(originally posted as a reply to a thread, but the main discussion to the thread overwhelmed it)
So, having observed some of the discussions on the forums, a curious question has insistently began to bob around in my head:
Why Tolkien not specifically mentioning something in writing is taken as Published Proof it didn't happen or didn't exist?
The problem with that is that for example by that logic no person in ME, ever, needed to empty their bladders.
If I remember right, Mr Tolkien hoped others would build upon what he didn't have time to write. That others would continue telling tales of Middle-Earth, its regions, its peoples. Just consider all the six known words of Avarin languages...
Rather the problem is usually people trying to deem something lore appropriate which clearly isn't using the: "Tolkien didn't say it couldn't exist" as a defense, or something to that effect.
When there is no clear cut yes or no it's a case of stacking the thing in question against the spirit of the lore and seeing whether it fits. All too often it's somebody trying to introduce a generic fantasy, high-flying magic type element into the mundane fantasy setting of latter day Third Age Middle-earth.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
Why Tolkien not specifically mentioning something in writing is taken as Published Proof it didn't happen or didn't exist?
The problem with that is that for example by that logic no person in ME, ever, needed to empty their bladders.
Conversely, someone might inject all sorts of foolish things into LOTRO with the flimsy excuse that "Tolkien never said that they didn't exist."
In regards to flying mounts, as B-o-D seems to suggest, it is quite clear from statements that Tolkien made in his published letters, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien edited by Humphrey Carpenter, that they would be highly inappropriate in LOTRO.
(originally posted as a reply to a thread, but the main discussion to the thread overwhelmed it)
So, having observed some of the discussions on the forums, a curious question has insistently began to bob around in my head: Why Tolkien not specifically mentioning something in writing is taken as Published Proof it didn't happen or didn't exist?
Too often the bolded statement to justify the implementation of nonsense content or features. For example - There is no mention of phasers, speeder bikes, airplanes, sharks with lasers, on demand travel via Giant Eagles. Why not allow phasers, orbital fire support, trucks, airplanes, sharks with lasers or a lot of stuff?
When you take the written lore provided by Professor Tolkien there is no justification for any of this stuff.
Lets take - On Demand air lift capability via Great Eagles - The story is getting Frodo and the ring to a Eagle facility. All available Great Eagles in Middle Earth are either flying scout missions or escort for the transport Eagles that are carrying Frodo for a bombing run on Mount Doom.
The entire story exists because the fellowship of ring or the ring has to walk. The Great Eagles are not going to provide transport. There is very limited horse capability. Walk everywhere especially if you are Frodo.
Unless stated otherwise, all content in this post is My Personal Opinion.
(originally posted as a reply to a thread, but the main discussion to the thread overwhelmed it)
stuff...
If I remember right, Mr Tolkien hoped others would build upon what he didn't have time to write. That others would continue telling tales of Middle-Earth, its regions, its peoples. Just consider all the six known words of Avarin languages...
I dont remember ever reading or hearing that Tolkien wanted other people to expand on his work - in fact quite the opposite is the impression I get - he was quite certain that nobody would be interested in his mythology except for him and possibly his children - and even his editor friend suggested as much and wouldn't publish the works of the silmarillion and asked him to write what became the lord of the rings instead...
The Tolkien estate has to protect the integrity of the source material or the whole franchise is lessened (look what happens to great original work that other people exploit for profit and come up with all kinds of BS that was never intended under the creators original vision) I'm quite sure you or anyone else would find out the meaning of the phrase "sued back to the stone age" if they tried to make money by expanding these works without a license or permission from the stake holders - which is not WB or turbine - so turbine as a licensed holder is allow only so much wiggle room on what they can deliver for profit on work that is based on Tolkien's lore.
I'm quite sure that somebody from the tolkien estate or what ever has to sign off on any major additions to what is produced in this game - they are not allowed to make up just anything they want or anything that the players want - in fact there was a big deal about allowing PVP in this game and that's why it is confined to one area.
I'm quite sure that somebody from the tolkien estate or what ever has to sign off on any major additions to what is produced in this game - they are not allowed to make up just anything they want or anything that the players want - in fact there was a big deal about allowing PVP in this game and that's why it is confined to one area.
I'm quite sure you're mistaken. The Tolkien Estate has absolutely no control over either LotRO or the LotR films. Those rights were sold by Tolkien himself, and Saul Zaentz acquired them in 1976. His Middle-earth Enterprises license the rights to LotRO.
Check his Wikipedia article and try again.
If the Tolkien Estate could have gotten their hands on the IP again, Christopher Tolkien would never have allowed any of this to happen.
I'm quite sure you're mistaken. The Tolkien Estate has absolutely no control over either LotRO or the LotR films. Those rights were sold by Tolkien himself, and Saul Zaentz acquired them in 1976. His Middle-earth Enterprises license the rights to LotRO.
