(U18 Spoilers) So, kill Aragorn's best friend...

Where exactly are so many people this batty idea that Halros goes along with the grey company regardless of what you advise him? What is leading so many people to this blatantly incorrect assumption? Why is even the lotro Wiki trying to (erroneously) claim this at one point, before correcting its contradiction in the following links?

If you tell Halros to Stay, he STAYS.

He does not decide to truck along anyway later, and he does NOT show up in any of the following book quests. The places where he -would- show up, if you tell him to go, see him either missing completely, or else replaced by a different ranger, because Halros is still back in the Shire, having never left it.

Sooo.... can someone please tell me where such a great many people are getting the idea that he does?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

As for Horn's fate, I think both outcomes are consistent with his mention in the book. It does seem to me that the primary complaint comes from a belief that it's a contradiction that exists in an attempt to save Horn and Nona's happy ending. I firmly believe in Death of the Author, so feel free to disregard this, but from my point of view Horn surviving the battle isn't a happy ending at all. His story is a tragedy, whether he's still standing at the end of the battle or not. Probably more so, given the people involved.

(Wadu's Ghost will remember that.)

MoL

---

The complaint, at least from me, the originator of this thread (and another which was actually about the lore violation involving Horn) is nothing to do with any happy ending.

It is about putting your own story ahead of Professor Tolkien's, by contradicting his clear narrative that Horn died and was buried at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Exactly how the Horn soap opera ends is immaterial; if it doesn't end with his death and burial during the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, as Tolkien described, you have crossed the line from filling in the blank areas around the edge of Tolkien's story, which is fine, to re-writing his story for the benefit of your own, which is disrespect and hubris.

Tolkien didn't lie to his readers to prove how clever he was. He included certain names in the Lay of the Mounds of Mundberg because he wanted us to know that those specific people gave their lives. That he chose to do it in the form of a poem written by an unnamed bard after the fact is a stylistic decision in keeping with other instances where he related historical details in poem or song. In cases where he wanted to communicate ambiguity or uncertainty, he was perfectly capable of doing so. This wasn't one of them.

The rationalization, "Oh, it was just a poem written by some third party years afterward, not Tolkien" is nonsense. The conceit of the whole story of the Lord of the Rings is likewise "just a book", written in turn by Bilbo, Frodo, Sam and perhaps Sam's descendants, not Tolkien. So by the same logic, you could let Boromir, Theoden, Denethor, Gollum, Sauron, Saruman, etc live too, since their deaths "were just a tale written by some third parties years afterward, not Tolkien."

The argument that Horn is a minor character is likewise nonsense, like saying it's OK to deface the Mona Lisa or chip a piece off Michelangelo's David, as long as you only vandalize a small corner of them.

The claim that Horn's surviving the battle is "consistent with his mention in the book" would make Grima Wormtongue blush. The *one* thing Tolkien told us about Horn was that he died in the battle and was buried on the Pelennor Fields. It would have been easy to do the right thing and respect the Professor's work in whatever backstory was created around Horn. To go out of one's way to do the opposite reveals an acute shortage of both sound judgment and good taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LagunaD2

It is about putting your own story ahead of Professor Tolkien's, by contradicting his clear narrative that Horn died and was buried at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

---

I think you've missed a very important point -- unlike Tolkien, I'm not writing one of the great masterpieces of the Twentieth Century; I'm writing a series of videogame quests in an MMO that serve to 'fill in the gaps' around what he told us. Part of that challenge involves finding the gaps in the first place, and the very fact that he told us that the Song was written by an unnamed poet, many years after the described events, creates this possibility gap. You don't like it? Then the course of events that shows up in 'The Return of the King' describes the situation where Halros stays behind in the Shire.

We were also told the names of every hobbit that journeyed beyond the Bree-land, but I still see all these adventuring hobbits everywhere. I think it's important to keep in mind that videogames and books are different beasts, and have different needs. I'm not going to change your mind on this one, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion, but I think it's worth remembering that adaptation doesn't harm the original. You'll always have your original conception of the Song.

MoL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

I think you've missed a very important point -- unlike Tolkien, I'm not writing one of the great masterpieces of the Twentieth Century; I'm writing a series of videogame quests in an MMO that serve to 'fill in the gaps' around what he told us. Part of that challenge involves finding the gaps in the first place, and the very fact that he told us that the Song was written by an unnamed poet, many years after the described events, creates this possibility gap. You don't like it? Then the course of events that shows up in 'The Return of the King' describes the situation where Halros stays behind in the Shire.

