Rune Keeper Lore

[Therubor]

That's because it would be terrible, since it would mean that RKs were purposely torturing Orcs to death. And these are supposed to be the good guys? So, you can't win either way: if it's 'real' elemental magic then it's not the kind of power even Elves ever had and the way it behaves is wrong, and if it's illusory then it's torture and having them doing that is wrong.

If putting blasts of pain into somenone's head is wrong, how is shooting a flaming arrow through their skull a nice thing?

[Radhruin_EU]

If putting blasts of pain into somenone's head is wrong, how is shooting a flaming arrow through their skull a nice thing?

The difference is that the arrow might kill someone cleanly, whereas the RK's magic never would if it were all in the victim's head. There'd be agonised writhing and screaming, every single time. Hence not Elvish, because the Elves would wish to grant even Orcs a quick, clean death if they could.

[Therubor]

The difference is that the arrow might kill someone cleanly, whereas the RK's magic never would if it were all in the victim's head. There'd be agonised writhing and screaming, every single time. Hence not Elvish, because the Elves would wish to grant even Orcs a quick, clean death if they could.

They'd be agonized and screaming if was a flaming arrow at the beginning of the fight, too. But I know what you mean. What if it were just blasts of power overriding the normal neural processing, wearing down the mind until shutdown? That might be a bit more good guy-ish. After all, hitting someone repeatedly in the head with a mace is just a physical version of that, and doing it mentally eliminates the streams of blood flying everywhere. The reason it's tied to writing is because it would make your foe's death or your ally's uplifting more believable. And yes, in this case, the mind makes it real, as it's all happening in the target's head.

[Radhruin_EU]

They'd be agonized and screaming if was a flaming arrow at the beginning of the fight, too. But I know what you mean. What if it were just blasts of power overriding the normal neural processing, wearing down the mind until shutdown?

Then it wouldn't have anything to do with the elements at all, which would diverge from what the game describes, such as words that 'burn': even if it were only in the victim's head that implies prolonged, searing pain.

[Therubor]

Then it wouldn't have anything to do with the elements at all, which would diverge from what the game describes, such as words that 'burn': even if it were only in the victim's head that implies prolonged, searing pain.

None of the skill descriptions actually say that there are elements conjured. (Except, of course, for Fall to XXX and Armor of XXX, which are the only ones, I believe.) The telepathic recitations while empowered by Rune-stones could have a burning, chilling, or shocking effect on your foe's physical brain and mental state based on how you present the tale, thus 'burning' or 'chilling' for real without any actual flame or frost.

[Beleg-Of-Doriath]

None of the skill descriptions actually say that there are elements conjured. (Except, of course, for Fall to XXX and Armor of XXX, which are the only ones, I believe.)

Just those one or two skills are enough to confirm that the other less explicit skill descriptions are indeed talking about the elements.

The telepathic recitations while empowered by Rune-stones could have a burning, chilling, or shocking effect on your foe's physical brain and mental state based on how you present the tale, thus 'burning' or 'chilling' for real without any actual flame or frost.

I've been watching the exchange here with mild disbelief. You've obviously put alot of thought into it but the fact is the stuff I've seen over the last several posts is more akin to the science-fiction I've seen in Stargate than Middle-earth. I think you should resign yourself to the fact that there is nothing in the lore that remotely allows the possibility of a rune-keeper, or indeed some aspects of other classes.

[Radhruin_EU]

None of the skill descriptions actually say that there are elements conjured. (Except, of course, for Fall to XXX and Armor of XXX, which are the only ones, I believe.) The telepathic recitations while empowered by Rune-stones could have a burning, chilling, or shocking effect on your foe's physical brain and mental state based on how you present the tale, thus 'burning' or 'chilling' for real without any actual flame or frost.

So it isn't 'none', is it? It's some that say it outright and a whole bunch more that imply it. Certainly enough to cast serious doubt on the notion that it's all imaginary. Setting that aside, taking the line that there's nothing 'real' about it would mean that RKs were using a kind of deadly elemental-themed mental torture on their opponents. Either way, it's got nothing to do with LOTR at all.

[Nobbins]

It's just crude game mechanics; nothing is supposed to be being 'created'.

That's the consistency aspect that I am talking about. If we consider that what we see is what is happening, then we need to apply that consistently to all classes. The RK is shooting fireballs AND the Captain is creating humans. If we allow for crude game mechanics representation than the RK is burning with insults AND the Captain just has a buddy.

Ah-ah, no you don't. The herald's notionally the Captain's sidekick, and there's nothing wrong with that

Except that the Lore used to create the Captain, Boromir, had no sidekick.

No, the skill descriptions are not 'clearly' metaphorical, either. Some of them would have to be 'clearly' literal in order to work, like 'Fall to Storm':if the RK's foreseeing that their enemy's going to be 'struck by lightning' and thereby meet their fate, then unless there's a thunderstorm handy then it must be lightning that the RK's hurling about. There's a whole list of dubious descriptions of that kind.