Check his Wikipedia article and try again.
If the Tolkien Estate could have gotten their hands on the IP again, Christopher Tolkien would never have allowed any of this to happen.
He's totally correct in that Turbine are HIGHLY restricted in what they can do in the game by their license; exactly who the license is from I'm not sure, but his main point is totally correct.
Whether it's them or TE, Turbine are very circumscribed in what they can put into the game and need sign-off on pretty much anything that they want to add that hasn't already been agreed.
Sadly, as FoS shows, they CAN put in Preditors and get away with it though.
I'm quite sure you're mistaken. The Tolkien Estate has absolutely no control over either LotRO or the LotR films. Those rights were sold by Tolkien himself, and Saul Zaentz acquired them in 1976. His Middle-earth Enterprises license the rights to LotRO.
Check his Wikipedia article and try again.
If the Tolkien Estate could have gotten their hands on the IP again, Christopher Tolkien would never have allowed any of this to happen.
Not certain I trust Wikipedia
but I do recall reading that somewhere, hopfully they were not citing Wikipedia, but these days you never know
Those who deny that anything not mentioned specifically did not, would not and could not have happened are simply literary extremists, which is just as unhealthy a state of mind as any other form of extremism.
That said, a certain amount of respect and common sense needs to be applied to the setting. So there is no 10th walker who wasn't mentioned simply because he didn't do anything of any import, and the Starship Enterprise can't turn up and beam The Ring straight into a black hole.
There are also mounds of background information available that Tolkien wrote, along with interviews he gave that forbid certain things... Though for the background information, that probably still belongs to the Tolkien Estate, and therefore following it will lead to a (frivolous) lawsuit.
I wouldn't trust a term paper that cited Wikipedia. But for the purposes of Internet discussion boards, I think it's a valid source. Especially when the vast majority of posters don't bother to cite anything.
(originally posted as a reply to a thread, but the main discussion to the thread overwhelmed it)
So, having observed some of the discussions on the forums, a curious question has insistently began to bob around in my head:
Why Tolkien not specifically mentioning something in writing is taken as Published Proof it didn't happen or didn't exist?
The problem with that is that for example by that logic no person in ME, ever, needed to empty their bladders.
If I remember right, Mr Tolkien hoped others would build upon what he didn't have time to write. That others would continue telling tales of Middle-Earth, its regions, its peoples. Just consider all the six known words of Avarin languages...
"Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the romantic fairy-story - the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths - which I could simply dedicate to England; to my country. [...] I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama."
That was Tolkien's original intent as stated in 1951 in a letter to Milton Waldman in describing his work. And while Tolkien clearly had reservations about "unqualified" use of his work - Ackerman's proposal had him protesting, he was dismayed that people who didn't know (and didn't care to know) the difference between Old Norse and Old English should be allowed to remark on his work, he disdained allegory, "the machine", feminism and a lot of developments of modern life - there is no word stating that he forbade others to engage in interpretation or subcreation based on his work. Given the fact that he himself drew from a wide range of different legendary, literary and religious traditions (did you know that Tolkien's dwarves were explicitly compared to the Jewish diaspora?) and made subcreation a central theme of most all his works, the hypocrisy in such a statement would be easy to see.
While the Tolkien Estate is set to protect the integrity of his work, it doesn't disallow fanfiction (gasp!) unless it's "commercialized exploitation", which applies to more than just fan-writing; I'm sure there is no need to list the many lawsuits that the Estate engaged in because they considered something a copyright violation.
And then there's the simple fact, quite detached from Tolkien himself, that different fans bring different things to the table. Different leves of engagement with the material (am I a bad fan because I've only read the first 42 volumes of the Vinyar Tengwar, not all 49? What, did someone just say yes?), different life experiences, lifestyles, interests and whatever other human experience you can come up with. I suspect that some people will again tell me that I'm ridiculous and that what I can imagine happening in Tolkien's canon on the bounds of creative interpretation of text sources, is in fact clichéd, borrowed from other narratives (what isn't?) and not Middle-earth. But then, nothing is, except what Tolkien took to the grave, because necessarily, every single person on this planet will have a different view.
And some people can argue convincingly that they find it perfectly okay to play dwarf women in dresses, or see no reason that there should be no queer people in Middle-earth because despite adhering to low-magic realism, it's not stated in the texts. Telling people they can't do that is effectively telling them they can't use their brains, and that literary extremism (love that term) has somehow found a cut-and-dried way to claim the only valid engagement with the material. Ludicrous, but not unexpected.
The quote was "Tolkien Estate or who ever" thank you for getting the point and not getting hung up on my lack of knowledge of who this "who ever" is.
Originally Posted by Kerin_Eldar
He's totally correct in that Turbine are HIGHLY restricted in what they can do in the game by their license; exactly who the license is from I'm not sure, but his main point is totally correct.
