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

[Sthrax]

In regards to the "lore-breaking" posts... THIS is what has you all riled up? Not hobbits running all over Middle Earth? Not runekeepers? Not the myriad of other lore bendings, breakings and disintegrations made in the name of giving us a fun game to play? The fact that a few outsiders not-named Aragorn, Legolas or Gimli might help in one of most iconic battles in Middle Earth... that is just beyond the pale.

I don't recall JRR ever listing the names of every single combatant at the Hornburg. That leaves enough lore-bending room for us to help out. Certainly a warrior who had done as much to aid the people of Rohan as our characters have (and not to mention having aided Eomer) would not be turned away if they were willing to stand and fight.

If it offends your lore sensibilities so much, you are free to not participate. But then again, if you are abiding by the lore, you won't have hit level 10 yet or ventured out of the Shire, Archet, Thorin's Hall, or Celondim as JRR didn't write about your character doing anything at all. Must keep strickly to the lore, after all.

[Runesi_EU]

We have to remember this is a game, Turbine are not creating a new LotR's book or chapter here, it's a PC game and for me as a PC gamer playing LotRO I have certain expectations including that I can participate in someway in the major set pieces of the book. As I mentioned before, lore breaks are disappointing, but not participating the Battle of the Hornburg would be even more disappointing.

[Taravith]

In regards to the "lore-breaking" posts... THIS is what has you all riled up?

I'm also wondering why HD, all of things, is what some people choose to be upset about lore-wise. It would be quicker to list the things that don't break the lore in some way.

If you're playing this game at all, you really have to learn to compromise with your inner lore-ayatollah since the very idea of a LotR video game is a heinous betrayal of the Tolkien heritage in the first place. Honestly if I hadn't cultivated formidable self-deception in the matter, I'd have a dozen peptic ulcers by now. I suggest you people do the same and enjoy the hell out of your guilty pleasure.

[ColorSpecs]

In regards to the "lore-breaking" posts... THIS is what has you all riled up.

No, what got me riled up was the giant with glowing icicles for skin running around Rohan. Eventually you gotta draw a line.

We have to remember this is a game, Turbine are not creating a new LotR's book or chapter here, it's a PC game and for me as a PC gamer playing LotRO

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.

[Runesi_EU]

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.

I've been here since day one and will continue to be here for as long as I still enjoy the game, I hope to enjoy fight orcs at the Hornburg alongside the Rohirrim

[ColorSpecs]

I've been here since day one and will continue to be here for as long as I still enjoy the game, I hope to enjoy fight orcs at the Hornburg alongside the Rohirrim

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

[Runesi_EU]

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

Yes, that is correct

[whheydt]

I'm also wondering why HD, all of things, is what some people choose to be upset about lore-wise.

I'm wondering what it is about the Battle of the Hornburg that has some people so upset that they INSIST their characters must participate in spite of there not being anything in LotR that even hints that said characters could possibly be present at that battle.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

[ColorSpecs]

I'm wondering what it is about the Battle of the Hornburg that has some people so upset that they INSIST their characters must participate in spite of there not being anything in LotR that even hints that said characters could possibly be present at that battle.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

Never mind the fact that they want their characters to skip the story that got them there.

[Elderban]

I'm wondering what it is about the Battle of the Hornburg that has some people so upset that they INSIST their characters must participate in spite of there not being anything in LotR that even hints that said characters could possibly be present at that battle.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

I'm not insisting my character be able to participate, I just don't want the ability taken away because someone else thinks it breaks the lore when they themselves are already guilty of breaking the lore in so many ways.

It seems that every time something comes to the game that people don't like, they fall back on the "IT'S LORE BREAKING!!!!" mantra.

So is everything else in the game, where's the uproar over that?

[whheydt]

You disagree that letting you fight a nightmare created by a gauntlord (our creations who primarily create nightmares and other nasty things that never happened) that looked like Durin's Bane but was your own fear and not Durin's bane and thus did not break the lore because you were, for all intents and purposes fighting a hallucination, didn't avoid breaking the lore restriction of not being able to fight a Balrog that was already dead while giving players what they specifically asked for, the ability to fight Durin's Bane?

If so, then it's pretty clear nothing I can say is going to matter.

Since none of my characters have ever done that, I can--at least tacitly--ignore it. (Likewise, even if invited, I will decline to do ToO because that is too much at odds with the written work.)

However, since, from what was said in the 20Q thread, at least some of the Hornburg instances are part of the Epic Quest line, and I really like doing the Epic Quests, it make them impossible to just ignore and bypass.

The thing you can say that will matter is, "Yes. It's a lore break. It's one we deilberately chose to make," and do it without apology or attempts to weasel it as "not really a lore break". You have made statements in this thread that you agree that many things in the game are lore breaks, starting with the ability to create Hobbit characters who adventure in the wide world (and that's something for which there is at least some direct support in LotR), so what is so difficult about being up front that random race/origin player characters at the Battle of the Hornburg IS a lore break?

