Thread: Lore contradictions

I am an avid Tolkien scholar. I have read the books (The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, Unfinished Tales, MOST of The History of Middle Earth, etc.) multiple times, and (not to brag or anything) my knowledge of the lore is generally accepted as uncontested. I am also a huge fan of "behind the scenes" fanfiction that tells a story happening concurrently with any events from the series, as long as they don't contradict with anything Tolkien wrote. This is the reason I was drawn to LOTRO. My favorite part of it is how it expands on some of the things that Tolkien wrote little about. I was just wondering if anyone's caught anything in the game that explicitly contradicts something Tolkien wrote, because so far, I haven't.

Originally Posted by TomSpitzy

I was just wondering if anyone's caught anything in the game that explicitly contradicts something Tolkien wrote, because so far, I haven't.

There's a load of stuff; adapting something like LOTR into a game makes it inevitable. Big stuff, too. There's the whole Angmar thing, for starters. Then there's the idea of the Dwarves even attempting to retake Moria at that time. The Elves of Lorien raiding Dol Guldur. The Grey Company hanging about on their way south, instead of riding hell for leather. Undead everywhere you look. Ditto for Oathbreakers (something that contradicts what Tolkien said about what happened to the spirits of dead Men). Direct threats within the Shire from the very start. And a whole host of minor details, like the goats, how casually lembas is treated, and the prevalence of plate armour rather than mail.

I could go on but that's enough to give a flavour. And that's without mentioning the contradictions raised by the player-characters themselves.

You mean besides the people sitting in front of computers controlling random members of the free-people's half of which I'm sure are in their parent's basements wearing nothing but boxers while licking cheese puff powder off their fingers?


No, nothing yet.



Edit: Ah, some might say that the whole story line of the Balrog in the rift is kind of hokey and doesn't really hold water. But I don't know that I would go so far as to call it a direct contradiction but more of a very odd interpretation of what a balrog is, who can kill one, and what kind of powers they have. In addition to that, it's been discussed that the way the Balrog in Moria is portrayed doesn't really fit the description in the books but rather mimics the movie's interpretation. Again, I don't know that you can call them direct contradictions because we just don't have enough information about the balrogs from which to work. Just....different I guess.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

There's a load of stuff; adapting something like LOTR into a game makes it inevitable. Big stuff, too. There's the whole Angmar thing, for starters. Then there's the idea of the Dwarves even attempting to retake Moria at that time. The Elves of Lorien raiding Dol Guldur. The Grey Company hanging about on their way south, instead of riding hell for leather. Undead everywhere you look. Ditto for Oathbreakers (something that contradicts what Tolkien said about what happened to the spirits of dead Men). Direct threats within the Shire from the very start.

Well, sure, but Tolkien never explicitly stated that those things did NOT happen, correct? Though I wouldn't know, I've only been playing for a week or two, I'm only in Volume I Book 3 at the moment. Though the amount of undead everywhere was rather unsettling. Spiders, too. I always figured there was only Shelob in Cirith Ungol and many more in Mirkwood. And dragons; I believe that there are smaller drakes and worms living in Middle Earth at the time, but not nearly so many, and living out in the open, or so close to Rivendell. The Earth kin were head scratchers at first, but Tolkien did mention Giants in The Hobbit, but I got the impression that they were secretive and lived only in the mountains. But, all of these aren't DIRECT contradictions, they're just exaggerations of lore.

That dúnedain/dwarf/elf made gear is inferior to those made by the wild men of dunland?
would Legolas then drop his lorien bow in favor for a dunland bow?
seriously this irks me big time.

Originally Posted by TomSpitzy

I was just wondering if anyone's caught anything in the game that explicitly contradicts something Tolkien wrote, because so far, I haven't.

Originally Posted by TomSpitzy

Though I wouldn't know, I've only been playing for a week or two, I'm only in Volume I Book 3 at the moment.

Since you've been playing only a short while, in contrast to some of us who have been playing for five years, it's not surprising that you have not yet discovered any blatant contradictions. Trust me, as you progress in the game you'll find plenty.

I documented a couple of nit-picky items in these threads:

Dwarf Burials

A Hobbit by any other name...

Originally Posted by TomSpitzy

Well, sure, but Tolkien never explicitly stated that those things did NOT happen, correct?

We know they didn't, though, so no. Moria's a particular howler: Dain had Mordor breathing down his neck because he'd turned down one of those offers you can't refuse from Sauron (the return of the three remaining Rings of the Dwarves and perpetual title to Moria, in return for help in finding the thief who'd stolen 'a little ring, the least of rings'). So, having spurned the Dark Lord's 'generous' offer and with an army of Easterlings known to be assembling on Dale's borders, it's obviously the perfect time to try to retake Moria, right?

Now in game terms, it all makes a twisted kind of sense. Turbine wanted to make a big thing out of Moria, a whole expansion; that meant lots of quests, and that meant a need for hubs and questgivers and so there had to be a whole bunch of Dwarves in Moria. And so on, and so forth. The only trouble is that it clashes with the story.

There are plenty of other examples, large and small. Take Trestlebridge, for example: according to Tolkien's description of Bree, there could have been no settlement there. Needs of the game, again; quests need hubs.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

The Elves of Lorien raiding Dol Guldur.