Whether it's them or TE, Turbine are very circumscribed in what they can put into the game and need sign-off on pretty much anything that they want to add that hasn't already been agreed.
Sadly, as FoS shows, they CAN put in Preditors and get away with it though.
Playing dwarf females seems like a no brain'r - Tolkien wrote about dwarf females and there is at least one example of a Dwarven female character in his works - cant remember the tale or circumstances ATM - but yeah - no biggy and definitely not lore breaking or against the Tolkien vibe. The fact that Turbine chose to not include a sex when picking a Dwarven character is lore-ish too and on par with the Tolkien vibe - it has been written and suggested that people couldn't tell the difference between male and female dwarfs - and that's how I see it - its up to the roller of the toon to say its male or female - if you roll a dwarf toon and call her Dwarferella then by Eru its female - I dont see why this is even a topic - but it is and has been since the game opened.
A class based on Beorn or perhaps an epic session play where you ride on an eagle one time - especially if the epic involves Gandalf - is also with in the spirit of the Tolkien lore and is ok with me..
Flying mounts and Eagle stables is crossing the line and goes against the lore and vibe of Middle-earth.
Lasers and starships are just silly.
A certain amount of respect for the material and common sense has to be maintained or we lose the vibe that we want when we decide to play Lotro and not DDO or WoW or EQ
BB
Last edited by BakoBongo; Jul 23 2012 at 10:58 AM.
Thank you for all those who have contributed; I began this thread because even though I love (going on 20+ years) the words and worlds Tolkien gave us, I also love playing the devil's advocate.
Originally Posted by GoldenusG
Those who deny that anything not mentioned specifically did not, would not and could not have happened are simply literary extremists, which is just as unhealthy a state of mind as any other form of extremism.
That said, a certain amount of respect and common sense needs to be applied to the setting. So there is no 10th walker who wasn't mentioned simply because he didn't do anything of any import, and the Starship Enterprise can't turn up and beam The Ring straight into a black hole.
There are also mounds of background information available that Tolkien wrote, along with interviews he gave that forbid certain things... Though for the background information, that probably still belongs to the Tolkien Estate, and therefore following it will lead to a (frivolous) lawsuit.
Thank You. This is what I hope those of us who partake in lore discussions would remember.
Originally Posted by EllisIstarnie
"----- I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama."
Thank you for digging that up.
It's from a letter by Tolkien to Milton Waldman, and is also reprinted in Second Edition of Silmarillion.
Related to this, Tolkien slipped into the texts many times details and turns of phrases that beg for exploration:
* "---nor was all foretold in the Music of the Ainur." (Silmarillion)
* Istari: "Of this Order the number is unknown; but of those that came to the North of Middle-earth, where there was most hope (because of the remnant of the Dúnedain and of the Eldar that abode there), the chiefs were five." (Book of Unfinished tales)
* Morinehtar and Rómestámo (Peoples of Middle-Earth)
* The aforementioned six words of Avarin languages
* "But it (Silmarillion) was far indeed from being a fixed text, and did not remain unchanged even in certain fundamental ideas concerning the nature of the world it portrays---" (from its foreword)
* The unknown myths of mortals, the stories of dwarves and men and hobbits... because Silmarillion, acknowledged by Tolkien himself, is written by elven hands. Valaquenta is even subtitled as "Account of the Valar and Maiar according to the lore of the Eldar".
And that's probably just the tip of the iceberg...
This is why we have our very own Lore Specialist working for Turbine. That way things stay within the spirit of JRRT's works, but can have some areas in which things not explicitly stated in the canon text can be added.
It's a matter of having someone who is knowledgeable and true to the vision. I think B does that quite well.
This is why we have our very own Lore Specialist working for Turbine. That way things stay within the spirit of JRRT's works, but can have some areas in which things not explicitly stated in the canon text can be added.
It's a matter of having someone who is knowledgeable and true to the vision. I think B does that quite well.
It seems he is limited to certain areas of development. I've never understood Turbines two-tier system with regards to lore. They get someone to make all the landscape as close to the lore as possible, get someone to work out suitable names, get someone to try and create a reasonably lore-abiding epic quest chain and then they get someone else to design things like giant goat mounts to trample over it all. Or ghost heralds, RKs, giant tortoises etc.
It'd be like going to great lengths to reenact the Battle of Hastings as faithfully as possible, to then have a squadron of Hells Angels enter the fray when the battle is in full swing.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
This is why we have our very own Lore Specialist working for Turbine. That way things stay within the spirit of JRRT's works, but can have some areas in which things not explicitly stated in the canon text can be added.
It's a matter of having someone who is knowledgeable and true to the vision. I think B does that quite well.
Berephon is certainly revered at my end.
