless you always complain about {all this other stuff} too! The fact that in the past, people (me included) have commented extensively on all that OTT stuff you mention seems to somehow get ignored. If we did talk about that as well, you'd probably be complaining about digging up old arguments instead. So no, I'm not going to play that sort of game. We're discussing one particular topic.

Besides which, mentioning all that OTT stuff reinforces the point that the typical player-character is portrayed as a super-hero and hence it's just not sensible for anyone to suggest that this paragon of valour is going to rock up to Helm's Deep, not do anything of note and not get noticed. The gameplay is bound to involve insanely overblown heroics just like it has before, since by now that's a well-established pattern.

Quote:

---

Is it so far fetched for somebody that helped a whole country to be fighting among those people in their time of need?
No. Not at all. In fact it's most logical to do so. And to even be asked by the king to help.

---

Is anyone saying it's far-fetched in itself? I don't think so. All that's being said is that the ensuing super-heroics are very likely going to end up being lore-breaking since no such heroics actually went on or they'd have been noticed, talked about, spun into tales. It'd all be a change to the books - again, nothing wrong with that in itself, there's only this inexplicable need some people have to pretend nothing's being changed to accommodate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

Really? So you've played since April 2007 and yet have only managed to compile one 85 character?

---

What's so weird about that? I have an account from December 2010 and I leveled my only character from 40 to 85 in the last 2 months...

Not all of use play the same time, some of us don't play in weeks and other people have fun just crafting/housing/exploring/etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

What's Eowyn? Or Merry? Merry brought the Witch-King to his knees with a single blow to the "leg" and Eowyn vanquished him with a single stab to the face.

---

That little incident is easily explainable by considering JRRTs pofessional life.

He's handing you a linguistic solution to a problem he set up.

Glorfindel, who has something of a gift for prophecy, stated that (similarly to the set up for MacBeth, in the play of the same name), 'Not by the hand of man' would the Witch-king be destroyed. Now, older languages, from which English is descended, made a distinction that English has lost.

"Man" in--say--Latin can be translated in two ways. Either it can mean a "man, but not a woman or child" OR a "man, not a non-human (animal)".

Tolkien killed the Witch-king by using a combination of two kinds of "not man", a woman and a Hobbit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cazthelm

What's so weird about that? I have an account from December 2010 and I leveled my only character from 40 to 85 in the last 2 months...

Not all of use play the same time, some of us don't play in weeks and other people have fun just crafting/housing/exploring/etc.

---

Nothing is weird about it. Dude said he was a gamer. I said as a gamer he is more likely to go from game to game where I won't. He said he's been here since 2007 and will be to the end. I looked at his stable of characters, saw 1 85 a couple 65's and some under. If he's been here that long it says most likely that he's prone to long breaks, ostensibly to play other games. Which is exactly what I said to him in the first place that he denied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

If he's been here that long it says most likely that he's prone to long breaks, ostensibly to play other games. Which is exactly what I said to him in the first place that he denied.

---

Not quite exactly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

I'm not a PC gamer. Unlike you, who will move on to other games very quickly, I will not. I will remain loyal to the IP (and thus "loyal" to Turbine so long as they have it) so that is my primary concern.

---

But I think we have de-railed this enough now so I am out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whheydt

That little incident is easily explainable by considering JRRTs pofessional life.

---

Sorry, I think you missed my point. I'm well aware of the way Tolkien used the prophecy and the gender of Eowyn and the stature of Merry to subvert reader expectations. Very elegant, and nicely done, but not something that's new to me.

My point was, in game, we can only ever kill things well below our notional level with what is effectively a single stab to the face, and I'm wondering what the level differential would have to be before I could one-shot Draigoch or the LT of Dol Guldur. Something far beyond what the level cap will likely ever be, I think. Whatever the writerly etymology of the defeat of the Witch King, in game-world terms, that still puts Eowyn and Merry, as they appear in Pelennor, way, WAY beyond the skill level of our characters. We might drive off a Nazgul, or defeat a Cargul, but it still takes significant coordination of a number of allies, not just us on our own. My argument is that hyperbolic treatment of our feats still doesn't actually put us on a level with, frankly, two of the lesser warriors of the fellowship-and-friends.

As awesome and famous as our PCs are getting... the canonical characters are yet more awesome and powerful. We have not achieved their level yet, if we ever will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

But yeah, I recognize that it's fate/prophecy/legend. To go back to the Troy analogy I made before, it's like the Achilles thing. If there was an Achilles, he was probably just a really good warrior, an ancient Macedonian Wyatt Earp who had somehow made it through battle after battle without a scratch, until some guy happened to defeat him outside of Troy by getting him in the eponymous tendon.

