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

[LagunaD2]

I doubt many people care about Horn.

I think people do care about the integrity of the IP, though.

The IP is really the only thing this game still has going for it. I can't speak for others, but the only reason I tolerate constant crashes to desktop, lag, over-the-top grinds, in-your-face monetization and the low-volume, low-quality content is to experience the story of The Lord of the Rings. Not the Peter Jackson or Turbine "improved" versions, but the J.R.R. Tolkien version.

[Tirian-Hammerfist]

I loved the two different interpretations of Horn's end, based on Halros' sacrifice. My first character through the epic hadn't done Vol 3 at the start, so Halros hadn't been summoned, but my second character through the epic had done it - and I really loved the way the fact that our decision all those years ago had a real and tangible effect upon the story.

EDIT: And yea, MoL is employing a bit of wiggle room here, in that Horn isn't technically dead, but the 'version' of him is, in the case of my latter character - but I don't mind that personally. While Tolkien created Horn, by mentioning his name once, I feel that Horn is definitely MoL's character, and many of the characters that don't really feature too much in the book (even if they are named) are the creations of the LOTRO team, more than that of Tolkien. That might seem like heresy to lore purists, but that's my view.

[Eirien2010]

I think there were some other ways to make our choices long ago having value in our present battles. As for Halros staying/not staying in the Shire and saving/not saving our long-known battle-mate on Pelennor... There is some example. Calenglad. As for me, one of the most peculiar Rangers in all Grey Company. Keeper of the northern "Sister-city" of Minas-Tirith - Annuminas. Had played some intresting ro;es in Evendim and - as for romantic and so on! - am I the only one who sees something very... private in Calenglad's relations with Lady Gwindeth? He was to take not a simplier choice to leave Evendim, than the choices of Halros or Horn were.
But - and it's important - Calenglad is "fully original" Turbine-character, and they are free with his fate. Ans that is not so with Horn... there were here some comments that Rohirrim with their warrior-culture can not understand naming a man, who had survived a battle "physically" among the dead, and moreover! - does not making him to survive makes his thoughts - of going for death to make his beloved and their future child live in peace - too much... well, I can't choose a right word. Making him to survive removes some... dramatical effect, as for my IMHO. Not mentioning, that Horn was named in a book, though only once, and it would be beter not to alter book's story and make our choices valuabe with some other Ranger/Rohirrim/or someone else...

[LagunaD2]

am I the only one who sees something very... private in Calenglad's relations with Lady Gwindeth?

I doubt you're the only one - Calenglad's exchanges with Gwindeth are about as subtle as being smacked with a two-by-four...

[Sylvain]

Personally I think the "death" of Horn was done in a sublime way.
I chose to sent Halros away from the Shire and thus Horn didn't physically die in my game.
He is said to die in the song of the mounds of the Mundburg however, which was written by an anonymous Rohirrim poet.
MoL probably suggests that this poet is actually Gleowine, because Éomer commands him to write a song/poem about the death of Théoden in the epic books. The song of the mounds of the Mundburg primarily deals with the death of Théoden and may thus have been written by Gleowine, according to Turbine.

The surviving Horn said that a piece of him died on the fields of Pellenor. The Horn that died there must have been the Horn that romanticized warfare and battles, by writing about it. Even when he had to fight himself Horn romanticized the upcoming battle by saying that he would be fighting for his wife, unborn child and Rohan.

After the battle however this romantic view of war is gone. Horn has seen death and destruction, witnessed his king die, saw a complete stranger sacrifice his life for him. He has seen the horrors of war and I believe that he has in a literate way in fact died on those fields.

[Dolamrothdame]

Personally I think the "death" of Horn was done in a sublime way.
I chose to sent Halros away from the Shire and thus Horn didn't physically die in my game.
He is said to die in the song of the mounds of the Mundburg however, which was written by an anonymous Rohirrim poet.
MoL probably suggests that this poet is actually Gleowine, because Éomer commands him to write a song/poem about the death of Théoden in the epic books. The song of the mounds of the Mundburg primarily deals with the death of Théoden and may thus have been written by Gleowine, according to Turbine.

Actually, that Gleowine wrote it is canonical. He never wrote another song after that. So I really enjoyed his inclusion in the Epic.

[LagunaD2]

Personally I think the "death" of Horn was done in a sublime way.
I chose to sent Halros away from the Shire and thus Horn didn't physically die in my game.
He is said to die in the song of the mounds of the Mundburg however, which was written by an anonymous Rohirrim poet.
MoL probably suggests that this poet is actually Gleowine, because Éomer commands him to write a song/poem about the death of Théoden in the epic books. The song of the mounds of the Mundburg primarily deals with the death of Théoden and may thus have been written by Gleowine, according to Turbine.

The surviving Horn said that a piece of him died on the fields of Pellenor. The Horn that died there must have been the Horn that romanticized warfare and battles, by writing about it. Even when he had to fight himself Horn romanticized the upcoming battle by saying that he would be fighting for his wife, unborn child and Rohan.

After the battle however this romantic view of war is gone. Horn has seen death and destruction, witnessed his king die, saw a complete stranger sacrifice his life for him. He has seen the horrors of war and I believe that he has in a literate way in fact died on those fields.

In the warrior culture of Rohan, being "triggered" by the horrors of war doesn't count the same as ACTUALLY dying in battle.

The fact that someone from such a culture would even suggest such a notion, grounded as it is in post-modern, Oprah-esque psychobabble, is absurd.