If the lightning damage type MUST be actual lightning, than the Light damage type MUST be actual light. In which case you have the problem of a Captain shooting laser beams out of his mouth.

Alternatively, you can interpret the skills as metaphors and consider that damage types are just crude MMO mechanics like summoning sidekicks out of thin air which are not to be taken literally.

The RK is the only class where the whole concept has no basis in the books.

To be consistent, none of the classes have any real basis in the books. The books were not written with classes in mind, or any of the other typical MMO features. The only "basis" classes have is that sometimes the same word was used in the books, but nothing else. You can find the term "Lore-Master" in the books to describe Elrond, but that's where the similiarities end. Middle-earth healers were not singers, they used bandages and herbs instead of lutes and drums. Battle field formations did not involve setting up a "Champ ball" to AOE opponents down. Weapons in Middle-Earth lost momentum when making contact with other objects - the idea of magically hitting 10 guys at once was just as absurd in Middle-Earth as Rune-keepers insulting people to death.

We have to toss out the Lore to accept the other classes, the RK should be given the same treatment. Runes are mentioned in Middle-Earth, just like Lore-masters. But they're both represented completely differently in game than they are in the books.

[Radhruin_EU]

That's the consistency aspect that I am talking about. If we consider that what we see is what is happening, then we need to apply that consistently to all classes. The RK is shooting fireballs AND the Captain is creating humans. If we allow for crude game mechanics representation than the RK is burning with insults AND the Captain just has a buddy.

Is there an echo in here? I could swear that's exactly what you said last time. Again, the heralds appear out of thin air because it's a lot harder to have them doing anything else; if you've got a better idea, post it in the Suggestions forum. RKs have over-the-top effects because Turbine WANTED them to look like that, it's not because they couldn't do something more subtle but because they WANTED to have an elemental mage in the game, unabashedly flinging magic about because that's crowd-pleasing. See the difference?

The 'burning with insults' thing has also been dealt with because not only is that a paper-thin disguise for the elemental magic that's shown (the devs couldn't even manage to be consistent with the skill descriptions) but that would mean Elves were going around cruelly and quite deliberately torturing Orcs to death with magic. Once it's all supposedly happening in the enemies' heads, there's no excuse for having so many variations on searing, frying or freezing them with elemental effects because mental imagery could involve anything. Anything at all.

Except that the Lore used to create the Captain, Boromir, had no sidekick.

Irrelevant. Every Captain should have a squire, or something of that kind. Someone to help him gear up before a battle, and someone to watch his back during it. Boromir had made a point of going to search for Imladris by himself.

If the lightning damage type MUST be actual lightning, than the Light damage type MUST be actual light. In which case you have the problem of a Captain shooting laser beams out of his mouth.

Nope, because 'Light' was already used as a general-purpose damage type for the effect of good-aligned stuff on evil things like Orcs. In any case, the only reason the RK must be using lightning is that Turbine included a skill which actually calls for the target to be hit with lightning. They broke their own metaphor, so it's no good you trying to tell me it's all just metaphorical. Maybe you should write up another suggestion to Turbine that they fix their 'lore' so people like me can't immediately torpedo anyone who tries that line.

Alternatively, you can interpret the skills as metaphors and consider that damage types are just crude MMO mechanics like summoning sidekicks out of thin air which are not to be taken literally.

Alternatively, you could read what people say to you in replies to save them the tedious effort of repeating themselves. Or you could just review the thread as a whole rather than trying to wind it back to square one.

To be consistent, none of the classes have any real basis in the books. The books were not written with classes in mind, or any of the other typical MMO features.

Plainly untrue: for example, Burglar is mentioned by name as a profession in The Hobbit, and that's the next best thing to a class. It lends itself to being treated that way. The majority of the classes are based on something of that kind, exaggerated for the sake of the game (naturally, it being a mainstream MMO) but reflecting at least some small shred of something from the books. The only one that is based on absolutely nothing is the RK, because Tolkien includes nothing even remotely close to that.

You must surely know how the 'morale' metaphor works, and why it's in the game: it's to dodge around the issue of permadeath for player-characters. Minstrels are an example of that metaphor being taken way too far, but the core idea of the class has at least got something going for it. Middle-earth did have Minstrels, Elvish ones even had magical abilities, and there are examples of singing raising people's morale. Overdone as it is, it's certainly very cheesy (War-speech in particular) but it was less so when the game started. LMs weren't so overtly magical to start off with, either.

So yes, the other classes have all got some typical MMO silliness about them, but at least they've got some basis for being there - rather than simply having been foisted on the game by Turbine's management as a cynical ploy to sell more copies of MoM and get or keep more subscriptions.