---

It's funny because I've been thinking of the relationship between the Iliad and the movie Troy when reading your earlier posts about the Red Book, and I find myself being puzzled at this thread in the same way I was at people who complained the Troy movie didn't feature the gods.

I think a lot of the arguing around "lore-breaking" in both cases stems from misunderstandings about the structure, role and public perception of myth (which is what Tolkien set out to write). The fact that a lot of classical myths have come down to us and are being spread in a rigid written form has given us the impression that myths have one "true" version when they are by nature fluid and allow for several - sometimes even contradictory - accounts.

In that perspective I'd go so far as to argue that the versions of the Middle-Earth myth that we all create with our characters are actually all concurrently valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taravith

It's funny because I've been thinking of the relationship between the Iliad and the movie Troy when reading your earlier posts about the Red Book, and I find myself being puzzled at this thread in the same way I was at people who complained the Troy movie didn't feature the gods.

I think a lot of the arguing around "lore-breaking" in both cases stems from misunderstandings about the structure, role and public perception of myth (which is what Tolkien set out to write). The fact that a lot of classical myths have come down to us and are being spread in a rigid written form has given us the impression that myths have one "true" version when they are by nature fluid and allow for several - sometimes even contradictory - accounts.

In that perspective I'd go so far as to argue that the versions of the Middle-Earth myth that we all create with our characters are actually all concurrently valid.

---

I think it's both puzzling and unsurprising, really. Sometimes, in my head, I blame the Enlightenment and scientific revolution (and I use "blame" very loosely), but it altered Western expectations about what is written down and what is omitted, and I think it gets people into a lot of trouble when engaging with myth, legend, history, etc. You could probably even blame the printing press a bit, for mass-producing the written word, such that "definitive" versions can be spread far and wide. And, of course, now this lovely medium. But then, I also think while the internet is helping disseminate "definitive" versions of things, it's also opening up more possibilities for fluid and changing versions of things to be produced as well. Quite a few writers have made their way lately engaging with fairy tales and genre tropes, subverting them, making them into living things without claiming ownership to that version of the fairy tale itself (for instance).

Personally, I'm ready to fully embrace the "concurrently valid" model of the experience in Middle Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

I knew Marines who were 5'0" and 6'4". Put them in body armor, running and crouching and crawling, among a thousand other Marines? You could not pick out the differences very easily. Much less at night. Again, it remains to be seen how exactly our PCs are going to be integrated into the battle.

---

Dwarves are supposed about four and a half feet tall and very broad in the chest and shoulder compared to Men. Hobbits are supposed to be about three and a half feet tall, roughly the size of children of about four years old. So let's try to stick with relevant examples, shall we? At least people who can see over the battlements without standing on a box.

Quote:

---

I don't recall slaying any dragons single-handedly; nor, actually, doing much of anything single-handedly, as much of a soloer as I tend to need to be. In fact, at several points in the story recently, the NPCs have called out my character's defining strength as being able to get people to work together. They rarely (never?) praise my single-handed skill in battle.

---

This despite the massive proportion of the game that's soloable nowadays? Not credible.

Quote:

---

Just out of curiosity, are you also one of the folks who complains about how so many of our quests are fetch-and-carry and literal and figurative fence-mending?

---

I may have commented on how the game alternates between ridiculously over-the-top heroics and their exact opposite, yes.

Quote:

---

Diverting what resources from Erebor? The Iron Garrison came from Eriador side of Moria and entered through the Hollin Gate. I think they're explicitly said to have come from Ered Luin. Yes/no?

---

If those Dwarves had nothing better to do then they should have gone to bolster Erebor's defences, not to fool around in Moria, because Dain knew months before the Council of Elrond that Sauron was going to come after Durin's Folk for declining to help him. In such a situation, allowing crazy adventures like going back into Moria would be insane. So unless Dain has no authority whatsoever over his own people, it shouldn't be happening. The home you have comes first, the halls of your ancestors can wait until you don't have the Dark Lord out to get you.