It's not so much that it IS a lore break as it is that you keep trying to say it isn't. It's the "it is...sort of...but not really" wording that is actually more upsetting than making the choice that was made. You are an honest person, but those statements read as a less than honest response. perhaps what I am looking for is not so much an honest response as a forthright response. That is, someone from Turbine who will stand behind the decision in a firm way saying, "Yes, we broke the lore to do this. So what?"

[daveamongus]

I'm wondering what it is about the Battle of the Hornburg that has some people so upset that they INSIST their characters must participate in spite of there not being anything in LotR that even hints that said characters could possibly be present at that battle.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

It's an iconic event and location. I'm not sure it needs much more explaining than that. We've been at virtually all of them, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, throughout the game so far.

What I'm perplexed by is why you insist that this is catastrophically lore-breaking.

From the point of view of the primary characters, the people defending Helm's Deep were Rohirrim. Did they inspect all of the troops? Nope. Mostly hung out with the King. Might they have heard if there was a dwarf or hobbit or elf among the Rohirrim? Or women fighters? Maybe. But, maybe not. They had other things on their minds, and so long as they had people they could count on at their backs, that was all that mattered in that moment. Might it have made such a stir? Perhaps. Far more likely if you take as gospel that the events on the pages are the only events worth note that occurred anywhere during the months of the novels.

But you can't actually say that with any certainty. You're saying that, since the main characters were not aware of anyone other than Rohirrim being at the battle, only Rohirrim were at the battle, but that itself is a logical fallacy. The main characters were not omniscient and, taking into account the lore of the Red Book itself the author of the story is, himself, not omniscient but drawing on the reminiscing of the characters long after the events of the book. If you want to dive that deeply into the navel of the lore, then you have to accept the inherent limitations of how the story was recorded, the historicity of it. It's not meant to be an exhaustive history of the events, and the gaps in what the main characters didn't see, or did see but could be forgiven for not recalling, is literally wide enough to fly a dragon through.

[Taravith]

I'm wondering what it is about the Battle of the Hornburg that has some people so upset that they INSIST their characters must participate in spite of there not being anything in LotR that even hints that said characters could possibly be present at that battle.

Given that there's not anything in LotR that supports those characters existing in the first place (it even pretty clearly excludes it), I'd say advocating either way in relation to lore is non-sensical.

So all we got left to worry about is whether it's fresh/interesting/cool gameplay.

[Elderban]

It's not so much that it IS a lore break as it is that you keep trying to say it isn't. It's the "it is...sort of...but not really" wording that is actually more upsetting than making the choice that was made. You are an honest person, but those statements read as a less than honest response. perhaps what I am looking for is not so much an honest response as a forthright response. That is, someone from Turbine who will stand behind the decision in a firm way saying, "Yes, we broke the lore to do this. So what?"

It's lore breaking. There, I said it for them. Now can we move along?

P.S. You don't actually fight Durin's Bane in the game, you fight a different balrog. Just like Draigoch isn't Smaug.

[whheydt]

My god, what do you want? How passive-agressive can you be?

I want a clear, forthright statement with no apologies and no attempts to weasel word it.

Common sense alone should tell you that of course we were going to have our characters at Helm's Deep.

This point was heavily debated on the Forums from long before HD was announced. At that time, there were, basically, two schools of thought. PCs in the battle or session play. Having the Pcs in the battle was largely not a "common sense" or even a logical position. It was "it's MY character and I WANT to be there." The session play argument was that there is nothing in LotR to support the presence of non-Rohirrim Men, Dwarves, Elves or Hobbits (aside from those specifically mentioned) at the battle, thus the remaining choice was session play.

You've said that you were holding out for something more creative from Turbine, but other than session play (which wouldn't meet the common-sense criterion) I have seen you offer no actual useful suggestions on this topic other than making vague threats about what's going to happen if the lore is broken.

What I thought was possible, based on the HD PR piece (specifically the "level 10" line, about which--it appears--I was at least partially correct) was a sort of pseudo-Ettenmoors scheme in which players would create Rohirrum soldiers (probably with a limited, but multiple, class selection) that would be level 95 (creatable by any player with a level 10+ character) and only exist within the battle instances. It's a pity that Turbine either didn't think of that, or thought of it and discarded it, because it gets around most--but not all--of the objections that people raised to player characters at the battle, session play, and the "my character" issues.

So, yes, I *did* make a positive suggestion for an alternative, albeit in the form of speculation on what Turbine might have already had up it's sleeve.

What, we were going to be the clean-up crew? Picking up broken arrows and binding wounds in the aftermath? I don't think so.

We'll probably be doing that as well. HD isn't going to be *only* the Battle of the Hornburg.

Very few players actually seem to be surprised that, yes, our hobbits dwarfs and elves will actually be fighting alongside the Rohirrim at Helm's Deep. Sapience freely admits that they know this is lore-breaking. He also makes the reasonable point that Turbine has to make these types of compromises in service of the *game* but you apparently don't accept that. Decisions like this don't hurt the books in any way -- the books still exist, preserved in amber for all time to be read and enjoyed the same way as ever. Instead, this lets players of the *game* to experience an exciting part of the *game* that is inspired by, and >adapted from< the events in the book. I can live with that.