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
---Or ghost heralds, RKs, giant tortoises etc.---
Ghost heralds as a lore-break I get. Giant tortoises.... if they were rare signatures/elites, then I wouldn't have a single problem with them, perhaps... but maybe that's just memories of MERP talking. And really, what does it matter what sort of skin the landscape mob's wearing?
But I still don't get why RKs are considered lore-breaking.
Strip off their fancy, flashing shows and how do they, in your opinion, break the lore?
But I still don't get why RKs are considered lore-breaking.
Strip off their fancy, flashing shows and how do they, in your opinion, break the lore?
Besides the facts they fight with rocks, use overt magic and use magical rune-stones to alter reality? :P Oh nothing wrong with RKs besides that...
In the sea without lees standeth the Bird of Hermes. When all his feathers be from him gone, He standeth still here as a stone.
Here is now both white and red, And all so the stone to quicken the dead
The Bird of Hermes is my name, Eating my wings to make me tame.
Besides the facts they fight with rocks, use overt magic and use magical rune-stones to alter reality? :P Oh nothing wrong with RKs besides that...
Me, that stuff doesn't bother. Oddly enough what gets me is the part in Volume 2 where Bosi talks to Gimli in Lothlorien and details the tribulations that they encountered, and yet I don't recall anywhere in the books where in Lothlorien, Gimli gathered up the rest of the Fellowship and told them about how an army of dwarves came in to settle Khazad-Dum right after the Fellowship came through. That is one place where something was not explicitly mentioned, but I think we can all agree is fairly lore-breaking.
Also, how come Gimli never asks Bosi about the Balrog? That would have changed soooooo much in the Fellowship of the Ring.
Besides the facts they fight with rocks, use overt magic and use magical rune-stones to alter reality? :P Oh nothing wrong with RKs besides that...
They harm and heal with words, using inscribed rocks as foci, same as Lore-Master's staff. Because words have power, especially in Tolkien's writings. Why do you think dwarves keep their true names, their language a secret? Not to even mention the fact that the world was sung into being; single word from Iluvatar made it real. Granted, that language isn't heard in Middle-earth in Third Age, but...
Using a single word opened the Hollin Gate. And unlike Gandalf's harmful firework displays (at Caradhras and against the shadow-wolves a bit earlier), that cannot be attributed to his 'nature' or the Ring he wore.
Reciting the verse inscribed on the One Ring is repeatedly described as having an effect on those present.
Uttering 'Elbereth Gilthoniel' has an effect on those under the Shadow, even when said by someone who doesn't know or believe in said Queen.
Blades were inscribed with cirth and tengwar, believed to aid their wielder.
Oaths, mere words strung together, bind people. No matter how much they might want to wiggle out of them, once spoken, the oaths last. Go ask Fëanor's sons about that, or the Oathbreakers.
Same applies to prophecies; Witch-king's is the most famous example, but Malbeth the Seer's not half bad either.
Words have power. And that power is what RKs tune into and use.
Originally Posted by Rothmarte
Me, that stuff doesn't bother. Oddly enough what gets me is the part in Volume 2 where Bosi talks to Gimli in Lothlorien and details the tribulations that they encountered, and yet I don't recall anywhere in the books where in Lothlorien, Gimli gathered up the rest of the Fellowship and told them about how an army of dwarves came in to settle Khazad-Dum right after the Fellowship came through. That is one place where something was not explicitly mentioned, but I think we can all agree is fairly lore-breaking.
Also, how come Gimli never asks Bosi about the Balrog? That would have changed soooooo much in the Fellowship of the Ring.
Good point about that; have to admit I went a little "Wait, what?" when that happened, too... Selective memory on Gimli's part?
(originally posted as a reply to a thread, but the main discussion to the thread overwhelmed it)
So, having observed some of the discussions on the forums, a curious question has insistently began to bob around in my head:
Why Tolkien not specifically mentioning something in writing is taken as Published Proof it didn't happen or didn't exist?
The problem with that is that for example by that logic no person in ME, ever, needed to empty their bladders.
If I remember right, Mr Tolkien hoped others would build upon what he didn't have time to write. That others would continue telling tales of Middle-Earth, its regions, its peoples. Just consider all the six known words of Avarin languages...
Because you can take the argument to a ludicrous extreme. "Tolkien NEVER SAID flying Delorian time machines full of cheerleaders didn't exist in Middle Earth. Therefore we must have them every 200 feet."
"The LOTRO Store will offer convenience, not advantage." -Patience
"These pots are only available in the store and they are not available via crafting. Nor do we have any plans for this to change right now." -Frelorn
(originally posted as a reply to a thread, but the main discussion to the thread overwhelmed it)
So, having observed some of the discussions on the forums, a curious question has insistently began to bob around in my head:
Why Tolkien not specifically mentioning something in writing is taken as Published Proof it didn't happen or didn't exist?