We were also told the names of every hobbit that journeyed beyond the Bree-land, but I still see all these adventuring hobbits everywhere. I think it's important to keep in mind that videogames and books are different beasts, and have different needs. I'm not going to change your mind on this one, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion, but I think it's worth remembering that adaptation doesn't harm the original. You'll always have your original conception of the Song.

MoL

---

*applauds*

And for what it's worth ... I think Tollers would be proud of the story you've created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

I think you've missed a very important point -- unlike Tolkien, I'm not writing one of the great masterpieces of the Twentieth Century; I'm writing a series of videogame quests in an MMO that serve to 'fill in the gaps' around what he told us. Part of that challenge involves finding the gaps in the first place, and the very fact that he told us that the Song was written by an unnamed poet, many years after the described events, creates this possibility gap. You don't like it? Then the course of events that shows up in 'The Return of the King' describes the situation where Halros stays behind in the Shire.

We were also told the names of every hobbit that journeyed beyond the Bree-land, but I still see all these adventuring hobbits everywhere. I think it's important to keep in mind that videogames and books are different beasts, and have different needs. I'm not going to change your mind on this one, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion, but I think it's worth remembering that adaptation doesn't harm the original. You'll always have your original conception of the Song.

MoL

---

Keep doing what you're doing, MoL. The LOTRO story is by far the best thing about this game. I feel confident in stating that if it wasn't for the epic story you've written, LOTRO would no longer be around for any of us to enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

I think you've missed a very important point -- unlike Tolkien, I'm not writing one of the great masterpieces of the Twentieth Century; I'm writing a series of videogame quests in an MMO that serve to 'fill in the gaps' around what he told us. Part of that challenge involves finding the gaps in the first place, and the very fact that he told us that the Song was written by an unnamed poet, many years after the described events, creates this possibility gap. You don't like it? Then the course of events that shows up in 'The Return of the King' describes the situation where Halros stays behind in the Shire.

We were also told the names of every hobbit that journeyed beyond the Bree-land, but I still see all these adventuring hobbits everywhere. I think it's important to keep in mind that videogames and books are different beasts, and have different needs. I'm not going to change your mind on this one, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion, but I think it's worth remembering that adaptation doesn't harm the original. You'll always have your original conception of the Song.

MoL

---

i love it when MoL gets his back up...... it makes for better forthcoming books

I remember having a pop about the silly rope over the wall into Lothlorien and the future books to follow were pretty special.

anyway, my criticisms are only my personal views as much as your writings are yours.... and we love them for the most part which is why we are all still here..

peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LagunaD2

Tolkien didn't lie to his readers to prove how clever he was.

---

Sure he did.. and changed his mind on several matters many times over, and wrote in alterations to some things that rendered their depiction wholly inconsistent with the surrounding lore... but I don' see you acknowledging any of that.

Quote:

---

He included certain names in the Lay of the Mounds of Mundberg because he wanted us to know that those specific people gave their lives.

---

Says you. I was unaware you had a direct mental link to the old professor and knew exactly what the intentions behind his writing certain things were. Interpretation of motive is subjective, Laguna... you do understand that, don't you?

Quote:

---

In cases where he wanted to communicate ambiguity or uncertainty, he was perfectly capable of doing so. This wasn't one of them.

---

Says you ^.^ That's the beauty of subjective interpretation of another's works. Personally, I feel that all evidence lies to the contrary, if you actually examine the situation with a critical eye and engage your brain for a moment. You seem quite unwilling to do either of those things, however.

Quote:

---

The rationalization, "Oh, it was just a poem written by some third party years afterward, not Tolkien" is nonsense.

---

No, it's "Canon".

There are important differences between the story of the lord of the rings, intended as a reproduction of Bilbo's works and notes, and the song in question. Do you actually need me to spell them out for you, or are you capable of engaging your critical mind at least that much? (If you need help thinking it through, I'm more than happy to do so with you; you seem to struggle with the concept of critical thinking)

Quote:

---

The argument that Horn is a minor character is likewise nonsense, like saying it's OK to deface the Mona Lisa or chip a piece off Michelangelo's David, as long as you only vandalize a small corner of them.