Sapience may "freely admit" it's lore breaking, but so far, he seems to be unwilling to unequivocally say so.

I'm not objecting so much to the decision being made--though I'm not happy about it--as I am that Turbine is, so far, unwilling to step up to the plate and calmly, rationally, and forthrightly state, "Yes. It's a lore break" with no qualifications, no "...but it's really not" nor "...well only a teeny tiny little lore break" and no "Y... Oh, look! A Wookie!"

[Angadan]

It is not lore breaking at all (well, except for the hobbits). As we've discussed on another thread. Asking for Turbine to admit to a fault that doesn't exist is a little unfair, I think.

[whheydt]

Edit - of course when it comes to lore-breaking and Helms Deep, Peter Jackson committed a far greater heresy...

Agreed. Several of them. (I would hope by now that a noticeable fraction of--at least--the Forum regulars would be familiar with my "Elvish Drill Team" concept.)

[whheydt]

But I deplore bad storytelling and hate the conceit that the content designers appear to feel they know better than Tolkien when they are "improving" on his work.

That's why I deplore Jackson's treatment of LotR and I flatly refuse to go see whatever travesty he has created out of The Hobbit.

[daveamongus]

That's why I deplore Jackson's treatment of LotR and I flatly refuse to go see whatever travesty he has created out of The Hobbit.

Storytelling tastes and quality vary significantly with time; what was an acceptable trope or style or what-have-you can fall out of fashion and not be acceptable to modern audiences. For example, modern audiences (for whatever reason) have become accustomed to expect a character to have arc; that is, the character will go on an emotional journey and end up somewhere other (not just in status or location) from where they started. Thus, in a highly prominent example, the very noble and kingly Aragorn, biding his time in the wilderness, becomes a man afraid of his destiny and bloodline (when he's afraid of nothing else) who grows to accept his kingship. Modern audiences would have been put off by a depiction of Aragorn that hewed more closely to the books. Likewise, Faramir.

This is not an "improvement" on Tolkien, or an assertion that anyone knows storytelling better than he did (though, I won't say there isn't anyone who knows it better), but an adaptation for a different audience, in a different milieu, in what is a different genre along multiple axes.

[ColorSpecs]

That's why I deplore Jackson's treatment of LotR and I flatly refuse to go see whatever travesty he has created out of The Hobbit.

There were cringe-inducing parts of LOTR, but overall it exceeded expectations; though the oathbreaker piece in ROTK isn't aging well. The Hobbit... Yeah, um, don't see The Hobbit lol.

[whheydt]

I'm not insisting my character be able to participate, I just don't want the ability taken away because someone else thinks it breaks the lore when they themselves are already guilty of breaking the lore in so many ways.

If the "someone" that made that decision worked for Turbine, would it be okay with you? Sapience did say that there are some dedicated "lore junkies" at Turbine. He just didn't say how many of the arguments over whether any given plan breaks lore (or breaks it "too much") they win.

[EmyrSelyf]

Don't hobbits have a natural ability to remain unnoticed? How would you even know they were there anyway? Maybe check the larder?



.

[Angadan]

heh, touché !

[ColorSpecs]

Storytelling tastes and quality vary significantly with time; what was an acceptable trope or style or what-have-you can fall out of fashion and not be acceptable to modern audiences. For example, modern audiences (for whatever reason) have become accustomed to expect a character to have arc; that is, the character will go on an emotional journey and end up somewhere other (not just in status or location) from where they started. Thus, in a highly prominent example, the very noble and kingly Aragorn, biding his time in the wilderness, becomes a man afraid of his destiny and bloodline (when he's afraid of nothing else) who grows to accept his kingship. Modern audiences would have been put off by a depiction of Aragorn that hewed more closely to the books. Likewise, Faramir.

And yet, the book world-wide is like number 2 best selling of all time after the Bible isn't it? So if there's a problem in taste, certainly it would show up there as well. I don't buy this line of reasoning with hyper-popular media. Sure, when it is more narrow, like say a comic book adaption; but f you're going to do a Bible story you don't change it. You adapt it into a format in which it can be, consumed (for lack of a better term) given the restrictions on the media. LOTR was too big for even three movies, just to make it doable there had to be adaptions. But there was artistic license taken that didn't need to be. Case in point, our boy Faramir.

Even Shakespeare, perhaps adapted more than anyone.. In every case I can think of where those adaptations performed poorly it was due to the departure from the "spirit" of the source material until the content was related in name only. This is what is happening with LOTRO more and more.

[whheydt]

It's lore breaking. There, I said it for them. Now can we move along?

Looks to top of post.... Wrong color name. When Turbine employs you and lets you make that statement, you can get back to me.

P.S. You don't actually fight Durin's Bane in the game, you fight a different balrog. Just like Draigoch isn't Smaug.

You mean in spite of LotR stating that Durin's Bane was the *last* existing Balrog? And Smaug being the *last* dragon of any significance?

But then, none of my characters have ever fought either of those two, so they can consider your tales of having done so as being complete fictions. Nice stories, with no basis in (game world) fact.