The problem with that is that for example by that logic no person in ME, ever, needed to empty their bladders.
If I remember right, Mr Tolkien hoped others would build upon what he didn't have time to write. That others would continue telling tales of Middle-Earth, its regions, its peoples. Just consider all the six known words of Avarin languages...
/sarcasm ON
Well, the main reason why is that allowing anything that isnt especially mentioned ends with fighting pandas opposing Sauron, EagleAir services anywhere and 10.000 wizards. Ahh, and an evil AI installed in BaradDur controlling all evil forces thry the Force and lots of Lost Rings being found right and left.
/sarcasm OFF
Really, Tolkien didnt write about lot of stuff, that we are left free to interpret, but he also wrote quite a lot that people wanting to add features from WoW here choose to ignore. Flying mounts goes directly agaisnt his letters discussing ME and the proposed movie script in 60ties, per example. Also, even if he didnt explicitly write there are no machineguns toting orcs in service of Sauron, we still have a good reason to believe there is no machinegun toting orcs in ME at the time of novels.
About what an inspiring author could do with the Tolkien world, i would point you toward the trilogy "Ring of Darkness". Probaly will newer be published in english due (C), but good luck getting hands on russian original and then running it thry google translate. More info about it can be read there: http://www.fohguild.org/forums/milli...quel-lotr.html
THe Wikipedia also gives some info about it, including link to fan-translation here: http://rod.avantguardsystems.com/
About other 'followers' there is a discussion in rpg.net about various authors doing this or that. Mostly though in russian, due russia not subscribing to Berne convention for some time in 90ties. http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-311190.html
There was hole in the earth and into it lived a hobbit...
Ups, sorry, wrong tale. There was asteorid with a cave and into it lived a NORBIT.
Once theis hobb.. sorry, norbit had a nice breakfast and started to think, what to do now. When!!! When our friend hob.. norbit, not sure hiomself why, started to do thingstotally impossible. Well, he sure lost the staus in eyes of his neighbours, but acquired... well, if he acquired anyhthing at all, you will find out soon enough.
And went our norbit to a cave... sorry, space-time wormhole. To search for a treasures..,. ohh, no, the artefacts.
What to know waht was after that, in place of elves, orcs and Gandalf the great?
Thank you, Turbine, for listening and giving us an opt-out of FE! Good work!
But I still don't get why RKs are considered lore-breaking.
Strip off their fancy, flashing shows and how do they, in your opinion, break the lore?
Unlike every other class they're lore-breaking even on the conceptual level. From the ground up they have no foundation in the lore. As to why this is there are plenty of RK threads (some rather long) which have covered this over and over.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
They harm and heal with words, using inscribed rocks as foci, same as Lore-Master's staff. Because words have power, especially in Tolkien's writings. Why do you think dwarves keep their true names, their language a secret? Not to even mention the fact that the world was sung into being; single word from Iluvatar made it real. Granted, that language isn't heard in Middle-earth in Third Age, but... Using a single word opened the Hollin Gate. And unlike Gandalf's harmful firework displays (at Caradhras and against the shadow-wolves a bit earlier), that cannot be attributed to his 'nature' or the Ring he wore. Reciting the verse inscribed on the One Ring is repeatedly described as having an effect on those present. Uttering 'Elbereth Gilthoniel' has an effect on those under the Shadow, even when said by someone who doesn't know or believe in said Queen. Blades were inscribed with cirth and tengwar, believed to aid their wielder. Oaths, mere words strung together, bind people. No matter how much they might want to wiggle out of them, once spoken, the oaths last. Go ask Fëanor's sons about that, or the Oathbreakers. Same applies to prophecies; Witch-king's is the most famous example, but Malbeth the Seer's not half bad either. Words have power. And that power is what RKs tune into and use.
I don't think you quite understand. First off, runes, or even words themselves, have no power in Middle-earth. However, they can be used to store or invoke power from an outside source, usually from within a powerful entity. Words are catalysts to power, so to speak; A random farmer from Bree can be asked to say Elbereth Gilthoniel and nothing will happen lest he knows to draw hope from it, or if an Unseen entity will lend him hope at that time. Examples as you aptly supplied are the Ring inscription, Gandalf's setting fire to trees and the Elbereth Gilthoniel cry. Durin's Door is in a similar position, except that the word there is not important at all, it is the door itself. The password could have been anything else, it would not have any meaning regardless, but the door is the important part used to recognise a password. Secondly, the few times we actually see these powers displayed, they are done by only by the Valar, Maiar, and the most powerful of Elves and Men. And even then they are very limited. Gandalf for example cannot simply conjure up fire from nowhere, he needs an ignition source. And yet RKs conjure up fire from nothing as if it's no effort at all. My point is that this sort of power displayed via words are very rare and usually very subtle, unlike Rune-keepers when they summon firestorms, snowfall and shooting lightning bolts out of their &&&&. It just isn't how Middle-earth's magic works. It is true that song is used to demonstrate great power, but once again, certainly not by lesser Elves and Dwarves. Only the Ainur, and very powerful Elves like Finrod have shown to use song as a true power. Minstrels are on thin ice there, but at least they work within the game's Morale-system in that songs can bolster friends and dishearten enemies.