Quote:

---

But, you want to get lore monkey? Let's get lore monkey. Now, in a narrative passage, it says that "after the Shadow passed, Celeborn came forth and led the host of Lorien over the Anduin in many boats." But then, in the timeline it says that on March 28, Celeborn crossed the Anduin and the destruction of Dol Guldur began. And by April 6, Celeborn and Tharanduil are meeting "in the midst of the forest." So, if you're correct, that's what... 8, 9 days to cross the river, fight through Southern Mirkwood, tear down Dul Guldur, and then walk halfway to the Lonely Mountain to take tea with Tharanduil? WOW. Mighty impressive. Or... again, invoking the conceit that every word of LOTR is written and compiled after the fact by explicitly named chroniclers, hobbits in fact who did not have personal knowledge of what went on there and were only hearing it, very likely, third-hand... Celeborn sent counter-attacks into Mirkwood, beseiged Dol Guldur, and killed or drove off some top leaders of the orcs there prior to final victory. Celeborn has not crossed the Anduin himself yet, and Dol Guldur has not been destroyed yet. You see it, at best, as splitting hairs, I see it as a neat and elegant way to slide some fun action into the uncertainty and gaps.

---

Oh here we go, this historicity bollocks again. I think the Elves would have bloody well remembered launching an assault on Dol Guldur! If they'd had the manpower to do any such thing they'd have done it rather sooner. As it was, before Sauron's fall Dol Guldur was simply too strong for them to assault, and they couldn't lay siege to it and properly defend their homes at the same time because they didn't have the manpower. They had the Orcs from Moria and the Misty Mountains to worry about as well, until after Sauron fell. There is no plausible reason to doubt the 'official' version (three assaults on Lorien before Sauron's fall, with the Elves having to remain on the defensive until then).

Quote:

---

Tolkien didn't really, himself, have a consistent "take on magic." I find RKs to be fairly credible. The visual effects might be a tad over the top, but I think that there is power in words and runes, beyond simple communication, is a fairly significant theme through LOTR. And here's the thing about Tolkien's accounts of battle: they're often fairly vague. Rather vague, in fact. You can only get from him the basic nature of the battle, very few of the actual specifics.

---

Not so vague as to fail to make it absolutely clear that they're overwhelmingly conventional in their violence rather than magical. Unlike typical sword-and-sorcery stuff (i.e. most fantasy CRPGs and MMORPGs) there is no mention of people wandering around in robes hurling battle-magic about. So you're trying it on, there, it's just not credible. The RK's been torn to shreds lore-wise countless times over the years so if still you find them credible then all that does is cast grave doubt on how well you know the material.

Quote:

---

So, here's a challenge, if you want to be a lore monkey about what happened in Tolkien's battles: show me mention of a crossbow. (Then you can go on to greater heights and you can show mention of recurve bows, longbows, and for your crowning achievement, explicit mention of a trebuchet.) Then we can talk about how one thing or another might make such a spectacular difference in a battle so as to earn historical mention, and one or another be a significant leap in how we understand the level of technology available at the end of the 3rd Age. As a special bonus hint to what I'm getting at, I'll leave this here: Agincourt.

---

Tolkien doesn't mention crossbows because the setting is early medieval in inspiration (rather than the usual High Medieval or Renaissance stuff), and at that time crossbows weren't in use in Western Europe. And the trebuchets are being used by Sauron's lot, with the implication that this is a technology which the good guys are lacking (since the stuff being hurled goes 'marvellously high' as if they hadn't seen that before). I don't see the relevance to talking about who's doing the fighting, especially when heroes get a lot of attention.

Quote:

---

Within the lore itself

---

Quote:

---

, LOTR is written by the hobbits about their friends. If you can demonstrate how any member of the fellowship must have been aware of the existence AND defeat of Draigoch, I'll concede your point. But this is not 2013, and my character wasn't whipping out his iPhone so he could tweet: "0wnz0red Draigoch!! http://twitpic.com/blahblah" so my buddy Aragorn could reply "@daveamongus LOL! You go, bro!" You can't complain about the travel time restrictions, then lay out the expectation that medieval communication is so good that everyone knows everything of note that happens everywhere in Middle Earth as soon as it happens, no matter how few witness it.

---

Based on stuff they were told after the war as well as stuff they'd seen themselves, as in finding out from the Elves what had happened to Dol Guldur, or finding out from the Dwarves what had happened re the Battle of Dale and the subsequent siege of Erebor. It is NOT just an account of what the hobbits did.

A dragon is hardly something which would escape attention. People talked about such things, e.g. Fram's slaying of Scatha the Worm, up in the Northlands way back when. A dragon appearing where Draigoch does at that time would have been way too big a deal for there not to be a tale because it was unheard-of for a dragon to be in such a place. If you're trying to pull some nonsense about "oh, it's just another dragon, happens all the time, no big deal" then you can forget it. Dragons and dragon-slayers are the very stuff of legend.