I disagree with you in part on this one. Lothlorien did in fact attack Dol Guldur, it just occurred later in the timeline. For me personally, I don't have a problem with Turbine resequencing certain events that occur in the background if it improves the story they are presenting. I acknowledge that "improves the story" is a subjective matter.

As you say,

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

adapting something like LOTR into a game makes it inevitable.

I agree that the dwarves attempting to retake Moria as presented by Turbine is a very significant departure from the lore. I also think it was probably the only way for Turbine to implement Moria content in a way that incorporated the amenities of gameplay, such as convenient access to vendors, vaults, trainers, crafting facilities and so forth. I think of all of the gameplay challenges that Turbine would face trying to implement a Moria concept without a dwarven expeditionary force, reasonably convenient access to quest givers would have been the most difficult to overcome.

As for Angmar, we do have Aragorn's semi-rebuke of Boromir at the Council of Elrond, where he goes on at length about the perils against which the Rangers have been protecting the North. The realm of Angmar (under the Witch King) did exist historically. It was responsible for breaking Arnor. The Rangers have in fact been busy defending ignorant fat inn-keepers from vaguely described dangers. For my part I don't have a problem with Turbine mining that particular lore nugget for the major plot threat of the original LOTRO epic story line.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

I disagree with you in part on this one. Lothlorien did in fact attack Dol Guldur, it just occurred later in the timeline. For me personally, I don't have a problem with Turbine resequencing certain events that occur in the background if it improves the story they are presenting. I acknowledge that "improves the story" is a subjective matter.

That's not just 'resequencing': in the book, Lorien only attacked Dol Guldur after Sauron's fall. Before that, it was way too risky to attack like that: that was how DG had been dominating Southern Mirkwood, with forces from there beating the hell out of the Woodmen and the Elves of Mirkwood alike.

Really, it's just the same sort of thing I mentioned with Moria. Hubs, quests, quest-givers: hence a need for Elves to be on the wrong side of the river doing something rather silly. Same goes later for the Grey Company dawdling and being generally useless.

I'm not sure we have a signficant disagreement on the issue of Lorien/DG, as we both acknowledge the needs of gameplay. I do think you may be overstating the strength of DG a bit. Sauron had withdrawn from DG at the time
of the events of The Hobbit in response to whatever it is that the White Counsel actually did. While I think that it is likely that DG remained a significant stronghold for Sauron (and I think Tolkien does say in Unfinished Tales that one or two of the nazgul remained there), I don't think we have enough information to conclude that it was so strong as to be unassailable by Lorien until after Sauron's defeat. After all, the White Counsel did something to drive Sauron out during Bilbo's time - why should we be certain that DG was even stronger 78 years after Sauron withdrew to Mordor? I also think the NPC ambient dialogue at Ost Galadh does a decent job of justifying the Siege of Mirkwood as depicted by Turbine. [Although I do have significant problems with other details of how Turbine depicted DG and the siege, which there is no need to get into here.]

I also edited my prior post to add a few things during the time that you responded to my post about the Siege of Mirkwood.

As for the OP's question about lore contradictions, I still haven't forgiven Turbine for the Rune Keeper. It really has no place in Middle-earth as conceived by Tolkien. The former Turbine head of LOTRO (Jeffrey Steefel) admitted as much, saying the RK shouldn't exist but that they were going to introduce it anyway in order to accommodate what Turbine perceived to be the fanbase's demand for a staple of the fantasy RPG genre.

Originally Posted by Vilnas

I'm not sure we have a signficant disagreement on the issue of Lorien/DG, as we both acknowledge the needs of gameplay.

That wasn't the exam question, so to speak, which was what actually contradicts Tolkien. And attacking DG early is certainly contradicting the man, whatever the reasoning behind it.

I do think you may be overstating the strength of DG a bit. Sauron had withdrawn from DG at the time
of the events of The Hobbit in response to whatever it is that the White Counsel actually did.

My understanding was that in his guise as the Necromancer, Sauron hadn't been putting on a Dark Lord-like show of strength and had chosen to appear to flee from the White Council - the disguise had done its job, he'd already got the groundwork in place in Mordor for his official comeback. Years later when he had the Ringwraiths reoccupy DG and fill it with all manner of horrors, it was a full-on and unmistakable statement of his power. Whole different deal, scary as hell. It had to be strong enough to defy any attempt the Elves might make to deal with it, because its whole point and purpose was to keep them pinned: they couldn't help anyone else with DG in their back yard and they didn't have the strength to lay siege to it, not with the Misty Mountains being full of Orcs as well and the security of Lorien being paramount. After Sauron's fall, the Elves could exert their full strength against DG without having to worry; nobody would be coming to its aid, or attacking Lorien again.

There really aren't too many serious lore contradictions, and most can be filed under general game necessity. The biggest gripe I've seen is the Runekeeper class, which does feel out of place. That said, there needed to be another strong healer class besides Minstrels and they could've done alot worse.

Some of the instances seem rather strange to me. I have a hard time believing that there is any justification for:

1) The three skirmish sequence where we assault Dol Guldur in Mirkwood.
2) Where did Sammath Gul come from?
3) Attacking the Lieutenant in BG?
4) Tower of Orthanc?

Point 4 - Doesn't Saramun stay in safely in his tower until Gandalf evicts him?