Last edited by BirdofHermes; Jul 24 2012 at 08:45 PM.
In the sea without lees standeth the Bird of Hermes. When all his feathers be from him gone, He standeth still here as a stone.
Here is now both white and red, And all so the stone to quicken the dead
The Bird of Hermes is my name, Eating my wings to make me tame.
Too often the bolded statement to justify the implementation of nonsense content or features. For example - There is no mention of phasers, speeder bikes, airplanes, sharks with lasers, on demand travel via Giant Eagles. Why not allow phasers, orbital fire support, trucks, airplanes, sharks with lasers or a lot of stuff?
When you take the written lore provided by Professor Tolkien there is no justification for any of this stuff.
Well, to be fair, my Call of Orome, Cry of the Wizards, and Cry of the Valar all really do look like orbital fire support. I always jokingly call them that too.
Yes, I do know what you are saying and I do agree with it, but when I read that, I just outright laughed 'cause we do have laser strikes from the sky -- it's the only way to be sure after all :P
Well, to be fair, my Call of Orome, Cry of the Wizards, and Cry of the Valar all really do look like orbital fire support. I always jokingly call them that too.
Yes, I do know what you are saying and I do agree with it, but when I read that, I just outright laughed 'cause we do have laser strikes from the sky -- it's the only way to be sure after all :P
'Look like' is the right phrase. I haven't rolled a Minstrel but what do its damage-dealing skill descriptions say? I'm guessing they are left vague enough so as to enable the 'beams of light' to be purely metaphorical.
Many RK skills, on the other hand, out-right state their elemental nature. It's purely an elemental mage class, with a gloss of 'runes' designed to mask their overtly elemental magical nature behind a smokescreen of lore.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
'Look like' is the right phrase. I haven't rolled a Minstrel but what do its damage-dealing skill descriptions say? I'm guessing they are left vague enough so as to enable the 'beams of light' to be purely metaphorical.
Many RK skills, on the other hand, out-right state their elemental nature. It's purely an elemental mage class, with a gloss of 'runes' designed to mask their overtly elemental magical nature behind a smokescreen of lore.
No, it's pretty explicit and non-metaphorical. From the call of the valar:
Call upon a song to blast your enemies with an area-of-effect of light. This attack will also remove a Corruption buff from the enemies you hit.
Call of the wizards is similar, only the cry or oreme makes no direct reference to light.
Mind you, those are Crome the lorebook tooltips for those skills. I'm far away from my computer right now and can't get into world to verify them, but I do think they are accurate.
No, it's pretty explicit and non-metaphorical. From the call of the valar:
Call upon a song to blast your enemies with an area-of-effect of light. This attack will also remove a Corruption buff from the enemies you hit.
Call of the wizards is similar, only the cry or oreme makes no direct reference to light.
Mind you, those are Crome the lorebook tooltips for those skills. I'm far away from my computer right now and can't get into world to verify them, but I do think they are accurate.
Hmm I'll have to look into it. When were those skill/s added to the game by the way?
Regardless the Minstrels primary role (even though primary roles have become ever less important as the games gone on with the blurring of the classes) is the restoration of morale through song, which sits fine with the lore. The RK is the only class that doesn't really have anything going for it lore-wise.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
Rune Keepers skills are described in a way that is perfectly lore friendly, but people get hung up on the graphical representations. Every class is just as 'lore breaking', its just that the Rune Keeper is a bit more overt about it.
Personally, I look on our adventures as things our character did years ago, and it telling exagerated stories about down the local to impress some floozy.
Rune Keepers skills are described in a way that is perfectly lore friendly, but people get hung up on the graphical representations. Every class is just as 'lore breaking', its just that the Rune Keeper is a bit more overt about it.
1. RK skills are not 'described in a lore friendly' way. Some of them could be taken as metaphorical, some are clearly literal. But the probem with the former is...
2. The very notion of a person using runes - which are just a form of alphabet - to do the type of stuff a RK can is ridiculous. Runes are connected to magic only in so much as they may appear on a magical object, like a door or piece of armour, but the magic originates from the maker of the object, not from the runes.
3. The RK is the only class which fails on a conceptual level. The Lore-master (the next most lore-breaking class) has many elements which are lore-breaking but it also has elements with clear ties to the lore, not to mention carrying proper weapons. The RK fails from the ground up.
You're from the EU forum and must have seen the many threads on this subject...