[Gauddan]

That's the consistency aspect that I am talking about. If we consider that what we see is what is happening, then we need to apply that consistently to all classes. The RK is shooting fireballs AND the Captain is creating humans. If we allow for crude game mechanics representation than the RK is burning with insults AND the Captain just has a buddy.

The Captain isnt simply creating humans, its down to game mechanics as already said. Its not game mechanics thats causing the Runekeepers to throw fireballs and lightning bolts around

Except that the Lore used to create the Captain, Boromir, had no sidekick.

Before he came north to Rivendell he had thousands, namely the armies of Minas Tirith. Just because he travelled alone in the book doesnt mean he wasnt more than able to drum up a few guards or baggage handlers if he needed to.

We have to toss out the Lore to accept the other classes, the RK should be given the same treatment. Runes are mentioned in Middle-Earth, just like Lore-masters. But they're both represented completely differently in game than they are in the books.

But you can see the basis for the other classes in the game. Champion, Guardian and Captain all have basis in various soldiers, Hunter is pretty close to various Elves etc. No famous creator or user of runes in the history of middle earth ran around shooting laser beams or the like.

[Ironcrown]

Just curious...why do people belabor the RK issue???

Turbine is not going to remove the class.

Everyone falls into 1 of 3 groups and are not going to change their minds;

1) RKs are OK
2) RKs ruined the game
3) I don't care either way

There, I've summed up every RK thread ever created. Now can we move on please?

[Nobbins]

Is there an echo in here? I could swear that's exactly what you said last time. Again, the heralds appear out of thin air because it's a lot harder to have them doing anything else.

But there is absolutely no lore based reason why Captains (using Boromir as the inspirtaion) need to have a summonable herald. Turbine made the decision that they wanted certain popular magical functions in their MMO, specifically conjuring up allies.

RKs have over-the-top effects because Turbine WANTED them to look like that, it's not because they couldn't do something more subtle but because they WANTED to have an elemental mage in the game, unabashedly flinging magic about because that's crowd-pleasing. See the difference?

Turbine also wanted to have something to please the summoner magic player base. There's no difference. Turbine wanted to take the traditional MMO/D&D elements and put them into a Middle-Earth world. The RK was not the first class to do this.

Irrelevant. Every Captain should have a squire, or something of that kind. Someone to help him gear up before a battle, and someone to watch his back during it. Boromir had made a point of going to search for Imladris by himself.

Every Guardian and Champion should also have a squire by that logic, so do you consider it lore-breaking that Guards/Champs don't have a pet as well? I smell another inconsistency. And as you state above, Boromir went adventuring BY HIMSELF with no magical means to instantly summon his herald to his side from Gondor. Why should our Captains be inconsistent with the lore-inspiration for the class by bringing along their squire?

Nope, because 'Light' was already used as a general-purpose damage type for the effect of good-aligned stuff on evil things like Orcs.

So why can't you view lightning and fire as general-purpose damage types? Fire damage has been dished out in the game by non-fire sources since before the RK with swords, clubs, maces and some LM-skills (cracked earth). If Turbine can introduce Light damage to be general purpose, why can't they introduce another general purpose damage type called lightning? I don't understand the inconsistency here.

Alternatively, you could read what people say to you in replies to save them the tedious effort of repeating themselves. Or you could just review the thread as a whole rather than trying to wind it back to square one.

That's the ultimate defense of those who make inconsistent arguments - "Argh I keep repeating myself." If you had a consistent definition of what constituted lore and applied it equally to all the classes, you wouldn't run into this problem. Either classes need to mimic the inspiration from the lore, or they don't. Either damage type is literal, or it's an MMO gameplay mechanic, etc. Once you argue that I can be another Gandalf just as long as I call myself a "lore-master", your argument really starts to fall apart.

Plainly untrue: for example, Burglar is mentioned by name as a profession in The Hobbit, and that's the next best thing to a class.

But the Burglar that we play in the game in no way resembles the Burglar mentioned in the lore - Bilbo Baggins. Turbine wanted to bring the D&D thief class into the game, and called it a Burglar because it was mentioned in the books. The class resembles the D&D thief moreso than it resembles Bilbo's activities in the Hobbit. For example, the surprise strike skill is a rip off of the D&D backstab. Bilbo engaged in a riddle contest with Gollum, but it's absurd to think that Bilbo could stop someone in their tracks in the middle of a battle by asking them to play the riddle game with him. Do you honestly think that Turbine created the Burglar class without any influence of the traditional thief class?

So yes, the other classes have all got some typical MMO silliness about them, but at least they've got some basis for being there - rather than simply having been foisted on the game by Turbine's management as a cynical ploy to sell more copies of MoM and get or keep more subscriptions.