Originally Posted by Vilnas

As for the OP's question about lore contradictions, I still haven't forgiven Turbine for the Rune Keeper. It really has no place in Middle-earth as conceived by Tolkien. The former Turbine head of LOTRO (Jeffrey Steefel) admitted as much, saying the RK shouldn't exist but that they were going to introduce it anyway in order to accommodate what Turbine perceived to be the fanbase's demand for a staple of the fantasy RPG genre.

the idea of a class which fights with words is perfect for the tolkien world. if you think of animations as being metaphorical it fits fine (and what class doesnt have some ridiculous looking animations?)

The Rune Keeper was number one with me.

And also, the Rangers in the books are not the bumbling wimps that fall over when breathed on that you see in the game. That one in the camp at Buckland that let himself get run over by the Nazgul makes me shake my head to this day.

Originally Posted by Yula_the_Mighty

Doesn't Saramun stay in safely in his tower until Gandalf evicts him?

No, Gandalf did not evict Saruman from Orthanc. He does, however, break Saruman's staff and dismiss him from the Istari. After Saruman's refusal to come down from the tower, Gandalf requests Treebeard to make sure that Saruman does not leave. However, Saruman, knowing Treebeard's dislike of keeping things caged, uses his powers of persuasion to let him go. Treebeard makes Saruman turn over the keys to Orthanc before allowing him to depart.

Originally Posted by youlongzi

That dúnedain/dwarf/elf made gear is inferior to those made by the wild men of dunland?
would Legolas then drop his lorien bow in favor for a dunland bow?
seriously this irks me big time.

Hi, a possible explanation is that they're dropping weapons from lost treasures of Dunedain and elves, found in the regions of Isengard, Tharbald, Eregion, etc. The dunlending found them or were received from Saruman. Many battles have been fought in Eriador and the weapons crafted by elves, dwarves and numenorean linger in time.

Also I do thinks there are many Lore contradictions, for example the amount of people found in places the in the books seem completely desert like Lone Lands or North Downs, also Thorin´s Hall is too big and rich, and in the Hobbit most likely Thorin was in a differente situation, but is not completely againts stuff Tolkien wrote.

Well, but without those extra-creations from Turbine, LOTRO wouldn't be so much fun.

In The Lord of the Rings, Dunlendings are depicted as wild and uncivilized. Yet in the game LotRO, the city of Galtrev has the most sophisticated facilities of any place in all of Middle Earth, including Thorin's Hall, including Lothlorien, including Rivendell. No other place in Middle Earth has: every type of crafting facility, and every single one of them "Superior" including superior forges, superior farmland, superior workbenches, superior scholar libraries (!), and superior cooking facilities; mailboxes where you can send mail to, and receive from, everywhere else in the known world; an auction house where you can purchase items posted in the Shire, Thorin's Hall, etc.; every type of guild representative from every known guild in Middle Earth; and trainers for every type of class. There is NO craft, guild, service, library, etc. of the highest possible caliber that cannot be found in the city of the supposedly barbaric, uncivilized Dunlendings.

The reason it's there is obvious: for the convenience of endgame characters. But to put it there with forges and libraries as good as anything the elves had, jewelry crafting as good as anything the dwarves had, farmland as good as anything the hobbits had, etc., not to mention merchants and quartermasters with better potions and armour than anything available from men, dwarves, or elves farther north, makes no sense in light of what Tolkien wrote about the region and its inhabitants, and is a flagrant violation of the spirit of the novel.

Originally Posted by gradivus

The reason it's there is obvious: for the convenience of endgame characters. But to put it there with forges and libraries as good as anything the elves had, jewelry crafting as good as anything the dwarves had, farmland as good as anything the hobbits had, etc., not to mention merchants and quartermasters with better potions and armour than anything available from men, dwarves, or elves farther north, makes no sense in light of what Tolkien wrote about the region and its inhabitants, and is a flagrant violation of the spirit of the novel.

The architecture of Galtrev is far inferior to that of Lorien, Thorin's Hall and Moria. This, to me, is the best indicator of the level of civilization reflected in these settlements. We can interpret the other items -- the high level potions, crafting stations, etc -- in ways that do not generate the problems you indicate. These can be tied closely to our character rather than the location or civilization itself. For example, we have access to the higher level armor and potions in Galtrev because we have achieved a level of advancement that allows us to enjoy the benefits of a higher craft. In Lorien, we were not as practiced and so could not partake of the many weapons and potions that they could offer. This in no way means that greater jewelry and weapons do not exist in Lorien or even richer farmland in the Shire, simply that we were not "ready" to use them at the time we became allies with these groups.

Speaking more broadly, many of the "lore contradictions" are less severe (particularly those that deal with character advancement) if we treat the world we encounter in LOTRO from the perspective of our character and his or her journey (a"first-person" view) rather than an objective portrait of the world that Tolkien created (a "third-person" view).

In fact, there are a lot of contradictions and lore-breaking in LOTRO, but the fact is is that it's a game and it just has need of these things. I.E. Moria, there shouldn't be any dwarves there, but Turbine's formula of small quest hubs that send the player out to run piddly errands wasn't going to be changed.