Quote:

---

Actually, as Sapience said, they're aware where they're bending the lore, so I don't think they're pretending anything. I'm taking the contrary position to yours because I find your view a depressingly narrow view of the lore.

---

Nah, you're just trying to use that as a defence against people who know it better than you do, by trying to pretend it doesn't matter whenever it's convenient.

Quote:

---

Other than the hobbits, can you name one character in LOTR who performs deeds of note who is not of royal lineage?

---

Boromir
Faramir
Denethor
Beregond
Imrahil
Erkenbrand

...and those are just the ones who spring to mind. I might also add that there were three non-royal Dwarves (Bifur, Bofur and Bombur) among Thorin's companions on the Quest of Erebor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taravith

It's funny because I've been thinking of the relationship between the Iliad and the movie Troy when reading your earlier posts about the Red Book, and I find myself being puzzled at this thread in the same way I was at people who complained the Troy movie didn't feature the gods.

---

Isn't it also funny though, that the film you choose in defense of your position is considered a flop.

Well, to be generous, it did make money internationally, but between reviews, awards and domestic gross it failed expectations in all three categories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

Isn't it also funny though, that the film you choose in defense of your position is considered a flop.

---

Given that I wasn't defending any position in a discussion that had nothing to do with box-office success... er, okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

You could probably even blame the printing press a bit, for mass-producing the written word, such that "definitive" versions can be spread far and wide. And, of course, now this lovely medium. But then, I also think while the internet is helping disseminate "definitive" versions of things, it's also opening up more possibilities for fluid and changing versions of things to be produced as well.

---

That would be the perfect time for an expert on intertextuality to intervene :D

In any case it's certain that the transition from an oral tradition to a written one must have had much wider repercussions that just a formal change - like how we think about authors and their relevance to the text (or lack thereof :p ) as seen in this thread as well.

You're also making an interesting parallel with new forms of narration popularized by the internet. Off the top of my head, I'd mention fanfiction and written RP (maybe even LPs and ARRs - I'm pushing it a bit) as creative endeavours that link back to that "freedom" of the text - and god knows ink has been spilled as to the legitimacy and even legal issues around those!

A final note on the "myth plurality" thing, and without spoiling another ongoing thread, it's interesting to see that Christopher Tolkien took both routes: he edited a "definitive" version of myth in the Silmarillion, then published extra books to present the different versions of single events. It's also interesting to see that by definition several versions coexisting is necessarily "unfinished" work - would JRR Tolkien have agreed with this label, I wonder.

As a semi-related note, I propose an even more far-fetched theory: can we consider the narratives created by our characters through Turbine's settings as a form of collaborative fanfiction? (and are all myth narratives basically fanfiction?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taravith

Given that I wasn't defending any position in a discussion that had nothing to do with box-office success... er, okay?

---

Er, no?

Did I just say box office? You wanted to use this example as one where a successful adaption can be done without being faithful to its lore. I just found it amusingly ironic that your example actually was considered a failure as defined by diverse metrics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

If those Dwarves had nothing better to do then they should have gone to bolster Erebor's defences, not to fool around in Moria, because Dain knew months before the Council of Elrond that Sauron was going to come after Durin's Folk for declining to help him. In such a situation, allowing crazy adventures like going back into Moria would be insane. So unless Dain has no authority whatsoever over his own people, it shouldn't be happening. The home you have comes first, the halls of your ancestors can wait until you don't have the Dark Lord out to get you.

---

So... are your criticizing Dain's decision? Or Turbine for suggesting he made it? It's perfectly valid for fictional characters to make bad decisions. Heck, the dwarves make all kinds of bad decisions in their effort to reopen Moria in the first place. And I get that you're suggesting that Turbine makes Dain make a decision you don't think he would have made... but that's what they get for their literal creative license, the one they paid actual money for. They get to decide that a character, who has no persona otherwise described, makes that decision to divert dwarves to Moria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Oh here we go, this historicity bollocks again. I think the Elves would have bloody well remembered launching an assault on Dol Guldur! If they'd had the manpower to do any such thing they'd have done it rather sooner. As it was, before Sauron's fall Dol Guldur was simply too strong for them to assault, and they couldn't lay siege to it and properly defend their homes at the same time because they didn't have the manpower. They had the Orcs from Moria and the Misty Mountains to worry about as well, until after Sauron fell. There is no plausible reason to doubt the 'official' version (three assaults on Lorien before Sauron's fall, with the Elves having to remain on the defensive until then).