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
1. RK skills are not 'described in a lore friendly' way. Some of them could be taken as metaphorical, some are clearly literal. But the probem with the former is...
I decided to run through my RK's skills, and list the descriptions here:
Chilling Rhetoric - Written words can have a chilling effect on their victim.
Writ of Cold - When a Rune-keeper writes of cold, its chill can be real
Essence of Winter - In writing, the significance of winter is that in time all things must slow, then stop.
Frozen Epilogue - A wave of the hand, an icy stare, and rune-letters describing the coldest nights combine to put an end to your foes.
Flurry of Words - A flurry of chilling words unleashes a swirl of numbing cold on foes around you.
Scribe's Spark - All great things must start as but a single spark.
Shocking Words - The written word can be shocking enough to make lesser minds think twice...or never again.
Ceaseless Argument - The potency of Rune-keepers' writings are not hindered by repetition.
Essence of Storm - In writing, the significance of a storm is that the unexpected will happen.
Epic Conclusion - An epic conclusion such as this is rarely gainsaid.
Sustaining Bolt - The appropriate words may lessen the strain of exertion.
Vivid Imagery - Your writings evoke such vivid imagery that your foes will stop short in their tracks.
Shocking Touch - A simple touch will leave a Rune-keeper's foe dazed for a short time.
Armour of Storm - (The Armour of Storm/Flame/Winter do not have a skill description, it just lists the effects).
Self-Motivation - A studious Rune-keeper finds motivation -- and even true Power -- from within.
Nothing Truly Ends - Scribes know that nothing ever truly ends, and the Rune-keeper can make this maxim true.
Distracting Winds - A quickly scribed rune can create an icy wind to distract your enemies.
Calming Verse - A Rune-keeper can concentrate on writing in a calming manner, so foes will not be enraged.
Final Word - A final word stops your foe from concentrating.
Scribe a New Ending - Scribe a new ending to your fellowships recent experiences, removing some of the oppression of defeat.
Steady Hands - A careful Rune-keeper can quickly steady himself in even the more troubled of times.
Fall to Storm - (Again, no skill description).
Do Not Fall to Storm - (Ditto).
Their Weapons Shall Not Harm Us - You have foreseen that your allies will not be poisoned or wounded.
Do Not Fall This Day - You have foreseen that your ally will not fall this day.
Prelude to Hope - Stories of great triumph begin with such preludes.
Rune of Restoration - Places a stone covered with runes of restoration and grace upon the ground.
Mending Verse - Hardships are forgotten and spirits are lifted by such writings.
Writ of Health - When a Rune-keeper writes of healing, the effects can be real.
Rousing Words - These words of inspiration are presented to all allies.
Epic for the Ages - Rune-words of epic heroes and exploits make defeat unthinkable.
Word of Exaltation - How can one fail when being exalted so?
Essay of Exaltation - How can any fail when being exalted so?
That Which Does Not Kill Us - That which does not kill, strengthens. How can one fall when they see their foes assault turned aside?
Our Fates Entwined - Fates can be deeply linked if the Rune-keeper wishes.
Glorious Foreshadowing - With such glorious foreshadowing, the effects of later restorative skills can be enhanced.
Rune Sign of Storm - A Rune-sign will not only inspire, but infuses an ally with minor elemental powers.
Fiery Ridicule - The ridicule a Rune-keeper writes hurts more than a mundane scribe's ever could.
Writ of Fire - When a Rune-keeper writes of fire, it can burn for real.
Scathing Mockery - Words of heated mockery written to all your foes cause them to burn under your derision.
Essence of Flame - In writing, the significance of flame is that all things can be consumed.
Smouldering Wrath - Foes of a Rune-keeper cannot stand against the wrath of his words.
Essay of Fire - A Rune-keeper may compose a terrible essay of burning fury to bring to bear against their foes.
Distracting Flame - A properly scribed rune can create a flame to distract your enemies
So whilst there are a few skills that suffer from lousy descriptions that make then appear literal, the majority can at worst be taken as ambiguous.
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
2. The very notion of a person using runes - which are just a form of alphabet - to do the type of stuff a RK can is ridiculous. Runes are connected to magic only in so much as they may appear on a magical object, like a door or piece of armour, but the magic originates from the maker of the object, not from the runes.
The idea a champion can spin in a circle killing a dozen enemies at once is rediculous. A Guardian standing around ignoring being hit by a dozen orcs is rediculous. A Captain summoning up a minion/flag out of nowhere is rediculous. A burglar becoming invisible when there is absolutely no cover for miles around is rediculous. Also, as far as I recall, Tolkien never exactly stated the type of 'magic' Runes in Middle-Earth represented, but in my opinion, there definitely was some present - The moon-letters on Thorin's map spring to mind.
I don't think you quite understand. First off, runes, or even words themselves, have no power in Middle-earth.
Eä.
That should be all that's needed to say on the matter.