The basis for the lore-master is that Elrond was called one, and that's it. The rest of the class was built around playing a traditional wizard, with nearly all of the LM skills being rip-offs of what Gandalf did in the books. The basis for this class is apparently that the word "lore-master" was mentioned. The rest is all lore-breaking. The same could be said with the rune-keeper class. Runes are mentioned in the text, and the rest is all lore-breaking. If it's okay to call Wizards "Lore-masters" why isn't it acceptable to call Elementalists "Rune-keepers"?

[Nobbins]

But you can see the basis for the other classes in the game. Champion, Guardian and Captain all have basis in various soldiers, Hunter is pretty close to various Elves etc. No famous creator or user of runes in the history of middle earth ran around shooting laser beams or the like.

You're absolutely right that no rune keeper in the history of middle-earth ran around shooting lightning (as the animations show) or insulting people to death (as the skills describe). But the same could be said about what the other classes do. Captain's light beam voice, Lore-master's fire and lightning skills, minstrels singing slugs to deaths, etc.

It's not like RKs are ninja cyborgs, which would really have no basis in the game. But in a game where we don't bat an eye when pigs topple over dead from hearing a melody, are RKs really that much more far fetched?

[Radhruin_EU]

But there is absolutely no lore based reason why Captains (using Boromir as the inspirtaion) need to have a summonable herald. Turbine made the decision that they wanted certain popular magical functions in their MMO, specifically conjuring up allies.

One more time: the herald is no more being magically summoned than Hunters can 'really' teleport. It's just crude game mechanics. And as there's good reason for a Captain to have a sidekick, you don't have a leg to stand on there.

Turbine also wanted to have something to please the summoner magic player base. There's no difference. Turbine wanted to take the traditional MMO/D&D elements and put them into a Middle-Earth world. The RK was not the first class to do this.

LM pets aren't supposed to be being magically summoned as such, it's more like how Gandalf can call Shadowfax (by whistling). Yes, in an ideal world pets would be persistent and would behave more realistically but as has already been pointed out to you several times, it's very hard to do that in a game like this. End of story, there's really nothing more to say.

Every Guardian and Champion should also have a squire by that logic, so do you consider it lore-breaking that Guards/Champs don't have a pet as well? I smell another inconsistency. And as you state above, Boromir went adventuring BY HIMSELF with no magical means to instantly summon his herald to his side from Gondor. Why should our Captains be inconsistent with the lore-inspiration for the class by bringing along their squire?

Why, because every mercenary soldier has a side-kick? Captains are an exception, if they're really supposed to be leaders of men then it's only to be expected for them to have hangers-on. Boromir chose to go on a quest by himself; he would be the exception, if anything, by having done that.

So why can't you view lightning and fire as general-purpose damage types? Fire damage has been dished out in the game by non-fire sources since before the RK with swords, clubs, maces and some LM-skills (cracked earth). If Turbine can introduce Light damage to be general purpose, why can't they introduce another general purpose damage type called lightning? I don't understand the inconsistency here.

Turbine haven't used them that way. Fire is fire, lightning is lightning. The thing about having a catch-all like 'Light' for odd exceptions is that you only need one.

That's the ultimate defense of those who make inconsistent arguments - "Argh I keep repeating myself." If you had a consistent definition of what constituted lore and applied it equally to all the classes, you wouldn't run into this problem. Either classes need to mimic the inspiration from the lore, or they don't. Either damage type is literal, or it's an MMO gameplay mechanic, etc. Once you argue that I can be another Gandalf just as long as I call myself a "lore-master", your argument really starts to fall apart.

What I said was that the other classes are all inspired by at least something in the books; they don't have to mimic their inspiration exactly. The RK is different because there is nobody like that at all, it's just Turbine trying to squeeze an elemental mage in by making vague references to things like runes.

Since you are repeating yourself, you can hardly complain when people point that out.

But the Burglar that we play in the game in no way resembles the Burglar mentioned in the lore - Bilbo Baggins. Turbine wanted to bring the D&D thief class into the game, and called it a Burglar because it was mentioned in the books. The class resembles the D&D thief moreso than it resembles Bilbo's activities in the Hobbit. For example, the surprise strike skill is a rip off of the D&D backstab. Bilbo engaged in a riddle contest with Gollum, but it's absurd to think that Bilbo could stop someone in their tracks in the middle of a battle by asking them to play the riddle game with him. Do you honestly think that Turbine created the Burglar class without any influence of the traditional thief class?

Bilbo wasn't really a Burglar. There were evidently other people who actually were professional Burglars; the Dwarves only imagined Bilbo to be one because Gandalf had fooled them into it, by making that mark on Bilbo's door. So, apart from stupid meta-gaming stuff like HiPS and riddles (things that should never have been included in a game like this), Turbine are welcome to elaborate.