Also, Horn never "romanticized warfare and battles" either.

When we first met him, he was an exiled non-conformist who was repulsed by the racism of his own people. He quickly fell in love with a girl, and forgot about anything else that mattered to him. He eventually went off to war resigned to the possibility of death in the most melodramatic way possible, seeing it as regrettable but necessary, while feigning patriotism for the benefit of his father.

And regardless of any of that: Tolkien says he died, so he is supposed to die, as in "being dead".

[Sylvain]

In the warrior culture of Rohan, being "triggered" by the horrors of war doesn't count the same as ACTUALLY dying in battle.

The fact that someone from such a culture would even suggest such a notion, grounded as it is in post-modern, Oprah-esque psychobabble, is absurd.

Also, Horn never "romanticized warfare and battles" either.

When we first met him, he was an exiled non-conformist who was repulsed by the racism of his own people. He quickly fell in love with a girl, and forgot about anything else that mattered to him. He eventually went off to war resigned to the possibility of death in the most melodramatic way possible, seeing it as regrettable but necessary, while feigning patriotism for the benefit of his father.

And regardless of any of that: Tolkien says he died, so he is supposed to die, as in "being dead".

In chapter 9: The City stands, Glowing says the following about Horn:

Where is the man who spoke to me of fighting for home and hearth, of fighting for the glory of Rohan and the honour of Théoden King? Where is the man who made the hard choice to leave Nona behind and make her world more safe that it was?

'But Théoden is dead, and many others beside. I no longer recognize the Horn that spoke to me on the ride from Rohan and assuaged my own doubts; that Horn is dead, slain by the horrors of war if not by its weapons.

Gleowine does say that Horn first spoke of Glory and Honour and such themes, which, according to my view, is romanticizing war.
Furthermore Gleowine says that the horrors of war have slain the Horn he once knew, and since it could be Gleowine who wrote the song of the Mounds of the Mundburg, the thought that Horn is only slain in a literate way, according to Turbine, is not that strange.

[LagunaD2]

It is clear that Horn is putting on an act - he even tells you so.

And after speaking to Gleowine, who was one of the people he did his little act for, the narration of the epic says:

"You think that Gléowine may have been blinded to the truth of the matter by Horn's blustery words of justification, but you do not correct him."

Regardless, in a heroic warrior culture like Rohan's, being mentally traumatized would never be considered remotely the same thing as actually dying in battle. It is an unthinkable affront to the honor of the dead (the *real* dead), to equate them to some kid who merely had his youthful naivete bruised but walked away unscathed. Whoever came up with the idea is completely out of touch with the lore.

There's no need for weasel-words or psycho-babble: Tolkien says Horn died, as in *dead*. Turbine shouldn't have disregarded Tolkien's words and given his story the finger to promote their own.

[Tirian-Hammerfist]

It is clear that Horn is putting on an act - he even tells you so.

And after speaking to Gleowine, who was one of the people he did his little act for, the narration of the epic says:

"You think that Gléowine may have been blinded to the truth of the matter by Horn's blustery words of justification, but you do not correct him."

Regardless, in a heroic warrior culture like Rohan's, being mentally traumatized would never be considered remotely the same thing as actually dying in battle. It is an unthinkable affront to the honor of the dead (the *real* dead), to equate them to some kid who merely had his youthful naivete bruised but walked away unscathed. Whoever came up with the idea is completely out of touch with the lore.

There's no need for weasel-words or psycho-babble: Tolkien says Horn died, as in *dead*. Turbine shouldn't have disregarded Tolkien's words and given his story the finger to promote their own.

I think you've made your point, that you don't like the direction of the story, and MoL has already responded to you on this topic. However, you do need to remember that this is a game, rather than just a simple retelling of the story, and thus, our characters need to be properly involved in the story. The changes depending upon the decision you make with Halros add an important and decisive agency to your character's journey, and that of the NPCs they journey alongside, and I think that's worth the slight deviation from Tolkien. After all, to Tolkien, who is Horn, but a man of Rohan? Whereas to us, and to Turbine, while Tolkien may have given him a name, it was MoL that made the character real.

[LagunaD2]

I think you've made your point, that you don't like the direction of the story, and MoL has already responded to you on this topic.

That's not really true. MoL responded to a question from me about why the repartee between Eowyn and the Lord of the Nazgul was butchered.

There was also a response to someone else that attempted to rationalize Halbarad's bizarre laughter about the death of Golodir, and paint Aragorn's decision to give a long-winded speech as somehow more heroic and "king-like" than actually *doing something* to prevent or avenge his best friend's murder. So in that sense, the original topic of this thread *was* addressed, but (IMO) in an entirely unconvincing manner.

On the other hand, I don't recall seeing any justification given for contradicting Tolkien's narrative, dishonoring the fallen who the song of the Mounds of Mundburg were supposed to immortalize, and projecting post-modern psychobabble onto the culture of a heroic warrior society where it has no place.

The "Mounds of Mundburg" after all refers to the physical *graves* where the physical bodies those who fell in battle are *buried*. You do not get buried in a grave for being "triggered" or traumatized.

However, you do need to remember that this is a game, rather than just a simple retelling of the story, and thus, our characters need to be properly involved in the story. The changes depending upon the decision you make with Halros add an important and decisive agency to your character's journey, and that of the NPCs they journey alongside, and I think that's worth the slight deviation from Tolkien. After all, to Tolkien, who is Horn, but a man of Rohan? Whereas to us, and to Turbine, while Tolkien may have given him a name, it was MoL that made the character real.