The same thing is with the movies. Purists always come down on the movies for being inaccurate and twisting things, but the fact is is that cinema is a very different medium from literature and the source material needs to be adapted accordingly. I personally think both have done very well communicating the spirit of the books at least.

Does nobody remember the lore-rage-storm that carried on for weeks about the Palantir in Volume 1? How it couldn't have been a Palantir, not of this size, etc? It was the most controversely discussed lore-issue before the invention of Runekeepers...

Originally Posted by oldbadgerbrock

No, Gandalf did not evict Saruman from Orthanc. He does, however, break Saruman's staff and dismiss him from the Istari. After Saruman's refusal to come down from the tower, Gandalf requests Treebeard to make sure that Saruman does not leave. However, Saruman, knowing Treebeard's dislike of keeping things caged, uses his powers of persuasion to let him go. Treebeard makes Saruman turn over the keys to Orthanc before allowing him to depart.

Can some elaborate on something for me? Are their staffs the source or a source of their power? I know in the movies (I haven't finished the books yet, I know - I know!) there is alot of focus on Gandalf using his staff. Since he broke Saruman's and dismissed him from the Istari, does this mean that he is no longer as much of a threat as before?

Originally Posted by HighwayRidge

Can some elaborate on something for me? Are their staffs the source or a source of their power? I know in the movies (I haven't finished the books yet, I know - I know!) there is alot of focus on Gandalf using his staff. Since he broke Saruman's and dismissed him from the Istari, does this mean that he is no longer as much of a threat as before?

I think Tolkien was a bit inconsistent about it. Gandalf broke his own staff when breaking the bridge in Moria, but he evidently wasn't left feeble afterwards. However, Wormtongue clearly thought that the staff was really important ('Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff?') and of course Saruman ends up as a shadow of his former self after Gandalf breaks his staff and dismisses him from the Order. Having thought about it, though, I reckon the staff's more symbolic than anything else, a symbol of authority - and Saruman had no real authority left, as Gandalf had taken his place as White Wizard. I'd say Saruman losing his power might have been the result of some sort of spiritual struggle that the others couldn't see - it seems that being 'promoted' had given Gandalf some sort of lawful authority over him. That way, breaking his staff was just to underscore the point, with the real damage happening in the realm of the unseen.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

I think Tolkien was a bit inconsistent about it. Gandalf broke his own staff when breaking the bridge in Moria, but he evidently wasn't left feeble afterwards. However, Wormtongue clearly thought that the staff was really important ('Did I not counsel you, lord, to forbid his staff?') and of course Saruman ends up as a shadow of his former self after Gandalf breaks his staff and dismisses him from the Order. Having thought about it, though, I reckon the staff's more symbolic than anything else, a symbol of authority - and Saruman had no real authority left, as Gandalf had taken his place as White Wizard. I'd say Saruman losing his power might have been the result of some sort of spiritual struggle that the others couldn't see - it seems that being 'promoted' had given Gandalf some sort of lawful authority over him. That way, breaking his staff was just to underscore the point, with the real damage happening in the realm of the unseen.

Or Saruman's power is inescapably bound up with his authority as the White Wizard, so when Gandalf strips him of his rank, he also simultaneously strips him of much of his power (in the same way that a former President no longer has the same powers he did while in office). This raises all sorts of interesting (to me) questions about the nature of the Middle Earth institution of wizardry, where its authority comes from, and how it is governed. Of course, much of the power of wizardry comes from its mystery, so any revelation of this information would also undermine the institution which is why it must forever remain in the "realm of the unseen."

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

I think Tolkien was a bit inconsistent about it. .

This is my main gripe about on whether the balrog has wings or not. From the way he wrote it, it could turn up either way. After I pass my last day and go to the West, I'm going to ask him what is up with all those wargs, and to put the matter to rest, did the Balrog have wings.

I know Rad was talking about Saruman's staff but the above sentence reminded me of the Balrog debate.

Originally Posted by HighwayRidge

Can some elaborate on something for me? Are their staffs the source or a source of their power? I know in the movies (I haven't finished the books yet, I know - I know!) there is alot of focus on Gandalf using his staff. Since he broke Saruman's and dismissed him from the Istari, does this mean that he is no longer as much of a threat as before?

I have no proof or a quote to give you, only a thought i have on the subject, As far as I can remember the Professor never touched on this subject in any of his letters he wrote, but it could be possible that the staffs was somewhat like the One Ring where Sauron put a large part of his power into it, only to a much lesser degree. So when they was destroyed a part of their power was also destroyed, while Gandalf was able to see use his power against the balrog was because he wasnt power hungry so he didnt install a lot of his power into his staff, while Saruman was eager for power put so much into his staff, he lost a huge part of his power.

I'm sure I don't recall hobbit guardians wearing Armour 4 times their weight, shield thats bigger than they are and big massive hammers etc... in any of the books.. Or am i missing something?

The Balrog is wrong. (Haha)
Uruks were entirely absent from Eriador.
No Brigands, wolves, goblins in the Shire.
Forochel is too Warm.
We are better than Rangers, Elves and people who should have more experience than us.
To many mobs period.
We can time travel.
The scale is all off.
Wardens are too good at solo.
I can kill 100 goblins at once.
Hobbit PCs can wear shoes.
I can get hit on the head by trolls and not care (much).
My music is so bad that things commit suicide rather than hear more.
My music is so bad that my fellows don't want their last memory to be it.
I can't die.
Jewelry makes me tougher.
Hobbits can be Guardians. (4ft. vs 20ft.)
Hobbits can be useful other that comic relief and emergency rations.
I can't have a pet dog.
If I was really as good as my PC Sauron would offer a huge bounty on my head, and no one would even try to collect.
I can't kill the annoying guy who spams the chat channels.