The basis for the lore-master is that Elrond was called one, and that's it. The rest of the class was built around playing a traditional wizard, with nearly all of the LM skills being rip-offs of what Gandalf did in the books. The basis for this class is apparently that the word "lore-master" was mentioned. The rest is all lore-breaking. The same could be said with the rune-keeper class. Runes are mentioned in the text, and the rest is all lore-breaking. If it's okay to call Wizards "Lore-masters" why isn't it acceptable to call Elementalists "Rune-keepers"?

Because there is scope for magicians other than wizards in the books, whereas there's no scope whatsoever for 'elementalists'. For example, someone, some Man, made the 'blades of Westernesse' that the hobbits took with them from the Barrow-wight's hoard, and had placed spells on them 'for the bane of Mordor'. By contrast, there's nothing that would allow even in the slightest for Elves or Dwarves to be running around unarmed except for a rock while hurling elemental magic about.

[Beleg-Of-Doriath]

You're absolutely right that no rune keeper in the history of middle-earth ran around shooting lightning (as the animations show) or insulting people to death (as the skills describe). But the same could be said about what the other classes do. Captain's light beam voice, Lore-master's fire and lightning skills, minstrels singing slugs to deaths, etc.

You're the first person ever to have failed to grasp the difference between lore and game mechanics when they're explained to them. I'll try and make it simpler:

Hunter's don't really teleport - read the skill description. It's a crude game mechanic of convenience.
There is no explanation as to how we can carry hundreds of items around in our bags, including really massive ones. It's a crude game mechanic that there isn't really a way around.
When we travel somewhere on a Swift-travel stable horse we aren't really teleporting to the destination - it's a crude game mechanic of convenience.
When an LM or captain summons their pet the pet isn't really appearing out of nowhere. There just isn't a realistic alternative to this crude game mechanic.

It's been suggested (about 3+ years ago now) in the past that a summoned mount or pet could trot towards you from out of view from the side of the screen but the dev at the time said that if a player was near the edge of a cliff or some other inappropriate object then it would make matters very difficult (the pet couldn't just trot towards you in mid-air if you're standing next to a cliff, nor could it walk through solid walls to get to you).

See the difference? There has to be a certain amount of unrealistic mechanics to transform how things are in real life into a computer game. The introduction of goat mounts or Rune-keepers or giant tortoises are nothing to do with game mechanics. If you don't get this by now then I can only assume you're trolling.

[Therubor]

So it isn't 'none', is it? It's some that say it outright and a whole bunch more that imply it. Certainly enough to cast serious doubt on the notion that it's all imaginary. Setting that aside, taking the line that there's nothing 'real' about it would mean that RKs were using a kind of deadly elemental-themed mental torture on their opponents. Either way, it's got nothing to do with LOTR at all.

Yes, most of them imply it. But, then again, they do only say that the words burn, which they would if they were in your head.

And if this all doesn't satisfy you, maybe it's time to change my argument. (Again.) Here's another theory.

Rune-Keepers are actually using their words to summon the elements, as they are the apprentices of the Istari and the other lesser wizards. There, I've said this. Now I'll back it up.

1. Lore-Masters do not use magic, other than that used in the lore skills, Wizard's Fire, and Cracked Earth, therefore, they are not lesser wizards, unless your argument about 'blatant magic use' is wrong.
The Lore-Master is actually what outside gamers would call an 'alchemist'. That is, they are using their pharmaceutical, technological, and chemical knowledge (not to mention a bit of magic) in combat. Blinding Flash uses gunpowder, Burning Embers uses a sort of flammable solid, Bane Flare uses fireworks, Light of the Rising Dawn is metaphorical. However, I think that the lore skills are magic, just a very subtle use of it. Wizard's Fire is probably a little spell from the Wizards, and Cracked Earth is as well.

2. Tolkien mentions not only lesser wizards, but magical traditions in his legendarium. These wizards may have spread both the knowledge and required artifacts to the people of Middle Earth.

3. Rune-Keepers use the same powers that Lore-Masters use in Lore skills, but to a greater extent.
As you probably know, the Lore-Masters have a selection of debuffs that revolve around subtly influencing the enviroment. I am suggesting that the Rune-Keeper is using those same powers, but to greater effect and with a different medium. Instead of using a staff to channel energies, the Rune-Keeper uses his charged runestones to store and power the energy. Also, instead of using ancient lore and staff movements to use power, the Rune-Keeper is able to channel his power through his words.

4. Rune-Keepers are not powerful enough to use more subtle ways of doing the things they do.
Subtlety is harder than being obvious. Just because someone is subtle doesn't mean that they are using a weaker version of something more blatant. In fact, I'd say that the opposite is usually true.

Don't flame me, don't say "Well, he admitted that they use magic, so I'm not listening!" and keep your criticism to the level of 'constructive', not 'vitriolically sarcastic' or '7-deep Wrath of Flame traited with Martial Training and Distracting Flame as well and I'm spamming Fiery Ridicule to DEATH on you.' Thank you.