There is no need to throw out Tolkien's narrative of events to show player agency.

[Sylvain]

That's not really true. MoL responded to a question from me about why the repartee between Eowyn and the Lord of the Nazgul was butchered.

There was also a response to someone else that attempted to rationalize Halbarad's bizarre laughter about the death of Golodir, and paint Aragorn's decision to give a long-winded speech as somehow more heroic and "king-like" than actually *doing something* to prevent or avenge his best friend's murder. So in that sense, the original topic of this thread *was* addressed, but (IMO) in an entirely unconvincing manner.

On the other hand, I don't recall seeing any justification given for contradicting Tolkien's narrative, dishonoring the fallen who the song of the Mounds of Mundburg were supposed to immortalize, and projecting post-modern psychobabble onto the culture of a heroic warrior society where it has no place.

The "Mounds of Mundburg" after all refers to the physical *graves* where the physical bodies those who fell in battle are *buried*. You do not get buried in a grave for being "triggered" or traumatized.

There is no need to throw out Tolkien's narrative of events to show player agency.

The reason why Aragorn gave his kingly speech and did not attack Gothmog is because he would be a kinslayer and a kingslayer, according to Turbine's view on who Gothmog is. In the feudal society you speak of killing your kin, or even worse attacking a king was an extremely severe crime.

Furthermore Tolkien is seen by some as a romantic post-modern writer and his works do have romantic elements in them. In my opinion they are not giving the reader raw facts or a fully objective view of the situation. Of course we cannot conclude that Tolkien meant that specific people in the song of the Mounds of the Mundburg only died in a literate way, but, in my opinion, stating that everything transpired as described in the poem is not accurate. Because a poem is not a clear transcript of unfolded events, but a subjective way of delivering a message.

[LagunaD2]

The reason why Aragorn gave his kingly speech and did not attack Gothmog is because he would be a kinslayer and a kingslayer, according to Turbine's view on who Gothmog is. In the feudal society you speak of killing your kin, or even worse attacking a king was an extremely severe crime.

If Gothmog is still a king, then Aragorn has no claim to the throne of Gondor, so I don't think that interpretation makes much sense.

Are you suggesting that Gothmog's lineage gives him license to slay who he will, and commit any other crime, however heinous, with impunity?

And was it somehow *not* an extremely severe crime to attack and kill him (as we did on *3* different occasions) back in Volume I?

Although he was not a king, or former king, Aragorn had no issues with putting Amdir to death once he had turned into a wraith and started wantonly murdering people. In fact, it was seen as merciful to put him down.

Furthermore Tolkien is seen by some as a romantic post-modern writer and his works do have romantic elements in them. In my opinion they are not giving the reader raw facts or a fully objective view of the situation. Of course we cannot conclude that Tolkien meant that specific people in the song of the Mounds of the Mundburg only died in a literate way, but, in my opinion, stating that everything transpired as described in the poem is not accurate. Because a poem is not a clear transcript of unfolded events, but a subjective way of delivering a message.

Here is where you are mistaken. In documenting heroic deaths in battle for the benefit of future generations, accuracy as to the names of the fallen would have been the single most important characteristic of such a poem. It is the equivalent of a war memorial, where the names of the dead are inscribed, and knowingly falsifying that information would have been akin to sacrilege.

[Harla]

So maybe it wasn't done knowingly, Laguna?

Maybe Gleowine (who after composing Theoden's dirge apparently never composed another song), was not, ultimately, the author of the song which you're clinging to so fiercely? It's implied that he intends to, but he's old and world-weary, and very nearly drunk himself to death over something far less traumatic earlier in the story.

The song was written many years alter, by an unnamed poet.

The most sensible assumption to make from these facts is that Gleowine never finished composing the song, and that it was completed, or written from his notes and records, by someone else, many years later.

You can bang on all you like about warrior culture and the anathema of considering war-broken people as actually dead... it doesn't make you right. You've been very vocal about this, but not very accurate.

People are people, and none of them perfect. Gleowine is an old, old man, and he loves Horn dearly... and you can tell that it has more or less broken him, far more than the war and fighting itself, to see Horn so thoroughly destroyed by the battle. He is sentimental, and he is aching much in the same was as many others, and from the perspective of 'real people' I can fully see him feeling as though Horn, too, had been taken from him, and from everyone, regardless of his continued pulse. His culture may say differently, but people are people.

So it's perfectly feasible that he couldn't bear to leave Horn out of the song, even while knowing that, culturally speaking, he ought not put him in. I can fully see him never managing to complete the song as a result of that.

I can also fully see someone else picking up his notes years later, completing the song that we have, and thus including Horn's name as a result without knowing otherwise... especially when you consider that MOST of the individuals mentioned in the song are people of lordship, or other important standing... Even the red-heads are sons of a thane... but Horn, if it be OUR horn... is not.

your problem, Laguna, is that you're taking absolutely everything at absolute face value without thinking about it in the slightest... or at least you seem to be. You've taken at face value as absolute truth that the Song is accurate. It might not be, Tolkien himself is on record as noting that the histories an stories told by his characters are not necessarily accurate... but you don't seem to care about that, you want to treat it as absolute gospel. Just that same you've taken turbine's work of implication and suggestion, too, as statements of absolute definitive certainty, when they aren't, and thus treat them as contradictory, when they're not.