Originally Posted by ScionofAngmar

Or Saruman's power is inescapably bound up with his authority as the White Wizard, so when Gandalf strips him of his rank, he also simultaneously strips him of much of his power (in the same way that a former President no longer has the same powers he did while in office). This raises all sorts of interesting (to me) questions about the nature of the Middle Earth institution of wizardry, where its authority comes from, and how it is governed. Of course, much of the power of wizardry comes from its mystery, so any revelation of this information would also undermine the institution which is why it must forever remain in the "realm of the unseen."

Actually we have quite a bit of information on the subject. The Istari are Maiar spirits from Valinor. Their power is likely thier intrinsic nature but sharply limited by the Valar, who sent them as advisors against Sauron, not champions of good. All but Gandalf fell away from this purpose over time. Saruman's fall was more extreme than the others and resulted in him getting his power revoked, possibly by the Valar (sort of like getting impeached). Gandalf's spirit presumably returned to Valinor after he defeated the Balrog but was sent back with more freedom to act. He also may have been directed to speak with Saruman and pronounce judgment. If you want to know more, Unfinished Tales has a whole section on the wizards.

Originally Posted by Egonz

I'm sure I don't recall hobbit guardians wearing Armour 4 times their weight, shield thats bigger than they are and big massive hammers etc... in any of the books.. Or am i missing something?

Quiet! Some people on this forum don't like one pointing out the absurdity that is hobbit tanks...

Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath

Quiet! Some people on this forum don't like one pointing out the absurdity that is hobbit tanks...

Heehee! Every time I read your sig Beleg I just get to laughing!

My Mirkwood Elves can't go home!

Something that is highly improbable but still logically possible, like Dundelings knowing the word "hobbit" when most of Middle-earth does not or Angmar resurfacing as a nation, is not a contradiction. A contradiction is an impossibility, an inescapable plot hole like a character in a historical fiction novel being in San Fransisco at 8 AM on July 9, 1918 but being in Charleston, South Carolina at that very same time in an adaptation of the book. Although something such as a hobbit tank would require significant explanation to fit in Tolkien's framework, it's still remotely possible, so that is not a contradiction. Unless there are more Tolkien quotes that point to the contrary than presented in this thread, or the attack on Dol Guldur in-game logically disallows any chance of a later attack as described by Tolkien (I haven't gotten that far in the game yet), the same is true for the attack on Dol Guldur.

There is a marked difference from directly contradicting details given in the books and being opposed to our interpretation of those details or the unspoken general notions and implications we get from the books. Those are not true "contradictions" of the lore, just improbabilities that can be explained away without a logical contradiction. Some of the things presented here can be explained quite easily, such as the Lich King obviously being connected with the stirring of the Dead in the Barrow-downs and the Lich King gaining much more power in the region, hence the general phenomenon of necromancy being more common than we would have thought. Others may be explained with much more difficulty, like female warriors being more common or the various threats which "almost" reach the Shire's settlements in the Shire questing area, but as far as I know are not directly contradicted by direct statements such as "women warriors besides Éowyn do not exist at all" or "there were no secret threats of the Enemy that almost harmed the Shire, but were thwarted, in the time around when Frodo left the Shire."

There are things which were at first iffy for me that I would not have included if I could go back in time to make my vision of this game, such as the prevalence of Undead and spiders, which I think of as uncommon and special enemies, or several of the shire-threats when cute things like hostile foxes and locusts invading farms could have been used in their place. However, they don't literally contradict the books, just the conception in your mind you'd probably get from those books.

I think of LotRO as avoiding contradiction overall while having plenty of "improbabilities," which is fine by me in my immersion and enjoyment of the game world.

Originally Posted by SeaofGlass

Something that is highly improbable but still logically possible, like Dundelings knowing the word "hobbit" when most of Middle-earth does not or Angmar resurfacing as a nation, is not a contradiction. A contradiction is an impossibility, an inescapable plot hole like a character in a historical fiction novel being in San Fransisco at 8 AM on July 9, 1918 but being in Charleston, South Carolina at that very same time in an adaptation of the book.

It's an apparent contradiction that requires a valid explanation, given the unlikeliness of it. You can't just say "oh, it's theoretically possible so it's not a contradiction" when it's so very unlikely. It's obvious what it really is, in any case: just something Turbine did without thinking about it.

And I'm sorry, but Angmar resurfacing is definitely a contradiction, like various other things in Eriador (Trestlebridge, for example). It's very obviously a change for the sake of the game, so it's no good trying to dress it up as anything else.

Although something such as a hobbit tank would require significant explanation to fit in Tolkien's framework, it's still remotely possible, so that is not a contradiction.

Now you're being silly. It's not in any way possible, it's an example of simplistic game mechanics triumphing over common sense: ordinary hobbits were simply too small (the size of small children) to go toe-to-toe with much larger enemies like that.