---

The official version says that Celeborn crossed the Anduin on March 28, and that the destruction of Dol Guldur began the same day. This says to me that the elves of Mirkwood were in a position to cast down the fortress by the time Celeborn crossed the river. Otherwise, that's a heck of a long ride, and to start destroying the fortress at the end of it? Amazing. And then by April 6, he's up in the middle of Mirkwood to chat with Tharanduil and divying up the forest between the two of them and the Beornings. Sorry, this just doesn't hold water. I get that you could infer that that's what it says... but it's just not feasible. The likely answer is, the chronicler was glossing over details to nail down basic key events.

Look, in the historicity argument there's 3 steps. First is, word getting to relevant subjects of the chronicle. Second is, those subjects relating or remembering to relate everything to the chronicler. Third is, the chronicler choosing what to preserve and what to ignore. Three places where details and sidelights are almost certain to get lost.

So, first, imagine the scene: King Elessar sits on his throne and a minstrel comes to play to him and relates the slaying of Draigoch. "Wow," says Elessar later, "another dragon was slain, while we were floating down the Anduin? I had no idea Draigoch was still around... Pity, Bilbo would have loved to hear that story." Or second, Gimli and Legolas are pushing off in their boat, "Legolas my lad, it's a shame I'll never see Daveamongusa again, now that we're headed to the undying lands." "Who?" "You remember, tall human lass, red hair... we saw her at the Hornburg." "Oh yes, I remember, very accomplished. Pity, Bilbo would have liked to hear of her adventures. I wonder what ever became of her?" Or, third, sitting around Imladris: "Now that we're all here," says Bilbo, "tell me everything you know about the War of the Ring. I must write it all down." "All?" Merry says, laughing a little. "Oh my... we could fill volumes, volumes and volumes! Tell him, Lord Elrond!" "So much has happened, indeed, and I fear your hand may tire in the writing of it all." "Very well, very well, just the highlights. What all happened with you lot while I was here dozing?"

And then, fast forward five years and Frodo is assembling it all: "Hmmm. I'm certain the Lorien elves did not cross the Anduin until after Sauron fell. But Bilbo's notes put the first elves crossing in February. That can't be right... Probably more poetic if they don't start in until after Sauron falls anyway." And so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Tolkien doesn't mention crossbows because the setting is early medieval in inspiration (rather than the usual High Medieval or Renaissance stuff), and at that time crossbows weren't in use in Western Europe. And the trebuchets are being used by Sauron's lot, with the implication that this is a technology which the good guys are lacking (since the stuff being hurled goes 'marvellously high' as if they hadn't seen that before). I don't see the relevance to talking about who's doing the fighting, especially when heroes get a lot of attention.

---

Right, so, what you're saying is that it's critically important to reference the vague combat accounts of dwarves when railing against Rune-Keepers, but you're not nearly so concerned about crossbows (of the First Age!) or really anything else. It's just the things that other people specifically like and find enjoyable to play, within the context of this as a game, and as a class with distinct gameplay. Everything else can be as out of place as you like, just so long as it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the game. Like travel times! Teleportation! Time Travel! Hobbits leaving the Shire! Etc.!

You have a line in the sand. Fine. Embrace it. Stop setting yourself up as an arbiter of Too Much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Based on stuff they were told after the war as well as stuff they'd seen themselves, as in finding out from the Elves what had happened to Dol Guldur, or finding out from the Dwarves what had happened re the Battle of Dale and the subsequent siege of Erebor. It is NOT just an account of what the hobbits did.

---

No, but the narrative is very clearly focused on the actions of a handful of people and the events immediately surrounding and affecting them. Everything else is summarized which reasonably offers room for interpretation and fuzziness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

A dragon is hardly something which would escape attention. People talked about such things, e.g. Fram's slaying of Scatha the Worm, up in the Northlands way back when. A dragon appearing where Draigoch does at that time would have been way too big a deal for there not to be a tale because it was unheard-of for a dragon to be in such a place. If you're trying to pull some nonsense about "oh, it's just another dragon, happens all the time, no big deal" then you can forget it. Dragons and dragon-slayers are the very stuff of legend.

---

Cool, okay. So. Then, it should be reasonable to assume that we know the names of all the dragons ever slain, and the names of their slayers? Do you have a list somewhere? I'd like to read it. I bet it's legendary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Nah, you're just trying to use that as a defence against people who know it better than you do, by trying to pretend it doesn't matter whenever it's convenient.