[Radhruin_EU]

Rune-Keepers are actually using their words to summon the elements, as they are the apprentices of the Istari and the other lesser wizards. There, I've said this. Now I'll back it up.

You and your endless 'theories'. Sorry, but no. Nobody other than a full-fledged Maia shows any sign of being able to use that kind of power. Not even Luthien. Being able to change reality to the extent of being able to summon fire out of thin air was evidently powerful stuff, to Tolkien's mind, which would be why even so much as starting a camp-fire by magic announced unmistakeably to the world at large that "Gandalf is here".

'If there are any to see, then I at least am revealed to them,' he said. 'I have written Gandalf is here in signs that all can read from Rivendell to the Mouths of Anduin.'

- FOTR, 'The Ring Goes South'

I think you, and others, are so accustomed to high-magic settings that you're having trouble imagining one where something like that is a significant power.

[Therubor]

Yes, it would have said "Gandalf is here" partly because Gandalf is a famous magic user, but also because, and here's the thing, the only known person in Middle-Earth to go on adventures regularly. For the most part, the only travelers off the beaten paths are armies and Boromir. The Fellowship is the only of its kind at the time, so starting a magical fire is going to announce that it's Gandalf not because of its rarity, but because of its location. And if that was alerting his presence to a large area, then how is killing several goblins a subtle, unnoticed thing to the sight of the Necromancer/Sauron? (Which he does in The Hobbit.)

I am accustomed to high-magic settings, but you appear attached to the idea that M-E is a no-magic one, with the only magic users being the equivalent of angels, which it isn't. The great thing about Tolkien's lore is the fact that it is not a grand, solid piece of work, but a work in progress that affects and is affected by its fans. It is still growing, and it will likely never stop.

Edit: I'm guessing that it takes more power and energy to do something as controlled as a small, usable campfire, rather than a sort of flare that lasts for a few seconds.

Double Edit:

But you can see the basis for the other classes in the game. Champion, Guardian and Captain all have basis in various soldiers, Hunter is pretty close to various Elves etc. No famous creator or user of runes in the history of middle earth ran around shooting laser beams or the like.

Fun Fact: There was no plate armor in Middle-Earth. Therefore, the plate wearing Guard is lore-breaking. Please complain about that before drawing your attention to Rune-Keepers (source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_and_armour) (It's in the 'General Items' section.)

[Radhruin_EU]

Yes, it would have said "Gandalf is here" partly because Gandalf is a famous magic user

...and because being able to fling fire about is truly exceptional. If it were not, then there'd be that kind of magic being used more frequently and nobody would be able to tell it was Gandalf, in particular, using fire-magic.

(Which he does in The Hobbit.)

If you care to notice, what Gandalf does in The Hobbit is markedly different in style and effect to what he does in LOTR. That's because LOTR wasn't written for kids.

In any case, you're trying to second-guess Tolkien himself there.

I am accustomed to high-magic settings, but you appear attached to the idea that M-E is a no-magic one, with the only magic users being the equivalent of angels, which it isn't. The great thing about Tolkien's lore is the fact that it is not a grand, solid piece of work, but a work in progress that affects and is affected by its fans. It is still growing, and it will likely never stop.

Oh, so if there's any magic at all then that means people should be able to fling fire and lightning around, does it? Thank for for proving my point. Low-magic isn't no magic, it's just that the kind of powerful magic you're after really was concentrated in the hands of a few exceptionally powerful and highly supernatural beings. That's how it was written, and in a lore thread like this that's all that matters.

I'm guessing that it takes more power and energy to do something as controlled as a small, usable campfire, rather than a sort of flare that lasts for a few seconds.

'A sort of flare that lasts for a few seconds' is exactly what Gandalf produced to light that fire. 'Naur an edraith ammen!', and WHOOSH! instant camp-fire. It's not like he was trying to hurl fire about, either.

Fun Fact: There was no plate armor in Middle-Earth. Therefore, the plate wearing Guard is lore-breaking. Please complain about that before drawing your attention to Rune-Keepers (source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_and_armour) (It's in the 'General Items' section.)

I did comment on that, years ago. A long time pre-beta. So did plenty of other people. Fact is, if there wasn't plate armour then that might suit those of us who actually know the books, but loads of other people else would complain about lack of variety or how they always play classes who wear plate armour or how their character doesn't look cool without it or some damn thing like that.

If someone were to start a thread called "Plate Armour Lore" then all the old arguments about that would probably get trotted out again, much like they have in this thread about RKs. You'll note I didn't start this thread; you have the OP to thank for drawing attention to it.