Unless there are more Tolkien quotes that point to the contrary than presented in this thread, or the attack on Dol Guldur in-game logically disallows any chance of a later attack as described by Tolkien (I haven't gotten that far in the game yet), the same is true for the attack on Dol Guldur.

Dol Guldur is presented as being too strong to attack like that. Do you think the Elves liked having that place there? It'd have been no good for them to muster all their strength against the place and lay siege to it, only to have more Orcs come down from the Misty Mountains and start attacking a lightly-defended Lorien. That's why it was only possible to take the place after Sauron's fall: that's what tells us the predicament the Elves were in. The whole point of building a fortress is to secure the ground for miles around, they're meant to be hard to deal with. It'd wouldn't have served its intended purpose if it were so easy to assault, simple as that. That's another (and frankly, rather stupid) change for the sake of the game.

Anything that we know definitely does not happen in the plot of the books, like the Dwarves trying to retake Moria at that point or the Elves trying to assault Dol Guldur, is a contradiction. It's no good saying "oh, it could have happened" because that's irrelevant. The debate then shifts to whether it could feasibly have happened in an alternate scenario. Even there, Turbine have contrived things to make space for the player-characters, it's not a likely scenario at all. DG being weak enough to be assaulted? Why was everyone so scared of the place, then? They could have knocked it over any time. What's in the game is contrivance, no more than that.

There is a marked difference from directly contradicting details given in the books and being opposed to our interpretation of those details or the unspoken general notions and implications we get from the books. Those are not true "contradictions" of the lore, just improbabilities that can be explained away without a logical contradiction. Some of the things presented here can be explained quite easily, such as the Lich King obviously being connected with the stirring of the Dead in the Barrow-downs and the Lich King gaining much more power in the region, hence the general phenomenon of necromancy being more common than we would have thought.

Excuse me, what's with the 'Lich King'? If you're thinking of this in WoW-like terms then it's small wonder you don't see anything wrong with there being undead everywhere.

Others may be explained with much more difficulty, like female warriors being more common or the various threats which "almost" reach the Shire's settlements in the Shire questing area, but as far as I know are not directly contradicted by direct statements such as "women warriors besides Éowyn do not exist at all" or "there were no secret threats of the Enemy that almost harmed the Shire, but were thwarted, in the time around when Frodo left the Shire."

No, you cannot explain the direct threats to the Shire or the large number of female warriors. All that is just contrivance for the sake of the game. The brigands, for example, are a direct contradiction: there weren't any until much later when the Southerners tried to take over Bree, failed, were driven out, and took to hiding in the woods. Likewise for there being even so much as one Warg in the woods: that didn't happen until the winter, long after Frodo had gone.

I think of LotRO as avoiding contradiction overall while having plenty of "improbabilities," which is fine by me in my immersion and enjoyment of the game world.

You can think of it how you like, but that's simply not true. There are a ton of contradictions.

Something in the game that we "know" did not happen in the narrative of the books but is not contradicted by those books is not a contradiction.

It's an apparent contradiction that requires a valid explanation, given the unlikeliness of it. You can't just say "oh, it's theoretically possible so it's not a contradiction" when it's so very unlikely. It's obvious what it really is, in any case: just something Turbine did without thinking about it.

An "apparent" contradiction is not the same as a boldface logical contradiction. For example, observations related to quantum physics are in apparent contradiction with large-scale observations, but we know that there has to be some kind of explanation for this, and it's not an ACTUAL contradiction.
A contradiction is if the books say that Aragorn has black hair and Aragorn in the game has bright red hair. Even then, we would have to examine particular situations where Tolkien said he had black hair and rule out the possibility that his hair changes color by some means between the times he was described as having black hair and when he has red hair in the game. There would only be a contradiction if Tolkien said he "ALWAYS" had black hair, or if he said he had black hair at the Council of Rivendell, and that scene in the game plays out with him having red hair.

There's no impetus based on logic itself that requires someone to explain something that is highly unlikely. As long as there COULD be an explanation, it's not a contradiction. There is a difference between seeing a contradiction from obviously-drawn conclusions and contradictions when objectively comparing the source material and the adaptation. Only the latter is truly a contradiction; no matter how obvious it seems, any interpretation of events which is not directly stated cannot produce a true contradiction between material, just a contradiction between your interpretation of that material.

Now you're being silly. It's not in any way possible, it's an example of simplistic game mechanics triumphing over common sense: ordinary hobbits were simply too small (the size of small children) to go toe-to-toe with much larger enemies like that.

That makes it highly unlikely, but not a logical contradiction. What if the hobbit just happened to take advantage of his or her size by taking enemies by surprise, stabbing them in the testicles, or countering their habitual weapon-swings aimed at taller opponents and using their nibleness to dodge such that they receive only the most glancing blow? A single direct blow from a troll would certainly kill a hobbit not wearing mithril, but they could simply have repositioned their bodies every single time to "mostly" dodge the blow but receive a tiny bit of damage so that it does not register as an "evade" in the game. It requires significant explanation and an extremely low probability that would never hold up in the real world, but is not a contradiction unless that probability is literally (not just practically) zero.