---

Again, you miss the critical point of that examination. Engage brain before keyboard, please, and maybe read what others have to say a little bit more carefully next time. No-one was saying "It's Ok because he's just a minor character", what was being pointed out was that Horn, compared to everyone else mentioned in that poem, Doesn't Fit. He doesn't belong in the poem, alongside those other names, and is very much the 'odd one out'. That he was mentioned in the poem At All, regardless of whether he lived or died, is the bit that needs explanation, because he should not, rightfully, have been there.

So, yes... I can see the amount of work that has been put into building this story in a subtle and consistent way; world-building and story-telling work that stretches back years, working towards this point. I've paid close attention to all of it, and when taken as a whole, I find that it is, in fact, consistent with the official canon. Absolutely.

If you, Laguna, cannot see that, others can; others employ their brains and really look at it, and the text it's drawn from, with an eye towards what it was written to represent, and looked to see how and why they could fit together... lo, people who did, found that it does. If you cannot see that, that's no-one's fault but your own. Feel free to scream into the darkness about it, though; if it makes you feel better, I won't begrudge you your foolishness.

You never answered anyone's contention (made by several people), that Tolkien himself is on record as stating that the actual events as they really occurred might be in many ways different from the stories that we receive as told by characters within his works. He was quite free in admitting that many details of the stories and poems as told and recorded by individuals mentioned in his work might well be wrong, incorrect, or otherwise. I expect you have a glib hand-wave for that too, but, I'd still like to see it. You didn't address the point anywhere in your response above, despite it being made by several people. So I expect that when you respond again (as I know you will, because people in your mindset can't bear not to have the last word when they want to complain about something; don't worry, I will let you), you will address that point most clearly... otherwise all you are doing is cherry-picking the bits you have an answer for, and ignoring the bits you don't, while still claiming to be making a valid case (which you would not be)... and that, if you do so, just illustrates that it's very much not worth talking to or acknowledging you at all.

...

By the way... if you get your back up at all by anything I've said here, if it rankles or frustrates you in any way... I'd like you to take a moment to consider carefully how it feels, and then consider that what you have been doing here has been a far worse case of the same thing, levied against someone who has put a very, very great amount of work and effort into creating what you're busy trying to scrawl all over in red texter.



P.S. Still hoping someone can fill me in on where people are getting the idea that Halros goes whether you tell him to or not.

MoL confirmed what I had earlier said- video-games have different needs. A good MMO has certain requirements that differ from basic literature- and as an English MA grad, I feel I'm qualified to say this. Now, when it comes to the whole Halros thing, I think it has to do with the outdated LOTRO Wiki on the subject. The Wiki makes it sound like, upon a brief viewing, that Halros goes regardless of what you do. As MoL revealed, this is incorrect. I feel that many folks get the impression that all the rangers left the Shire, which I admit is a false one and I've acknowledged my mistake, and then many folks send Halros off on the journey. This results in fewer players telling Halros to stay, fewer players understanding that there's an alternate epic without Halros involved, and that absence of knowledge helps generate the myths rather than the facts on the subject. Its hard to know unless you've actually told Halros to stay. And that Wiki needs updating- its wrong for it to confuse players like this.

I hate to break it to y'all, but Tolkien DID write LOTR and "The Hobbit" and the notes that became "The Silmarillion" AS IF Bilbo Baggins, and later Frodo Baggins, and later Samwise Gamgee had done so. He wrote it to heavily utilize what is known as a "broken reference"- a mythic tale that has as many plot-holes as ancient ruins are missing chief portions of their architecture. He wasn't writing the Roman Forum as it existed two thousand years ago; he was writing the Roman Forum as it exists in modern Rome today- to further this analogy. I remember watching some Professor lecture on this topic online- it was quite good. I wish I could remember who it was. But the point still stands: Tolkien wrote this collection of mythic stories, or a true Epic, if you will, as if it was as old as the works of Homer!

And its honestly even older than Homer and the Greek playwrights- if you map-out the Ages of Arda from the Fourth to the Present Age. This is the type of tale that Tolkien wanted to imitate. He wanted to construct something like "Beowulf" and "The Volsungs" and other Anglo-Saxon and Nordic myths, which share many aspects with the Greco-Roman epics as well.

So, really, whether Horn lives or dies, reminds me of Aeschylus versus Euripides- two famed Greek playwrights who lived a very long time ago. For Aeschylus, Iphigenia dies a violent death. For Euripides, Iphigenia gets replaced by a stag and "transported" to someplace else, which she has to be rescued from by two heroes. Who is right? Who is wrong? Which is "canon?" A man will answer: No One. And a man will answer: Everyone.