Back to the matter of Gothmog....

Aragorn's 'stern talking to' was a potent exercise of power. Please do not forget how powerful word and song are in Middle-Earth. Aragorn, by his lineage is capable of exercising very literal force of power and grace through his presence and his words... it's not just inspiring, it's tangible far more so than in our world. The oath-breakers that linger, if you recall, were cursed to that endless fate by simple words, spoken with power, by Aragorn's ancestor, and he shares that strength. In this particular case, reaching for his sword would have been the Lesser action of aggression against Gothmog. Consider also that, in those few moments, Aragorn knew that Halbarad was still alive, but not how badly harmed he was... he needed Gothmog and co. off the board as soon as he could, so he could check on him... and starting a brawl was NOT the way to do that. Aragorn was keeping his head in the face of a powerful enemy... are you suggesting he shouldn't have?

Personally, I WAS a bit disappointed with Golodir's end.... mainly because I was expecting that he and Gothmog would need to be the end of each other, ultimately. But, I'll be completely honest, I was pleased that he showed a bit of spryness at the end... there's been far too much trend of rangers being made a joke of, when they deserve more and better. Halbarad brought 35 rangers to Aragorn, and to the battle... and that 35 was an ARMY. They're not 'normal' men, not one of them, and throughout this game I've felt consistently that they deserved better treatment... so in the end, an old, tired, ranger, resigned to his death still going out by felling a battlefield champion gortherog in its prime... I'm ok with that.

[OldMadeOfLions]

The most sensible assumption to make from these facts is that Gleowine never finished composing the song, and that it was completed, or written from his notes and records, by someone else, many years later.

I don't usually like to talk about things in the future, but this will turn out to be the case -- Gleowine isn't the ultimate author of the song, though his account does serve as the basis for it. He's been through a great deal, and he's only got one more song in him... and it's not that one.

MoL

[natefu]

You do realise that you've not actually helped people to avoid spoilers by putting in the title the spoilery thing...?

Gonna report this one, because its quite a strong spoiler for the epic. Either that, or change the title.

I agree with you Tirian. There's a real difference between this type of spoiler and a spoiler like "So, Frodo destroys the ring and...".

I read the books over twenty years ago, part of the reason I like playing this game to rediscover some of the smaller events and pieces of lore. After reading this title, I'm going to see this coming a mile away in the epic books. LagunaD2, I'm sure you didn't intend to hurt anyone's enjoyment, but I'd appreciate it if you could consider us players who are less knowledgeable then yourself when making titles.


Thank you!

[Valamar]

Here is where you are mistaken. In documenting heroic deaths in battle for the benefit of future generations, accuracy as to the names of the fallen would have been the single most important characteristic of such a poem. It is the equivalent of a war memorial, where the names of the dead are inscribed, and knowingly falsifying that information would have been akin to sacrilege.

You are speaking from contemporary understandings and sensitivities.

In the Bardic Tradition -- your position was simply not true.

The old saw -- History is written by the Victors -- is quite literally derived directly from the Bardic tradition. The Bards recorded that which they were "paid to record." The Bards were supported (paid) by their sponsor (fed, clothed, housed, and usually provided a stipend) to extoll their own (the sponsor's) greatness. That sponsor was normally the Tribal Chief or King. The Bards knew which side their bread was buttered on and wrote their songs and lays accordingly -- they extolled and amplified the glorious nature of events, not the nitty-gritty of the slog through the mud and the blood on the ground. The Bards were not involved in recording general history for future generations.

Similarly, documenting has many meanings -- yes, simply remembering the name of the person was likely the prime one. But in those days, the world was an oral world -- not written. And even the Bard's works were never written down, usually until centuries after the death of the original author. Details, were not part of the process, neither was objectivity nor accuracy. Extolling how the target of the lay gloriously fought and died was intended to enhance their posthumous reputation. It may or may not have been accurate.

[Ardineck]

...

I think people do care about the integrity of the IP, though.

The IP is really the only thing this game still has going for it. I can't speak for others, but the only reason I tolerate constant crashes to desktop, lag, over-the-top grinds, in-your-face monetization and the low-volume, low-quality content is to experience the story of The Lord of the Rings. Not the Peter Jackson or Turbine "improved" versions, but the J.R.R. Tolkien version.

This is exactly how I and the people I play with have expressed our frustrations to each other. If it didn't have the IP, we'd have left a LONG time ago. It makes each deviation from the source material so much harder to take. I don't mean expanding on things that don't exist, but the increasing number of times that things just plain happen wrong. The excuse that it doesn't fit the narrative makes me sick, because I feel it's the story Turbine tells that needs to be changed if necessary to fit JRRT, not the other way around.

[LeRaginAsian]

It was a silly scene, kind of a letdown after Golodir's sweet free-running antics.


RE: Horn's un/death - the integrity of the IP was compromised looooong ago. Horn not dying is small taters compared to some of the things our characters are capable of. I'm surprised/delighted that a choice we made way back when actually affected the story in some way, though personally I wish I'd kept Halros alive on my main.

[GoldenusG]

It was a silly scene, kind of a letdown after Golodir's sweet free-running antics.


RE: Horn's un/death - the integrity of the IP was compromised looooong ago. Horn not dying is small taters compared to some of the things our characters are capable of. I'm surprised/delighted that a choice we made way back when actually affected the story in some way, though personally I wish I'd kept Halros alive on my main.