---

More like, I'm poking at lore-lawyers who don't understand the function of legend or history in determining the actuality of events, and have set themselves up as arbiters of what's enough and too much. I'm expressing my supreme annoyance at people who are determined to look down their nose at the fun of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Boromir
Faramir
Denethor
Beregond
Imrahil
Erkenbrand

...and those are just the ones who spring to mind. I might also add that there were three non-royal Dwarves (Bifur, Bofur and Bombur) among Thorin's companions on the Quest of Erebor.

---

Okay, but eliminate Boromir, Faramir, Denethor, Imrahil, and Erkenbrand if I expand the criteria to "noble." (The Stewards were nobility in effect, if no other way.)

So... then you have Beregond. One guy. (The same one I was thinking of, incidentally.) One, non-noble guy.

Is your character noble? Did any non-noble soldiers or warriors acquit themselves well on the field of battle? None of them performed heroically? How is it we don't know their names?

Or could it be that, with very few and limited exceptions, Tolkien, like most people writing these sorts of legends, is mostly concerned about the kings and queens and nobility, the people "of name and title" who performed heroically. It's about their doings. It's not saying that no one else performed mighty deeds, but those people, after the war, tried to go back to their lives and made no other impression on the world after those deeds were complete (probably--Daveamongusa is looking forward to settling down and having some redheaded kids with a nice lad from Dale, but maybe others will keep adventuring). At any rate... commoners don't get mentioned. Not because they weren't heroic, but because they were common. Fact of life, fact of this genre, whether you're talking heroic fantasy, epic fantasy, or legend and myth.

Anyway. If you don't want to accept that there's room for serious heroism, there's not much more that can be said. But thanks for a good argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColorSpecs

You wanted to use this example as one where a successful adaption can be done without being faithful to its lore.

---

You haven't even read the posts, have you?

But I'll indulge you, if only because I think it's a cool topic to be discussing. To pinpoint what is truthful to the myth (the "lore"), one must define what it is and what it sets out to do in the first place.

So I was using this example to illustrate how the way you choose to interpret the nature of a myth can alter your perceptions of what is lore-breaking.

Some people think myth is just fictionalized accounts of historical events. That entails that 1) there's a "true" version of events and that 2) the fictionalized account is neither exhaustive nor entirely truthful. In my example, to the Iliad corresponds Troy, that tried to imagine the "real" event that spawned the myth. I related that to daveamongus's idea that the Red Book could be seen as the fictionalized account of the "true" story in which our characters can, maybe, exist.

But that's not the whole story because myth never really concerns itself with having one true version of anything, and there are many other ways to interpret myth, what it is and what it does and why.

Fun ensued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Dwarves are supposed about four and a half feet tall and very broad in the chest and shoulder compared to Men. Hobbits are supposed to be about three and a half feet tall, roughly the size of children of about four years old. So let's try to stick with relevant examples, shall we? At least people who can see over the battlements without standing on a box.

---

Such a missed opportunity here, if only Turbine had extended character scaling a bit further. Instead of just scaling a level 10 character to level 95, also scale up dwarves and hobbits to six feet tall or so, and give the dwarf shoulders and chest a little slimming. Probably a temporary deferred radiation side effect from those elfstones carried earlier in the epic (Dori apparently swallowed one of those so I wonder what ended up happening to him). Not forgetting elves here but they could just be forced to wear a hat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by secondstar

Such a missed opportunity here, if only Turbine had extended character scaling a bit further. Instead of just scaling a level 10 character to level 95, also scale up dwarves and hobbits to six feet tall or so, and give the dwarf shoulders and chest a little slimming. Probably a temporary deferred radiation side effect from those elfstones carried earlier in the epic (Dori apparently swallowed one of those so I wonder what ended up happening to him). Not forgetting elves here but they could just be forced to wear a hat.

---

lol, very nicely turned. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taravith

So I was using this example to illustrate how the way you choose to interpret the nature of a myth can alter your perceptions of what is lore-breaking.

---

Ya? Lets look back:

Quote:

---

It's funny because I've been thinking of the relationship between the Iliad and the movie Troy when reading your earlier posts about the Red Book, and I find myself being puzzled at this thread in the same way I was at people who complained the Troy movie didn't feature the gods.

---

In this passage you seem to be saying to me, and I'll paraphrase so you get the gist of how I read it, that you found it funny, those of us complaining about the lore the same way those who complained about the movie Troy. In the Red Book it leaves open the opportunity for wild adaption like we saw in Troy, and it worked out well there.