Very much of it is a matter of preference- the aesthetic desires of the beholder / reader / audience-member / viewer. What ever happened to Maglor son of Feanor? Well old Bilbo didn't see him, so I guess that means he never came back among the Elves, oh that's right, Bilbo is so omnipotent! Didn't you know his Eyes were as far-reaching as film-Sauron's? He could see every Elf! He knew where every Avari, Teleri, Sinda, Noldo, etc., were! Oh yes, Maglor never came back! REALLY? I cry foul. Even Master Elrond isn't omnipotent. Tolkien just failed to finish the story with a definitive conclusion. So guess who gets to decide what happens to Maglor? -YOU- the reader! And no one can take that away from you. It's -YOUR- imagination! And its a really liberating feeling!

As soon as something gets written, that something gets subject to interpretation, analysis, and critique. It also gets subjected to the imaginations of human beings who are not the original author of the text. The author will have no control over these imaginations- regardless of how "close" or "far" from the "lore" they are. True, some ideas are just outright outlandish. Vampire-Elves in Bree on Landy several years ago? I'm looking at you!

But not all ideas are outlandish. MoL's treatment of LOTR and its appendices is HIGHLY IMPRESSIVE! It really is! How many casual roleplayers would go to the trouble of looking at everything Tolkien wrote about Earnur in every appendix in order to invent a pretty good sub-plot that fits into the MMO model of a video-game? Probably not many.

Why do y'all think Tolkien's works lend themselves so well to roleplaying? His -world- is the main character who can be relied upon (until you go past Mirkwood and end-up in a non-descript East; at least G.R.R. Martin managed to detail most parts of his world- an important step that every high fantasy writer after Tolkien should take- while owing everything to Tolkien at the same time). And there are honestly many tales of Tolkien's that got changed or remained unfinished. I don't look at it as "The Mona Lisa." I look at it as the ruins of some old medieval monastery. You see the ruins. You can imagine what once existed in the parts where the stone has worn away. One's imagination should be precise. There wasn't steel or pavement filling-in the gaps. But you can imagine frescoes and reliefs that are amazing in the gaps between the remaining stonework.

MoL, you are wonderful. And I'm glad you aren't trying to write the next great 21st Century work for an MMO. A lot of folks give you criticism you don't deserve. Know that someone was willing to listen, change his mind, and realize how excellent your work is! Feel proud of it.

And, on a side-note, please -do- get us out there in the East! This game has its prime opportunity to correct Tolkien's biggest error: how "mysterious" and "strange" the "East" was. Let that help the 2017 pitch for the license. Can you imagine how amazing it would be for player characters, in first person camera mode, to actually run/ride through Harad and Rhun? No game as ever done this before. And LOTRO still has its chance. I believe it. Oh, and tons of instances and such could be made out there- since precious little was written about it.

I'm just burning time until we get to the part of the story where Frodo blows-up the Death Star.

I wonder if that will be a solo or fellowship instance......

#RollAlong

Session play as gollum? You now have 30 seconds to get the Ring! Get it! GET IT!!


Thanks for your words, Phantion... I think I probably got a bit too snarky in my post to Laguna, above, and I ought to apologise for that.

And thank you, Harla. I was a little bit snarky also- so apologies to Laguna as well.

The wonderful thing about Tolkien is that he's given us a -mythos- rather than a straight-up novel. Many straight-up novels are good, and I enjoy them for different reasons. But Tolkien has fleshed-out big parts of a remarkable world, which are all subject to interpretation.

Regarding the whole canon thing again, I'd like to say that a -balanced- view of canon is probably best. In other words, yes, Elrond and Bilbo don't know everything, but this doesn't necessarily mean that, therefore, we can discount everything they've said. Its important to view it in terms of scope, *speaks in Johnny Depp's "Jack Sparrow" voice*: It's about what a character -can- know, and what a character -can't- know; *concludes funny accent.*