I'm pretty sure he'll die anyway, at least here he may have served some purpose, as opposed to potentially being just hit over the head and left to rot in a ditch.

[Phantion]

Really, any adaptation will have differences between it and its original source material. Its always going to fail to be the original source. If you want the real LOTR, go read the books. It'll be the only existent material that is "faithful" as it -is- its own source.

But movies and games inevitably -have- to differ from its original source- because its different modes and genres. LOTRO triples through the categories: its an adaptation of a literary work, but its also a video-game, and on top of that, a very specific type of video-game: an MMORPG. And so it doesn't have folks who want the defacto "lore"- or direct information from the text represented in the game correctly- as its only audience.

But its presumed that most players who would be interested in paying attention to the epic story are those who want a story to be told to them. It doesn't have to be 'lorists' per se- I'm sure there are many players who read the epic quest-lines for their own sake. The game might be their first time having anything to do with the acronym "LOTR," they might have seen the movies, and some may have read just the books, or seen the movies and read the books, while the 'lorists' will probably have read most of everything Tolkien wrote.

Regardless, for those who play the game for its own sake, or for those who have only seen the movies, who have read and enjoyed the epic story-line (*never-mind everyone else, -including me-, who was annoyed at the prolonged overdone attempt at trying to do a Romeo and Juliet type romance between a Rohirrim and a Dunlending woman that plays-out well), it would've been a lame cop-out to outright kill Horn in a situation that has nothing to do with Nona or her child. It wouldn't make much sense in the storyline that -Turbine- already established concerning Horn.

Now, that being said, I sympathize with the lorists' point of view as well. The text of the lore directly states, in an Anglo-Saxon-style Dirge that derives from elegies written for honoring the DEAD that the Anglo-Saxons did throughout their culture (Rohan = Anglo-Saxon England fused with a horse culture), that Horn had DIED. The Anglo-Saxons may have been Germanic, but they didn't have a Sigmund Freud yet to peddle "post-modern psychobabble." The text of the books also states that ALL of the rangers left the Shire.

So the origins of this problem began with players even having a choice to tell Halros to stay behind, which is egregiously contrary to the lore in the first place. "Halros Should Go" should have been the only option available to the player, in so far as the lore is concerned.

Even more confusing in this storyline is the fact that Halros is a player session character during the Wildermore epic. He defends the rangers' camp when Mair attacks with her Falcon Clansmen. So, it would appear that the epic session play states that the 'canonical' or correct answer, in so far as the game goes, is that Halros did, in fact, leave the Shire, which disputed the notion of players having anything to do with choosing for Halros to stay in the Shire. In my humble opinion, if this was going to be the primary route, to give players a choice, then Radanir or Calenglad should've been the session character in the Wildermore epic, not Halros.

But since Halros clearly journeyed with the Grey Company, also due to his appearances in Eregion and Enedwaith regardless of the player's choice, it is clear that Horn survives the epic, and that the writers have egregiously toyed with the minds of players who wanted Halros to stay in the Shire, which is why, I maintain, in spite of all of the excellent writing that I have read in this game, the Halros - Horn Arc is not the strongest-written story. If anything, its the worst, and I mean this in all due and well-deserved respect for MoL (many of the storylines are great!)- worse than presuming that immortal Elves can be possessed by fell spirits as regarding a certain female Elf in Volume I- and worse than having an undead wight Dragon preparing to attack Rivendell in the same volume.

But giving players choices, even problematic and contradictory choices, is an important aspect of a well-developed MMORPG and video game in general. Giving players big bad foes to fight, like Amarthiel, like Thorog, and ultimately, like Mordirith / Gothmog, is something that good MMORPGs have to do. I don't pretend to be an expert, and I've certainly never been a dev, but I'd imagine that this is correct, given all the different types of video-games that I've played over the years. Given all that I have said above, lorists should concede that Turbine is not writing a novel. The devs, MoL chief among them, are writing a video-game, which has its own rules and things it should and shouldn't do. Instead of, for example, sidelining players on their own stories in Middle-Earth that have little to do with the main characters of LOTR, which works in other genres of roleplay, it does the proper thing and has players be involved in the larger story of its IP. So, it gives players feelings of satisfaction for being consequential to the outcome of the chief narrative of LOTR. Its doing what good MMORPGs should do when it comes to storytelling.

Which brings me to the whole Halbarad and Aragorn and Gothmog debacle that's the main topic of this thread. Good MMORPG's should give players a decent nemesis to fight. That nemesis was Mordirith. Aragorn, Gandalf, and Frodo don't get to fight Mordirith. You, the player, gets to fight Mordirith. You have help, in the form of one Narmelleth early-on, and you add depth to this antagonist's narrative, through Golodir's story, but its ultimately up to the players to defeat this foe. They had us faked-out until the Osgiliath update. For an adaptation of an original source, its terrible writing. It makes Halbarad die like a sissy (although he apparently had noble intentions in doing so- which I can understand; its how it plays-out game-play-wise that's the problem; would've preferred Aragorn trying to parry but Mordirith's mace catching Halbarad in the process) and Aragorn scares a big bad foe away with prophecy (though, to be fair, Glorfindel did this to the Witch King in the lore, saving Earnur). But it gives -you, the player, the opportunity to put an end to Mordirith / Gothmog- once and for all. It gives a goal for players to work towards throughout the game- a game that has many narrative twists and turns.