Dol Guldur is presented as being too strong to attack like that. Do you think the Elves liked having that place there? It'd have been no good for them to muster all their strength against the place and lay siege to it, only to have more Orcs come down from the Misty Mountains and start attacking a lightly-defended Lorien. That's why it was only possible to take the place after Sauron's fall: that's what tells us the predicament the Elves were in. The whole point of building a fortress is to secure the ground for miles around, they're meant to be hard to deal with. It'd wouldn't have served its intended purpose if it were so easy to assault, simple as that. That's another (and frankly, rather stupid) change for the sake of the game.

That's a general interpretive notion, rather than a specific detail. If something directly states "the elves ONLY attacked Dol Goldur after Sauron's fall," I'll certainly retract that statement. If the details paint an overall detail of a fortress that is highly unlikely to have been attacked, it's just highly unlikely. Perhaps it would have been completely stupid and irrational for someone to have done something, given the details in the book, but if they do that very thing in the game, they just did something oddly stupid and irrational.

Excuse me, what's with the 'Lich King'? If you're thinking of this in WoW-like terms then it's small wonder you don't see anything wrong with there being undead everywhere.

There is nothing written by Tolkien that explicitly states that the Lich King from the Warcraft universe could not have somehow found a way to enter the reality of Middle-earth and perform actions which never happened to be mentioned in the books, but do not contradict the statements made by the books. In fact, since the Warcraft universe had not been established by the time Tolkien wrote the books, it would have been utterly impossible for him to rule out that from ever possibly happening in his fictional universe.

Just kidding; that was a pretty hilarious mistake of mine. I mean the "Witch King," which I'm sure you realize. I do see "something wrong" with the undead being everywhere, just not a logical contradiction such as the books saying that the Wights existed EXCLUSIVELY in the Barrow-downs. I don't like the fact that they're so common, but I can understand it in that the Witch King is connected with the rising of the Dead in the Barrow-downs, and the Witch King is presented in the game as having a very big role in many places of Eriador.

If flying saucers showed up in the game, it wouldn't be a contradiction. If they showed up and killed Aragorn as he entered Bree, preventing him from performing his role in the rest of the books, that would be a contradiction.

And I'm sorry, but Angmar resurfacing is definitely a contradiction, like various other things in Eriador (Trestlebridge, for example). It's very obviously a change for the sake of the game, so it's no good trying to dress it up as anything else.

I'm open to this possibility if Tolkien specifically said something to the effect of "Angmar would never rise as a seat of the Enemy's minions again," or if he named all the settlements of Eriador while not allowing for some unnamed scattered settlements beside them.

Originally Posted by SeaofGlass

Something in the game that we "know" did not happen in the narrative of the books but is not contradicted by those books is not a contradiction.

If something is included that we absolutely know did not happen (say, Angmar rising again) then that is most definitely a contradiction. What else can it be? It's not plausibly filling in a gap that was left, it's making a change, creating an alternative version of events rather than blending in with the 'real' one. And it's also one that doesn't really make much sense: Angmar had served its purpose by bringing about the end of the North-kingdom and we're effectively told it was all done and dusted by Glorfindel's foretelling that the Witch-king would not return there. The Men who'd dwelt there had been entirely wiped out, we're told, so who are those guys supposed to be? That's a contradiction.

That makes it highly unlikely, but not a logical contradiction. What if the hobbit just happened to take advantage of his or her size by taking enemies by surprise, stabbing them in the testicles, or countering their habitual weapon-swings aimed at taller opponents and using their nibleness to dodge such that they receive only the most glancing blow? A single direct blow from a troll would certainly kill a hobbit not wearing mithril, but they could simply have repositioned their bodies every single time to "mostly" dodge the blow but receive a tiny bit of damage so that it does not register as an "evade" in the game. It requires significant explanation and an extremely low probability that would never hold up in the real world, but is not a contradiction unless that probability is literally (not just practically) zero.

This is waffle. Strength, weight and reach are very significant in fighting at close quarters, and Hobbits would be sadly lacking in all three. Being so much shorter than their opponents would not be an advantage in a straight fight. Let's have some common sense, here: how did David beat Goliath? Not by fighting him on even terms, that's for sure. Your would-be picture of hobbits shimmying about, dodging like they're in the Matrix is farcical.

Oh, and do remember that mithril mail wouldn't prevent its wearer from being injured altogether. You could still suffer blunt force trauma and have the mail forced into your flesh, both of which happened to Frodo in the book. If it had been a Troll that had speared him, as in the movie, then he'd have been very badly hurt, quite likely killed outright by having his internal organs ruptured by the force of such a blow. It happened very differently in the book, and the detail Tolkien provides is wholly plausible.

That's a general interpretive notion, rather than a specific detail. If something directly states "the elves ONLY attacked Dol Goldur after Sauron's fall," I'll certainly retract that statement. If the details paint an overall detail of a fortress that is highly unlikely to have been attacked, it's just highly unlikely. Perhaps it would have been completely stupid and irrational for someone to have done something, given the details in the book, but if they do that very thing in the game, they just did something oddly stupid and irrational.

Celeborn doing something oddly stupid and irrational would be a contradiction in itself, as he was noted for being wise. The game's scenario isn't credible, and in the context of the book it's unthinkable.