So, what -can- Frodo Baggins know? He can know that Gollum grabbed the Ring by chomping off his finger, and that Frodo himself is missing a finger, so his testimony can't be held in question, because its pretty clear that he would not have made that up out of the blue. So you can't really rewrite the story like Laguna infers we can if we view Tolkien's works as they were intended to be read- as ancient texts with plot-gaps like ancient ruins- rather than as they are in reality- works of fiction produced by the Professor. But can Bilbo Baggins know if Maglor son of Feanor somehow befriended some Numenorian noble family in the Second Age by wandering through their private property on what would become the coast of Gondor (Numenoreans did settle in the Pelargir area)? Certainly not. Nor can Bilbo Baggins know if Maglor wandered among a bunch of Sindarin Elves in Lindon, or if he traveled to Eregion in disguise, or if he went-off on some other story. His tale is far more open-ended than even Iphigenia in Greek mythology. Why, surely one could imagine the Anglo-Saxon exiled wanderer finally reaching a mead-hall after 'writing' "The Seafarer" (*probably Tolkien's inspiration for the fate of Maglor)? Certainly! No extended tale will ever be wrong. It will just be different, and like choosing between Aeschylus and Euripides, or Homer and Dante regarding Odysseus / Ulysses, its all just a matter of one's aesthetic and imaginative preferences to -an extent-, which is my important revision here: its important to be conscious of what the lore says, also, and to -then- be able to make the necessary distinctions between the known and the open-ended unknown in the lore.

I also, like Laguna, think its important to consider the author and what the author would have wanted, and in this case, Professor Tolkien. But I believe that Horn is a gap because Tolkien's intentions are not altogether clear regarding who these characters were in the Song. All he gives us is a list. And, moreover, I think its incredibly odd that, Grimbold and Dunhere aside, we really -don't- know who Fastred or Herubrand or Herefara are. Meanwhile, in the "Epic Catalogue of Forces," with Pippin and Bergil watching the Gondorian lords parade into the City with their armies, we do get bits and pieces of hints as to who Forlong is, and who these other lords are. We even can tell a lot based on their physical appearances. So, we get a better sense of whose dead from the Gondorian side of the list, versus the Rohan side of the list, where we only really know who Theoden, Grimbold, and Dunhere kind of were- and I'm being incredibly generous to Dunhere Lord of Dunharrow here. We know that Guthlaf was the King's banner-bearer, but not so much else about him. They don't even have lines- most of them. Theoden's the only really fleshed-out character on the list of the dead. At least Anborn and Mablung had some lines- Faramir's rangers at Henneth Annun.

So its really up in the air in terms of what one can imagine concerning these "characters" who are really only names on a list written by a third-party years later in the context of the lore. And that's just the facts. It was written as if some Rohirric bard in the Fourth Age wrote it. I, in all kindness and respect to you, Laguna, tend to believe that its more respectful to Professor Tolkien to view his works in the ways in which he had intended for them to be viewed: as if they were really ancient epics part of a by-gone past that's been forgotten in our real lives. He tried to detract once from his desire to create a specifically English mythology, but his body of works as a whole ultimately leave us with that impression- although I'd call it a far broader European mythology. Only the Shire and Bree-land really feel "English," whereas Rohan only feels English only in so far that Britain had been settled by Germanic tribes who became the Anglo-Saxons and others. Gondor feels far more Mediterranean / southern European in how its written- with hints of Egyptian influences as Tolkien specified in one of his non-fiction writings. And, naturally, northern Eriador and northern Rhovanion feel very Nordic.

Regarding the original purposes of this thread, there is something I'd hope MoL would want to answer in the upcoming epic books:

In Volume I, Mordirith mocks Narmelleth / Amarthiel, claiming, "My power flows from the Witch King!" during their confrontation in Tham Mirdain in Eregion. But, in Volume IV, "Gothmog" claims that it was "his Master" / The Witch King who brought him back from the Void. While "The Silmarillion" cannot be explicitly used, I must contend, in all due respect, that this kind of defies much that we know about the Void on the surface. It would've been one thing if Golodir's Dunachar had prevented Mordirith from going to the Void in the first place. It would be quite another if Mordirith got tossed by the Valar through the Door of Night to where Morgoth and presumably Durin's Bane are now, only for Dunachar to magically bring Mordirith back to Minas Morgul? Me thinks it was a little bit of a mistake to have Mordirith say "I fell into the Void, but my Master pulled me back" in Volume IV Book III. Again, no one has to mention the Sil in the quest-text and use anything from it- no one needs to get in trouble over licensing here. It's all about -assuming- stuff from the Sil without explicitly mentioning or outright using anything from it.