Except it didn't work out well.

What you and Dave seem to want to do is redefine lore-breaking in defense of Turbine, but that doesn't make any sense either because Sapience fully admits to it being lore breaking and see's no need for a defense, much less a redefinition. The argument is strictly on the merits of breaking the lore (in text, spirit, tone, intent). Not whether it was broken in the first place.

So, I guess it was either the bad example I found humorous at its failure, or invalid. Your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taravith

That would be the perfect time for an expert on intertextuality to intervene :D

---

Oh, intertextuality. Where aren't you? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taravith

In any case it's certain that the transition from an oral tradition to a written one must have had much wider repercussions that just a formal change - like how we think about authors and their relevance to the text (or lack thereof :p ) as seen in this thread as well.

You're also making an interesting parallel with new forms of narration popularized by the internet. Off the top of my head, I'd mention fanfiction and written RP (maybe even LPs and ARRs - I'm pushing it a bit) as creative endeavours that link back to that "freedom" of the text - and god knows ink has been spilled as to the legitimacy and even legal issues around those!

---

Oh, certainly, I could go off in that direction all day. Personally, I don't believe fanfiction is its own separate entity, but part of a continuum of engagement with existing text and created work. I mean, one of the dirty little secrets that's really not so secret is that genre is rife with fanfiction, just a lot of it has the "serial numbers filed off" as I like to say. But even those that aren't explicitly "Star Trek, but with Commodore Thames G. Burke" sort of things, most genre fiction exists in conversation with what came before it; sometimes a direct homage or challenge to previous works, or simply taking earlier works as a foundational point and building from them into more rich or detailed explorations of similar ideas, themes, and situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taravith

A final note on the "myth plurality" thing, and without spoiling another ongoing thread, it's interesting to see that Christopher Tolkien took both routes: he edited a "definitive" version of myth in the Silmarillion, then published extra books to present the different versions of single events. It's also interesting to see that by definition several versions coexisting is necessarily "unfinished" work - would JRR Tolkien have agreed with this label, I wonder.

---

That is kind of funny, but legally he's entitled, I guess. I wonder if any purists were up in arms over The Children of Hurin or they gave it a pass as springing from some Tolkien or another. Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson have been at work on a similar enterprise, expanding the background of the Dune novels, I see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taravith

As a semi-related note, I propose an even more far-fetched theory: can we consider the narratives created by our characters through Turbine's settings as a form of collaborative fanfiction? (and are all myth narratives basically fanfiction?)

---

I honestly don't find it far-fetched at all; I think the only thing mildly controversial about the idea is that "fanfiction" has acquired serious emotional baggage over the years, so people who might otherwise be open to the ideas presented, may well recoil when the term is applied. Otherwise, though? I think the exact same impulse is at work, essentially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

Is your character noble?

---

I'd say yes if you mean noble by deeds and behaviour, turbine has made the character theirs, not yours. Your character is a goody-good-good without a single bad bone in him because thats how turbine made him. you dont got a choice about your character rather than appearance. something that annoy me to this day. If you mean noble by heritage I'd say no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daveamongus

So... are your criticizing Dain's decision? Or Turbine for suggesting he made it? It's perfectly valid for fictional characters to make bad decisions. Heck, the dwarves make all kinds of bad decisions in their effort to reopen Moria in the first place. And I get that you're suggesting that Turbine makes Dain make a decision you don't think he would have made... but that's what they get for their literal creative license, the one they paid actual money for. They get to decide that a character, who has no persona otherwise described, makes that decision to divert dwarves to Moria.

---

Turbine, of course, for making up such a contrived story. It's not the only thing that's wrong with it - the timing is just oh so convenient (Balrog dies, Dwarves go for it as if they'd been waiting for a signal).

Are you now trying to contend that Turbine's storytelling is beyond reproach?

Quote:

---

The official version says that Celeborn crossed the Anduin on March 28, and that the destruction of Dol Guldur began the same day. This says to me that the elves of Mirkwood were in a position to cast down the fortress by the time Celeborn crossed the river. Otherwise, that's a heck of a long ride, and to start destroying the fortress at the end of it? Amazing. And then by April 6, he's up in the middle of Mirkwood to chat with Tharanduil and divying up the forest between the two of them and the Beornings. Sorry, this just doesn't hold water. I get that you could infer that that's what it says... but it's just not feasible. The likely answer is, the chronicler was glossing over details to nail down basic key events.

---

And you're also trying to second-guess Tolkien to make Turbine's contrivances look better...