[Reddhawk]

Fun Fact: There was no plate armor in Middle-Earth. Therefore, the plate wearing Guard is lore-breaking. Please complain about that before drawing your attention to Rune-Keepers (source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_and_armour) (It's in the 'General Items' section.)

Why do I get a feeling of Déjà vu everytime I read this thread?


Plate armour was not commonly worn in Middle-earth, however it was not altogether unheard of and certainly not lore-breaking.



Quoted from Page 2 of this exact thread:

how is plate armour lorebreaking?

Because there wasn't any in Middle-Earth. But this is acceptable IMO because we need a tanking class.

What about this? =)

Sam, eager to see more, went now and joined the guards. He scrambled a little way up into one of the larger of the bay-trees. For a moment he caught a glimpse of swarthy men in red running down the slope some way off with green-clad warriors leaping after them, hewing them down as they fled. Arrows were thick in the air. Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of a broken sword.

Now, obviously it's not a full suit of plate armour, but it does show that metal plates were used for protection in Middle-earth. This means that maille was not the only form of armour available.

Bah, off to the Houses of Lamentation with you! But is there any evidence of the Good Guys wearing any?

Again, no indication of a full suit, but there is this:

Then the prince [Imrahil] seeing [Éowyn's] beauty, though her face was pale and cold, touched her hand as he bent to look more closely on her. 'Men of Rohan!' he cried. 'Are there no leeches among you? She is hurt to the death maybe, but I deem that she yet lives.' And he held the bright-burnished vambrace that was upon his arm before her cold tips, and behold! a little mist was laid on it hardly to be seen.

And it seems to be backed up by these:

vam⋅brace [vam-breys]

–noun Armor.

1. a piece of plate armor for the forearm; a lower cannon. Compare rerebrace.

2. plate armor for the arm, usually including upper and lower cannons and a couter.

Vambraces (French language avant-bras, sometimes known as lower cannons in the Middle Ages) are "tubular" or "gutter" defences for the forearm, developed first in the ancient world by the Romans, but only formally named during the early 14th century, as part of a suit of plate armour.

On Wikipedia, there is also this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons...e-earth#Armour) to be found:

Armour

Warriors in Middle-earth used mainly mail or scale armour. No plate armour was used except for individual pieces such as vambraces, or forearm guards, or greaves, or shinguards. Responding to a query about clothing in Middle-earth, Tolkien wrote:

The Rohirrim were not "medieval", in our sense. The styles of the Bayeux Tapestry (made in England) fit them well enough, if one remembers that the kind of tennis-nets [the] soldiers seem to have on are only a clumsy conventional sign for chainmail of small rings. [58]

The Dwarves are said to make mail of exceptionally high quality. Frodo's mithril shirt (originally Bilbo's) was made by them. Dáin's Dwarves also made metal hose for their legs, and kept secret the way it was made. [59]

Orcs wear poor-quality ring mail with large rings having few links. [citation needed] Gimli encounters an Orc at Helm's Deep who wears an iron collar for defence against strokes to the neck (his axe is damaged as a result). [60]

The Haradrim used armour with "overlapping brazen plates" together with steel helmets. [61]

Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth wore a metal vambrace. [56]

So, it would seem that maille was preferred over full plate armour, however individual pieces of plate armour (vambraces, brazen plates, etc.) did exist. At the very least, this shows that a full suit of plate armour, while very unlikely to be worn in Middle-earth, was not altogether outside the realm of possibility.

[Radhruin_EU]

Plate armour was not commonly worn in Middle-earth, however it was not altogether unheard of and certainly not lore-breaking.

See, this is why it's not wise to raise the subject

Sorry, Redd, your earlier conclusion was a bit off. A polished vambrace doesn't even have to be plate, it could be splinted instead (a real arm defence worn by some in the past, to go with a hauberk) and as for 'a corselet of overlapping brazen plates', that sounds very much like lamellar armour to me.

If someone as fancy-pants as Imrahil still wears 'shining mail', there is no plate beyond maybe the odd bit the text plausibly allows for (vambraces, greaves) although even then, splinted arm and leg defences would fit far better with people wearing mail.

The plate thing is very similar to how people expect a certain style of magic: it's what they've been led to expect, it's what they associate with 'fantasy'. You've tried to suggest some possibility of full suits of plate, but they're noticeable by their utter absence. Elves wear mail; Dwarves wear mail; the Rohirrim and the Men of Gondor wear mail; so do the better-equipped among the Uruks of Mordor, and the Witch-king too.

[Therubor]

See, this is why it's not wise to raise the subject

Sorry, Redd, your earlier conclusion was a bit off. A polished vambrace doesn't even have to be plate, it could be splinted instead (a real arm defence worn by some in the past, to go with a hauberk) and as for 'a corselet of overlapping brazen plates', that sounds very much like lamellar armour to me.