I may not agree with the writing that has been done -as writing- or -as an adaptation of an original source,- but I can certainly sympathize with devs like MoL and comprehend what their jobs actually are- to write a good story for players to play-through the game- its the RPG part of MMORPG. It helps with player-immersion in the game-world- it allows players to feel that their actions, as characters, matter when they play the game.

Of course, the MMO part of it, has many problems that have been written by countless voices in other threads: class balancing, end-game content, grinds, raids and instances, BB's, etc. That part of it needs work. But when it comes to the RPG part of all of this, mark my words: the devs are doing their jobs- and they are doing it pretty well.

Christopher Tolkien turns a blind eye to all of this because these genres are egregious to him, and they were egregious to his father, J.R.R. Tolkien, probably for the following reasons:

Video-games will end, computers will shut-down and be replaced, etc. But a book is a written record- and it can last a thousand years if its preserved and well-cared for. A book can burn or be lost forever, yes, if its not treated well. But a book that is protected and preserved, copied and written-down on newer papyrus scrolls, parchment, and later in history, paper, can last for many life-times. Your book doesn't shut-off when you lose your electricity (E-books are another story and they end-up in the same trap as movies and video-games). Light a candle. The text remains. Movies and video-games won't be long-lasting. But books -can- withstand the test of time- if people rightly preserve them.

So there you go. I am peeved by the choices regarding Halbarad's death and Horn's survival- but I also understand them and the demands of the MMORPG - video-game combined genre. So, if I want the real version, where Horn dies and Halbarad, in my mind's eye, dies a heroic death, clutching the banner of Arwen as he fights to the last, Aragorn trying and failing to save his life, but doing his best, guess what? I can grab the book and read. And the text will never change.

[OldMadeOfLions]

Even more confusing in this storyline is the fact that Halros is a player session character during the Wildermore epic. He defends the rangers' camp when Mair attacks with her Falcon Clansmen. So, it would appear that the epic session play states that the 'canonical' or correct answer, in so far as the game goes, is that Halros did, in fact, leave the Shire, which disputed the notion of players having anything to do with choosing for Halros to stay in the Shire.

I'm reminded of how interesting it was to see 'Clementine will remember that' in Telltale's first season of their Walking Dead adventure game (before it became something of a punchline; now it's lampooned in lots of places, including the new King's Quest). I think here we might have benefited by spelling out more obviously that the Halros sessionplay you mention only occurs if you tell Halros to leave the Shire. If he stays, you get an entirely different sessionplay that takes place in the Shire, so one of them is no more canonical than the other.

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

[Harla]

I understand what you're saying Phantion, and for the larger part of it I agree with you, but there are a few things I wanted to stress on again... please don't take any of this as an attack; it's not... just more of a correction or two on some relatively minor points that I feel are nevertheless important, regarding the concept of respecting lore

The text of the lore directly states, in an Anglo-Saxon-style Dirge that derives from elegies written for honoring the DEAD that the Anglo-Saxons did throughout their culture (Rohan = Anglo-Saxon England fused with a horse culture), that Horn had DIED. The Anglo-Saxons may have been Germanic, but they didn't have a Sigmund Freud yet to peddle "post-modern psychobabble." The text of the books also states that ALL of the rangers left the Shire.

That's kind of what several of us have been trying to point out: the supposed 'Lore' upon which people are basing the assumption that Horn died is a Poem, which was written Many Years after the events, based on Recounts, by an individual who May or May not have even been there at all, and whom certainly Never Met any of the people they were writing this remembrance to.

What some of us have been trying to point out is that just because a poem lists his name as dead does not by any stretch mean that he actually died, and that Tolkien himself is on record as noting that the stories as told by characters within his work may not be accurate to the actual passage of events... just as is the case with real historical records and mythic histories, which he was intending the works to stand for... and the writers have done a lot of (perfectly lore-valid) leg work to set up a series of events, characters and motives that create a plausible series of happenings to make it understandable why this particular point might end up incorrect in the final poem. Far more than most people realise, in fact: Were you aware, for example, that if we take the poem now, with all the characters we've met, that Horn is actually very much an odd-one-out in it for even being mentioned at all. Alongside all the others in that poem, their rank, station and various feats of valour, Horn should never have even made a mention... and yet he does. He doesn't BELONG in that poem, even if he DID die, and the writers have been working hard to achieve that effect all the way through from the very beginning of Rohan. They also set it up that Gloewine was depicted as a man who cares deeply for Horn, and whom we know didn't, ultimately, write the song.

What saddens me, honestly, is seeing the sheer amount of very careful set-up and writing that has been done to create this story within the framework, in a way which does not actually impinge upon the lore at all, in any way... but you've got to apply your brain a little bit to see it, and the vast majority of players don't. So they don't see it. And they just write it off as careless lore breaking, when it isn't at all.

So the origins of this problem began with players even having a choice to tell Halros to stay behind, which is egregiously contrary to the lore in the first place. "Halros Should Go" should have been the only option available to the player, in so far as the lore is concerned.

Why? I'd interested to know what makes you say that... What has the lore got to do with whether or not a particular ranger not important enough to warrant named mention in the original books actually did answer Halbarad's summons or not? More-over... what has lore got to do with what some random arm for hire advised some random ranger not important enough to warrant naming, about whether or not they thought he should answer Halbarad's summons?