Quote:

---

Look, in the historicity argument there's 3 steps. First is, word getting to relevant subjects of the chronicle. Second is, those subjects relating or remembering to relate everything to the chronicler. Third is, the chronicler choosing what to preserve and what to ignore. Three places where details and sidelights are almost certain to get lost.

---

What about the step of hey, is it really likely that the Elves would have forgotten assaulting Dol Guldur? Kind of a big deal, not a mere detail.

Quote:

---

Right, so, what you're saying is that it's critically important to reference the vague combat accounts of dwarves when railing against Rune-Keepers, but you're not nearly so concerned about crossbows (of the First Age!) or really anything else. It's just the things that other people specifically like and find enjoyable to play, within the context of this as a game, and as a class with distinct gameplay. Everything else can be as out of place as you like, just so long as it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the game. Like travel times! Teleportation! Time Travel! Hobbits leaving the Shire! Etc.!

---

The reason there are crossbows (and plate armour) is that the mass audience would carp about them if they weren't there. Just like they'd carp about it if travel times were longer (still less realistic, that's obviously a non-starter), or if there were no swift travel (it's not literally teleportation, it''s a convenience feature), or if there were no playable hobbits. These are all things about which I have commented in the past but I'm not going to dig them up every single damn time.

Quote:

---

You have a line in the sand. Fine. Embrace it. Stop setting yourself up as an arbiter of Too Much.

---

I'm not. I'm just saying that having the player-characters at Helm's Deep will inevitably be lore-breaking if it involves them getting up to their usual over-the-top deeds, because those would be the sort of thing people would definitely remember and tell stories about. The game bloats the role of the player-characters to an excessive degree and that means their involvement is high-profile.

Quote:

---

No, but the narrative is very clearly focused on the actions of a handful of people and the events immediately surrounding and affecting them. Everything else is summarized which reasonably offers room for interpretation and fuzziness.

---

Not so. The outline of what happened elsewhere is clearly spelled out, most particularly in the chronicle of the Great Years in the appendices. Or had you forgotten about that?

Quote:

---

Cool, okay. So. Then, it should be reasonable to assume that we know the names of all the dragons ever slain, and the names of their slayers? Do you have a list somewhere? I'd like to read it. I bet it's legendary.

---

Only you could pretend that killing a dragon is too small a deal to attract attention :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

More like, I'm poking at lore-lawyers who don't understand the function of legend or history in determining the actuality of events, and have set themselves up as arbiters of what's enough and too much. I'm expressing my supreme annoyance at people who are determined to look down their nose at the fun of others.

---

More like supreme inability to carry an argument without falling back on making convenient excuses. Dwarves reclaiming Moria, against all reason? Oh, Dain just totally forgot that Sauron had it in for him. Spurious major assault on Dol Guldur? Oh, everyone got that mixed up. Dead dragon? Oh, no big deal, hardly worth mentioning. Outlanders running around at Helm's Deep doing hugely over the top deeds of heroism? Oh, everyone just missed that too.

Quote:

---

Okay, but eliminate Boromir, Faramir, Denethor, Imrahil, and Erkenbrand if I expand the criteria to "noble." (The Stewards were nobility in effect, if no other way.)

---

If you just shift the goalposts after the fact, you mean?

Quote:

---

So... then you have Beregond. One guy. (The same one I was thinking of, incidentally.) One, non-noble guy.

Is your character noble? Did any non-noble soldiers or warriors acquit themselves well on the field of battle? None of them performed heroically? How is it we don't know their names?

---

Because they didn't do the sort of insane heroics that the player-characters do routinely. But Beregond is a good example - what gets him remembered is that he's instrumental in saving Faramir from being burned alive. That sort of thing is all in a day's work for the player-characters though, isn't it? Small beer, almost. That's the point, that the player-characters are always getting up to stuff that would attract attention so suddenly pretending nobody will notice them, this once when it's convenient to your argument, is a joke.

Let's not forget that Turbine haven't ever featured the player-characters as just some ragtag bunch of adventurers, they've had them hobnobbing with major characters from the get-go and doing all manner of unlikely deeds the whole time so they're emphatically not just a bunch of commoner nobodies whom nobody would remember. It would have been a very different game if they'd treated them as being like Beregond, relatively ordinary people rather than overblown superheroes who can deal with pretty much anything. But no, Joe Gamer wants the superheroics so superheroics we must have, and as a result you cannot feasibly argue that such deeds can easily go unnoticed (especially when there are thousands of people around to witness them!).