Would've rather had Gothmog say: "I began to fall toward the Void, but my Master pulled me back," which would've been a bit more consistent with "As long as he [Golodir] lives, I cannot die!" Then Mordirith is simply un-cloaked by Narmelleth in Volume I, goes back to Minas Morgul again like the Nazgul after their incident at the Ford of Bruinen, and he gets re-cloaked and augmented with more power by the Witch King.

But this is being just plain nit-picky, I know. But one can hope for a minor quest-text edit in a previous book in an upcoming update, can't I? *slowly smiles and kindly bows to MoL.*

Here's my bit of an issue. Elrond, immediately after Volume I, thinks Earnur has finally found rest after his long enslavement to the powers of Mordor. After all, it wasn't as if it was Earnur's fault- Earnur had been goaded into a challenge that was not really about boasting Earnur's only glory as much as it was about him trying to end a grave menace to the Kingdom of Gondor- of course pride was probably involved, and pride and overconfidence were his downfall. Its still a bit too much for me to view Earnur as -wholly- responsible for his own actions as a lesser wraith enthralled to the Witch King. I'd rather think of him as inhabiting the status of Hurin, trapped by Morgoth, forced to watch everything fall to pieces in the First Age. I'm sure if Earnur, King of Gondor, realized what was going to happen to him, he would have rather stayed and protected his people- and its possible that Earnur had good intentions, desiring to end a grave menace to the people of Gondor, while making the prideful error of not heeding Glorfindel's words. So, I really really hope that some redemption is in the works- and that its not another "Kill the evil baddie! Ding dong the baddie's dead! Hooray!"

I'd rather have a more complicated conclusion for Gothmog- and maybe even a sympathetic one- like Volume I's conclusion. Volume I's conclusion was really a work of art, MoL, as it stood back then, and I'd like to see that level of complexity replayed somehow. It was great for players to think that Earnur had been freed and found rest- while Narmelleth had redeemed herself as well. I'd even love for Gothmog in his final moments to see visions of Golodir and Lorniel, and have -Earnur- 'walk-off beyond the circles of the world' with them and his redeemed ex-Cargul / former knights, leaving the husk of robes and armor behind whenever the big raid or instance is over (though this should really have a solo option in the epic also- and, on a brief side-note, it really felt like a cop-out to bar the whole Denethor thing to a group-play instance; I really want to have a solo option in the next book in which the player can observe Denethor's fate in a bit of a flashback sort of scene). Remember, Earnur didn't take a ring of power and outright side with Sauron- so his story's more open to redemption than the Nazgul, who had outright taken rings and devoted themselves to Sauron.

Secondly, the other issue about this is that, while I suppose that Sauron's powers were propping-up the Witch King, who in turn propped-up Mordirith, shouldn't there be some incredibly adverse effect on Gothmog because of the Witch King's demise? The Witch King isn't even mentioned in the Aragorn confrontation. Its all about Golodir all of a sudden, and somehow, Mordirith seems pretty content that the Witch King is out of the picture, whereas, in Volume I, the given impression was the idea that Mordirith was really dependent on the Witch King for his power.

In short: there's a contradiction here, unless dear MoL can explain what is really going-on here, which I'd really appreciate. You'd think Gothmog losing his chief power-source, The Witch King, would make him kind of lose something- like Sauron losing the One Ring in the first place to Isildur. And, with Golodir out of the picture, and with the Witch King out of the picture, and with no clear Ring of Power on Gothmog's fingers, I'd really like to know what power-source is preventing Gothmog from crumbling into a pile of armor and robes on the spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LagunaD2

...right in front of him, and you can expect a STERN talking-to!

---

Just finished this quest line, and honestly, no other part of the Epic has disgusted me more. Absolutely pathetic that Aragorn would be portrayed as standing there and doing NOTHING as his close friend is bashed to a pulp right beside him...simply because he laughed?

Up until the Rangers show up, I had really enjoyed the Pelennor Fields part of the Epic. Which made it even more of a shame that the conclusion was so ridiculous.

Yeah... there was a way to do it, gain the same story-result, but have it look better.

Would have preferred that -this- happened: Right after Halbarad laughed, mocking Gothmog's overconfidence, Gothmog swung at Halbarad, but Aragorn rushed-in and parried him, and then Aragorn swung at Gothmog, Gothmog parried Aragorn, Halbarad went-in for the, if you will, aggro-steal, protecting his lord, and as Aragorn swung back, Gothmog felled Halbarad, who didn't parry in time, trapped under the weight of Gothmog's mace, and then Aragorn and Gothmog should have dueled a little, and then Gothmog's Orcs should have intervened, and right after Aragorn and we players kill the Orcs, with Gothmog retreating, THEN Aragorn should have given his speech of prophecy, scaring Gothmog away.