If someone as fancy-pants as Imrahil still wears 'shining mail', there is no plate beyond maybe the odd bit the text plausibly allows for (vambraces, greaves) although even then, splinted arm and leg defences would fit far better with people wearing mail.

The plate thing is very similar to how people expect a certain style of magic: it's what they've been led to expect, it's what they associate with 'fantasy'. You've tried to suggest some possibility of full suits of plate, but they're noticeable by their utter absence. Elves wear mail; Dwarves wear mail; the Rohirrim and the Men of Gondor wear mail; so do the better-equipped among the Uruks of Mordor, and the Witch-king too.

Finally, an agreement about something.

Yes, they probably refer to small, individual pieces of solid armor, such as vambraces, but not full plate armor. And, anyway, an adventurer would shun a full suit of plate armor for a comparitively light and loose mail-shirt.

Anyway, the difference between a campfire and a flare is sustainibility; it takes much less energy to generate a small, temporary thing like a flash of fire, but more energy to place something in the world that lasts for more than, say, thirty seconds.

...and because being able to fling fire about is truly exceptional. If it
were not, then there'd be that kind of magic being used more frequently and
nobody would be able to tell it was Gandalf, in particular, using
fire-magic.

Yes, they'd be able to tell because, once again, the only adventuring wizard in those days was Gandalf, because the only party of adventurers was the Fellowship. (Or Boromir on his way to Rivendell.) The fact that thousands of people run about M-E in-game is a lore-break, albeit an acceptable one.

[Radhruin_EU]

Anyway, the difference between a campfire and a flare is sustainibility; it takes much less energy to generate a small, temporary thing like a flash of fire, but more energy to place something in the world that lasts for more than, say, thirty seconds.

The camp-fire lasts longer because it starts burning by itself. What it needed was just that initial 'whoosh' to drive the dampness out of the wood and set it ablaze. That's what Tolkien describes, nothing protracted.

Yes, they'd be able to tell because, once again, the only adventuring wizard in those days was Gandalf, because the only party of adventurers was the Fellowship. (Or Boromir on his way to Rivendell.) The fact that thousands of people run about M-E in-game is a lore-break, albeit an acceptable one.

That's no argument in favour of anyone less than a Maia having that kind of power. You could, in principle at least, have a game that was lore-accurate when it came to magic, still had thousands of people running around, but only had Gandalf and his ilk being able to conjure fire out of thin air like that. The only reason we get player-characters being able to do that is that people have been led to expect it in a game; it's got nothing to do with the original.

[Therubor]

The camp-fire lasts longer because it starts burning by itself. What it needed was just that initial 'whoosh' to drive the dampness out of the wood and set it ablaze. That's what Tolkien describes, nothing protracted.

Stop thinking of a magic-started fire as a fire and more of an impress on a universe that constantly rebounds to its original shape. The intitial 'whoosh' wouldn't have done it; a continuous 'whooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooosh' or a 'whoosh' that, behind its simple appearance, contains a ridiculous amount of power.

That's no argument in favour of anyone less than a Maia having that kind of
power. You could, in principle at least, have a game that was lore-accurate when
it came to magic, still had thousands of people running around, but only had
Gandalf and his ilk being able to conjure fire out of thin air like that. The
only reason we get player-characters being able to do that is that people have
been led to expect it in a game; it's got nothing to do with the
original.

I was just trying to explain Gandalf's worry in that passage, not touch upon the lore issue of having a playable game.

Anyway, as I said before, throwing fire around is a simple task compared to keeping one alive for hours. And even so, how does Sign of Battle work for Lore-masters, but not for Rune-Keepers? The way I see it, Lore-masters stick to a touch of magic and a lot of pharmaceuticals, while the Rune-Keeper expands upon the powers used in Sign of Battle.

[Radhruin_EU]

Stop thinking of a magic-started fire as a fire

Why? Once it'd been started, it'd be a normal fire. It's a bit like starting a fire with a bit of petrol, the accelerant flares off and is gone in no time flat but the fire it helped start just keeps on going. It's not like you have to keep pouring petrol on it to keep it going.

I was just trying to explain Gandalf's worry in that passage, not touch upon the lore issue of having a playable game.

The worry was that by using a power that was recognisably his he'd revealed his position to everyone who might be looking. You still seem to be wearing blinkers, here: this is a setting where conjuring a flame out of thin air at all (even just a little bit, enough to light a candle, say) would be pretty damn impressive. That's just how wide the gulf is between the book and a game where there's a whole class built around elemental damage-dealing.

Anyway, as I said before, throwing fire around is a simple task compared to keeping one alive for hours.

If it was a properly-built camp-fire it would keep itself going once it was well lit; it just needed a bit more to get it going than flint and tinder in the middle of a snowstorm. Read the passage: Gandalf starts the fire and that's it, there's no mention of him having to keep it going. Do stop making things up.