Just kidding; that was a pretty hilarious mistake of mine. I mean the "Witch King," which I'm sure you realize. I do see "something wrong" with the undead being everywhere, just not a logical contradiction such as the books saying that the Wights existed EXCLUSIVELY in the Barrow-downs. I don't like the fact that they're so common, but I can understand it in that the Witch King is connected with the rising of the Dead in the Barrow-downs, and the Witch King is presented in the game as having a very big role in many places of Eriador.

The Witch-king is treated like he's radioactive or something, as even the local bugs end up mutated like in some 1950s sci-fi. More than slightly silly.

If flying saucers showed up in the game, it wouldn't be a contradiction. If they showed up and killed Aragorn as he entered Bree, preventing him from performing his role in the rest of the books, that would be a contradiction.

The only word for that is FAIL. Of course it'd be contradictory to have a sci-fi invasion in the middle of a traditionally-minded fantasy.

I'm open to this possibility if Tolkien specifically said something to the effect of "Angmar would never rise as a seat of the Enemy's minions again," or if he named all the settlements of Eriador while not allowing for some unnamed scattered settlements beside them.

The description of Bree's situation in the book leaves no room for somewhere like Trestlebridge.

Originally Posted by SeaofGlass

Something in the game that we "know" did not happen in the narrative of the books but is not contradicted by those books is not a contradiction.


An "apparent" contradiction is not the same as a boldface logical contradiction. For example, observations related to quantum physics are in apparent contradiction with large-scale observations, but we know that there has to be some kind of explanation for this, and it's not an ACTUAL contradiction.
A contradiction is if the books say that Aragorn has black hair and Aragorn in the game has bright red hair. Even then, we would have to examine particular situations where Tolkien said he had black hair and rule out the possibility that his hair changes color by some means between the times he was described as having black hair and when he has red hair in the game. There would only be a contradiction if Tolkien said he "ALWAYS" had black hair, or if he said he had black hair at the Council of Rivendell, and that scene in the game plays out with him having red hair.

There's no impetus based on logic itself that requires someone to explain something that is highly unlikely. As long as there COULD be an explanation, it's not a contradiction. There is a difference between seeing a contradiction from obviously-drawn conclusions and contradictions when objectively comparing the source material and the adaptation. Only the latter is truly a contradiction; no matter how obvious it seems, any interpretation of events which is not directly stated cannot produce a true contradiction between material, just a contradiction between your interpretation of that material.


That makes it highly unlikely, but not a logical contradiction. What if the hobbit just happened to take advantage of his or her size by taking enemies by surprise, stabbing them in the testicles, or countering their habitual weapon-swings aimed at taller opponents and using their nibleness to dodge such that they receive only the most glancing blow? A single direct blow from a troll would certainly kill a hobbit not wearing mithril, but they could simply have repositioned their bodies every single time to "mostly" dodge the blow but receive a tiny bit of damage so that it does not register as an "evade" in the game. It requires significant explanation and an extremely low probability that would never hold up in the real world, but is not a contradiction unless that probability is literally (not just practically) zero.


That's a general interpretive notion, rather than a specific detail. If something directly states "the elves ONLY attacked Dol Goldur after Sauron's fall," I'll certainly retract that statement. If the details paint an overall detail of a fortress that is highly unlikely to have been attacked, it's just highly unlikely. Perhaps it would have been completely stupid and irrational for someone to have done something, given the details in the book, but if they do that very thing in the game, they just did something oddly stupid and irrational.


There is nothing written by Tolkien that explicitly states that the Lich King from the Warcraft universe could not have somehow found a way to enter the reality of Middle-earth and perform actions which never happened to be mentioned in the books, but do not contradict the statements made by the books. In fact, since the Warcraft universe had not been established by the time Tolkien wrote the books, it would have been utterly impossible for him to rule out that from ever possibly happening in his fictional universe.

Just kidding; that was a pretty hilarious mistake of mine. I mean the "Witch King," which I'm sure you realize. I do see "something wrong" with the undead being everywhere, just not a logical contradiction such as the books saying that the Wights existed EXCLUSIVELY in the Barrow-downs. I don't like the fact that they're so common, but I can understand it in that the Witch King is connected with the rising of the Dead in the Barrow-downs, and the Witch King is presented in the game as having a very big role in many places of Eriador.

If flying saucers showed up in the game, it wouldn't be a contradiction. If they showed up and killed Aragorn as he entered Bree, preventing him from performing his role in the rest of the books, that would be a contradiction.


I'm open to this possibility if Tolkien specifically said something to the effect of "Angmar would never rise as a seat of the Enemy's minions again," or if he named all the settlements of Eriador while not allowing for some unnamed scattered settlements beside them.

/sigh This is simply extraordinarily stupid. So by your argument, Jay Leno and Poseidon could show up in Middle Earth, ride a Zamboni to Harad, kill an oliphaunt, and then proclaim their victory using a giant blimp, and it wouldn't be a lore contradiction.

Originally Posted by Himodhur

/sigh This is simply extraordinarily stupid. So by your argument, Jay Leno and Poseidon could show up in Middle Earth, ride a Zamboni to Harad, kill an oliphaunt, and then proclaim their victory using a giant blimp, and it wouldn't be a lore contradiction.

Exactly. It wouldn't be appropriate to the setting in a subjective sense, but it would not contradict the source material in an objective sense.

What will be a lore contradiction is if they open the borders of Lothlorien to all without the need for the acquaintance rep standing