They were excellent in how they handled the Eowyn vs Witch King fight. They ought to have handled Aragorn and Gothmog in a similar way, including with the different angles of the camera, etc, having players briefly regain control in order to help fight the Orcs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phantion

Yeah... there was a way to do it, gain the same story-result, but have it look better.

---

I do agree with this, so I spent the better part of today reworking the final drama scene in this instance to make it come across better.

SPOILERS for 'Instance: On a Field of Red,' but if you haven't played it already you shouldn't be in this thread to begin with!
*
*
*
*
I think this is one of those cases where an idea that worked reasonably well on the page maybe didn't translate as well into the game. For the next update, Hal won't come across as quite so much of a laughing sociopath, Aragorn won't be standing idly by while the action happens, and Gothmog won't be attacking Hal to get him to stop laughing, he'll be attacking Aragorn in order to finish things once and for all. I think the new version probably works better, even if the underlying story isn't really that different.

MoL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

I do agree with this, so I spent the better part of today reworking the final drama scene in this instance to make it come across better.

SPOILERS for 'Instance: On a Field of Red,' but if you haven't played it already you shouldn't be in this thread to begin with!
*
*
*
*
I think this is one of those cases where an idea that worked reasonably well on the page maybe didn't translate as well into the game. For the next update, Hal won't come across as quite so much of a laughing sociopath, Aragorn won't be standing idly by while the action happens, and Gothmog won't be attacking Hal to get him to stop laughing, he'll be attacking Aragorn in order to finish things once and for all. I think the new version probably works better, even if the underlying story isn't really that different.

MoL

---

Hence, I assume, Hal will sacrifice himself to shield Ara. Much better indeed. Thanks MoL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

I do agree with this, so I spent the better part of today reworking the final drama scene in this instance to make it come across better.

SPOILERS for 'Instance: On a Field of Red,' but if you haven't played it already you shouldn't be in this thread to begin with!
*
*
*
*
I think this is one of those cases where an idea that worked reasonably well on the page maybe didn't translate as well into the game. For the next update, Hal won't come across as quite so much of a laughing sociopath, Aragorn won't be standing idly by while the action happens, and Gothmog won't be attacking Hal to get him to stop laughing, he'll be attacking Aragorn in order to finish things once and for all. I think the new version probably works better, even if the underlying story isn't really that different.

MoL

---

This is good news. Now I have no good excuse not to take another alt through that volume of the epic after the next update. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

I do agree with this, so I spent the better part of today reworking the final drama scene in this instance to make it come across better.

---

Nice work MoL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phantion

Yeah... there was a way to do it, gain the same story-result, but have it look better.

Would have preferred that -this- happened: Right after Halbarad laughed, mocking Gothmog's overconfidence, Gothmog swung at Halbarad, but Aragorn rushed-in and parried him, and then Aragorn swung at Gothmog, Gothmog parried Aragorn, Halbarad went-in for the, if you will, aggro-steal, protecting his lord, and as Aragorn swung back, Gothmog felled Halbarad, who didn't parry in time, trapped under the weight of Gothmog's mace, and then Aragorn and Gothmog should have dueled a little, and then Gothmog's Orcs should have intervened, and right after Aragorn and we players kill the Orcs, with Gothmog retreating, THEN Aragorn should have given his speech of prophecy, scaring Gothmog away.

They were excellent in how they handled the Eowyn vs Witch King fight. They ought to have handled Aragorn and Gothmog in a similar way, including with the different angles of the camera, etc, having players briefly regain control in order to help fight the Orcs.

---

Nice! Will we be able to see it on toons who already completed it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emraneth

Nice! Will we be able to see it on toons who already completed it?

---

Once the update with this change is live, you'll be able to see it if you use the Reflecting Pool outside Dru Bhuta to replay 'On a Field of Red.'

MoL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

Once the update with this change is live, you'll be able to see it if you use the Reflecting Pool outside Dru Bhuta to replay 'On a Field of Red.'

MoL

---

And the update will release on the ... ? :D
September, October, November (yeah, talking about the U19 and yeah, I know that, we didn't see the *new* producer's letter, or details of U19.)

"Just a Fool's Hope"
-Gandalf