Even more confusing in this storyline is the fact that Halros is a player session character during the Wildermore epic. He defends the rangers' camp when Mair attacks with her Falcon Clansmen. So, it would appear that the epic session play states that the 'canonical' or correct answer, in so far as the game goes, is that Halros did, in fact, leave the Shire, which disputed the notion of players having anything to do with choosing for Halros to stay in the Shire. In my humble opinion, if this was going to be the primary route, to give players a choice, then Radanir or Calenglad should've been the session character in the Wildermore epic, not Halros.

But since Halros clearly journeyed with the Grey Company, also due to his appearances in Eregion and Enedwaith regardless of the player's choice,

You're mistaken here. If you tell Halros to stay he does not show up in any of the events or places which he appears in if you tell him to go. In places where an individual is required, (such as Eregion), it is a different ranger (Radanir) that comes running to get you. On Nar's peak, there is no ranger that warns you about the troll; the spot is empty. In the caves, Halros is replaced by Lothrandir. Halros is not present on the docks in Pelargir if you tell him to stay, and he does not show up to save Horn either... he's still in the Shire, and you can go and check on him any time you like, if you told him to stay put. I'd recommend you play through with a character that tells him to stay and pay closer attention to things as they unfold; they've actually been quite careful about it. Halros only continues to show up IF you told him to go along, and not at all if you didn't.

worse than presuming that immortal Elves can be possessed by fell spirits as regarding a certain female Elf in Volume I

I think, if that's what you understood to have happened, you might need to play over that story line again more carefully.

and worse than having an undead wight Dragon preparing to attack Rivendell in the same volume.

He wasn't. They intended to revive the dragon, in order to help them find Rivendell... but they also failed to control it, and there's no telling what the dragon would have done on its own. Attacking Rivendell didn't seem to be on its menu, though, more than brooding in its dwarf ruins, as dragons are wont to do. Elrond and co. were very much concerned about the threat it potentially posed to Rivendell, and rightly so, but no-one tried to say that there actually was a zombie dragon actively planning to attack Rivendell.


In the end, yes, I was also disappointed with Halbarad's death... the conversation that played out in my mind, between Aragorn and Halbarad as he died went something like:

"Halbarad, my dearest friend... couldn't you just hold your sassy tongue for one minute?"
"No, my chief... No I could not... But... the look on his face...? Totally worth it..."
"It was, my friend, truly it was..."
"Ahh! I die...! Bleh!"

Very much a suicide by snark moment...

But I also understand that the way it played out after Gothmog lost it and maced him had significance, and I don't fault it in that sense... I DO, however, very much dislike the writing choices that force our characters to stand by and do nothing for a long time, while things play out... effectively depersonising out characters into straw dummies. That, I hate. The more they find some other way to show us the necessary events and deaths that don't make out characters stand around and Watch It Happen without lifting a finger, the better I'll feel about their story-telling process.

Here's an example, to the writers and designers: In one case, we are made to stand like dummies while the obviously traitorous villain stands up, walks casually around the table, gloats for a bit, then bops our friend on the head with lethal force, while we sit watching not two feet away... and only then calls in his cronies to get us into a fight.

That was excruciatingly unsatisfying and just plain irritating. Don't EVER do that (again).

How about: The obviously traitorous villain announces that we're both toast, and enemies spawn; NPC and villain remain green, and perhaps fight, or at the least struggle, and then when we are -halfway- through dealing with the attackers, he knocks him down... This way we're busy, and we're actively trying to save our buddy's bacon. We still fail, but we get to feel like we at least tried, rather than standing about and letting it happen without moving. It won't be perfect for everyone, sure, but it will be far more palatable for everyone than the way it was originally done.

The same concept applies to everything ,even the epic moments, like Halabrad should have been. Turning our characters into helpless spectators without a good reason will always make people frustrated, and no-one will ever thank you for it. It is never a good thing to do, so stop doing it. Your cut-scene direction has been using a lot more camera work lately; that's a good thing, use it more! Give us something to do that make sour characters feel like they're actively contributing to the scenario in some way, and even if the core events play out more or less exactly the same, most players will feel much better about it. Special scenes like Golodir's are an exception to this; the way that scene was directed, it was fast, involved, and realistically our characters didn't have a chance to intervene anyway. As a result, that worked well even though we weren't involved... but hold that up alongside the above-mentioned Stonedeans scene, and hopefully the difference in how it feels for the player will be clear.

[Phantion]

Good, these are exactly the sorts of responses I needed to hear. Many other players probably could use these clarifications- excellent.

Thank you MoL for your time and patience and astuteness. It's my bad that I didn't quite play a character through the 'Halros Should Stay' side of it- and now I'm curious about that Shire session-play... I think you've answered the debate adeptly. Bravo. You are right- Horn losing his whole sense of purpose in life is pretty tragic.

Tolkien's concise focus on narrative tends to leave a ton of unanswered questions, and whenever he changes the narrative, it introduces even more tons of unanswered questions. I doubt many players know that Tolkien's original Elves were called Gnomes or that their language was 'Gnomish' or that they were far more like humans in their appearances. Tolkien was even in the process of changing his whole narrative again when he sadly passed away. The whole backstory history that the game can't really use due to licensing issues was on the precipice of changing entirely. So its true that we really don't know who Horn was or why he was mentioned in the Song- when reading the Song on its own accord.

On that point:

I commend you, Made_of_Lions. I hope I didn't come across as insulting or demeaning or anything, as that was definitely -not- my intention. I was commenting on the processes of writing for digital mediums as a whole, yes, I do prefer pen and paper for preserving things, but regardless, I am deeply impressed with all of the well-thought-out and excellent writing that this game has done. My humble point was merely that it is its own new narrative that's different from the original source- I think few would dispute this. Even so, I can imagine how difficult it must be to design a story told quest by quest, and how even more difficult it must be to draw upon a source material that really depends on other source materials that can't be accessed. We know, for example, that there was this Morgoth or Melkor guy, who apparently the Balrog of Moria once served, as presented in LOTR- and so that whole past history of "The Silmarillion" had already been assumed in the context of the lore- but you can't use it because the license to use "The Silmarillion" in adaptations is protected by the Estate. That must be incredibly frustrating as a game writer! I can only imagine............ So bravo for all the excellent work that you have done despite all of these difficulties.

I do believe this- Halros should be toast regardless of what the player chooses (hopefully he dies in the session-play in the Shire. If not, then Sharkey / Saruman, Wormtongue, and/or Lotho Sackville-Baggins better have him killed; -no- rangers survive to sabotage Sharkey's plans by the time Frodo and the others return to find the Shire in a terrible mess; Barliman Butterbur realized the importance of the rangers in their absence- when all of Saruman's ruffians began attacking Bree and causing a ton of messes in Breeland and the Shire).

I also agree now that Horn's 'identity' in the poem was a dangling thread that Tolkien never tied. To be fair, though, Tolkien -was- notorious at shafting secondary characters from the narrative. We never really got to know Faramir's rangers, save in a few short scenes, and we really don't get to know who Theoden's bannermen are or their backgrounds, etc. To be fair to Tolkien, those matters were extraneous to the prime narrative of the story regardless. But I really wish that more of his secondary characters got the Beregond / Bergil treatment- and the game has done a top-notch job at doing this.

Looking back, I don't think I need to replay Volume I. Upon closer inspection, I correct my errors: Narmaleth was kind of like Darth Vader in "Star Wars." Amarthiel was a more fallen version of Narmaleth's identity; Narmaleth had forged Narchuil willingly and then willingly joined Sauron a la Maeglin willingly joining Morgoth in the First Age. She wasn't 'possessed' by her Ring per se. She was responsible for her actions in the same way that Feanor was. If anything, Narmaleth is the foil to Galadriel. If Galadriel had taken the Ring from Frodo, the implication is that she would've indeed been terrible and evil. Fair enough.

I stand corrected on Thorog's intentions or lack thereof- versus the intentions of those who tried to revive him. But, that being said, its the making of a zombie-dragon in the first place that seems a bit messed-up, at least to me. But like I said, I completely understand why- it has to do with gameplay and what a good MMO needs.

My point stands regarding the nature of Halbarad's demise. Could've been tightened-up a bit more. Players should've been fighting someone, Aragorn should've been fighting someone, when Halbarad got struck down. I understand the logic behind the sequence as it stands regardless.

There are some story-threads that aren't tied-up so well though. I don't like the idea of pretty much saying, "Well, Corudan is probably dead, but we won't know, either way, so Horn might think he's alive, but Player doesn't think so, and blah blah blah." I'd rather have a conclusive resolution to that character than merely assuming that he had run afoul of Saruman's approaching army and never came back. I also really, after the epic reaches its climax, think it would be good for players to progress slowly back through the already-existent lands in-game, leading-up to the Scourging of the Shire. I'd really like to have Nona respond in two different ways depending on the individual player's choices. If Horn lives, I'd like to hear her response, and if Horn dies, I'd like to hear her response as well. Would probably be a good scene to have in Luanach in Enedwaith. Speaking of which, that would also be a good opportunity to learn what happened to the Brenin of Enedwaith and his town in the aftermath of the Dragon Clan's attack. I'd like to learn what happened to Saeradan when he went back north. I'd like to learn what happened to all these Dunland clans in the aftermath of their loss against Rohan. What's going-on with the Stag? The Ox? The Boar / The Avanc? What became of Wenda of the Falcons, who Golodir saved?

But to all of these effects, since we already have the Rohan storylines pretty much tied-up, I'd like to return to Dunland on a different route. We never got to see the Land of the Green Hills or Anfalas or Andrast in Gondor- I'd like to go northwest of Dol Amroth and then come around the White Mountains into Eriador in that way. And, of course, I'd love to see some of those Hobbit areas in the north in their War of the Ring context, beyond the raids, and I'd love to see parts of the East of Middle-Earth.

[Skro-Noleth]

So the origins of this problem began with players even having a choice to tell Halros to stay behind, which is egregiously contrary to the lore in the first place. "Halros Should Go" should have been the only option available to the player, in so far as the lore is concerned.

I beg to differ on this point (even though, from a lore point of view, the game is not clear from mistakes - like "no ranger dies before meeting with Aragorn" except some do).
If you had run the "Halros should stay" part of the quest, you would have noticed that he asks for your (character's) advice. And from a lore point of view, it is never said that no ranger had any doubt about leaving "his" land and mission to anwser the call of Aragorn (and by the way, many do, at least in the game).
So in "Halros should stay", you only give him an advice (which, spoilers! he ultimately does not follow). That is completely lore-compliant (as the lore is completely silent on these points: did the rangers hesitate? Did they seek for advice? Did they have a someone the met from time to time during their adventure, helping them fight evil... wait, maybe not this one )