The whole of existence, everything in it, in Middle-earth, is bound into words. Words that shape and lift and harm and trample. Usually, granted, in song. But...
Originally Posted by The War of the Jewels
"The making of a lambe [language] is the chief character of an Incarnate," Pengolodh the sage of Gondolin observed.
And language? Is words.
Originally Posted by BirdofHermes
A random farmer from Bree can be asked to say Elbereth Gilthoniel and nothing will happen lest he knows to draw hope from it, or if an Unseen entity will lend him hope at that time.
Did you read what I wrote, or did you just skim over it, pick a word here, another there?
Elbereth Gilthoniel is specifically a term that, no matter how much you know, how much you believe, will evoke a reaction.
Originally Posted by Lord of the Rings, Two Towers
And then (Sam's) tongue was loosed and his voice cried in a language which he did not know:
A Elbereth Gilthoniel
o menel palan-diriel,
le nallon sí di'nguruthos!
A tiro nin, Fanuilos!
And the effect of that? Is quite similar to what our characters get when one uses a Hope token in-game.
Originally Posted by BirdofHermes
Examples as you aptly supplied are the Ring inscription, Gandalf's setting fire to trees and the Elbereth Gilthoniel cry.
'Gandalf setting fire to trees' was specifically something I dismissed as an example.
Originally Posted by BirdofHermes
Durin's Door is in a similar position, except that the word there is not important at all, it is the door itself. The password could have been anything else, it would not have any meaning regardless, but the door is the important part used to recognise a password.
Password is still a word that has power. In our world as much as in Middle-earth. It doesn't matter who wields it.
Similar to your argument, I might claim that the door was nothing. That the door would have opened in other ways.
It's the word, the correct sound pattern, that lets one pass.
Just like Open Sesame of another story.
Originally Posted by BirdofHermes
And yet RKs conjure up fire from nothing as if it's no effort at all. My point is that this sort of power displayed via words are very rare and usually very subtle, unlike Rune-keepers when they summon firestorms, snowfall and shooting lightning bolts out of their &&&&.
Oh? I didn't know blades are supposed to leave fancy lights in their wake. Or that you can shoot an arrow with such force that it leaves trails.
If the RK's effects trouble you, turn them off. They're merely there to appeal to the visual players, who want to see their words have an effect other than the status bar.
Originally Posted by BirdofHermes
It just isn't how Middle-earth's magic works.
Tell me, how does ME magic work?
Originally Posted by BirdofHermes
It is true that song is used to demonstrate great power, but once again, certainly not by lesser Elves and Dwarves. Only the Ainur, and very powerful Elves like Finrod have shown to use song as a true power. Minstrels are on thin ice there, but at least they work within the game's Morale-system in that songs can bolster friends and dishearten enemies.
Even mortal men could sing, and sing well enough to bring forth visions, even in Third Age. Not to mention, as you put it, 'lesser elves'. A term I'm not sure what you mean with.
Did Tolkien ever name a 'lesser elf'?
We would not have Middle-earth if one man had not loved languages enough to long for a place where one could greet another with Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo.
Unlike every other class they're lore-breaking even on the conceptual level. From the ground up they have no foundation in the lore. As to why this is there are plenty of RK threads (some rather long) which have covered this over and over.
What is this conceptual level lore-breaking you talk about?
You seem like you're familiar with the matter; please, enlighten the rest of us.
So whilst there are a few skills that suffer from lousy descriptions that make then appear literal, the majority can at worst be taken as ambiguous.
As I said, it's a double edged sword. If the skills are meant to be taken literally then that's a complete lore break because even Maiar don't seem to be able to do that type of stuff, certainly not RK-style anyway. If the skills are not meant to be taken literally then that's a complete departure from the lore because runes don't have power unto thesmelves.
Whichever way you spin it the class just doesn't fit.
Originally Posted by GoldenusG
The idea a champion can spin in a circle killing a dozen enemies at once is rediculous. A Guardian standing around ignoring being hit by a dozen orcs is rediculous. A Captain summoning up a minion/flag out of nowhere is rediculous. A burglar becoming invisible when there is absolutely no cover for miles around is rediculous.
Each one of those things you've mentioned relates to game mechanics not lore.
Originally Posted by GoldenusG
Also, as far as I recall, Tolkien never exactly stated the type of 'magic' Runes in Middle-Earth represented, but in my opinion, there definitely was some present - The moon-letters on Thorin's map spring to mind.
Runes don't have any magical powers unto themselves. The Moon-letters are only magical because they were (most likely) made out of Ithildin (itself made out of Mithril). Dwarves and Elves could manipulate this using their own subtle magical abilities to, for instance, only appear at certain times. The greater the skill of the Dwarves the more precise Moon-letters they could make.
It has nothing to do with runes having innate power. They are just a form of alphabet.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
What is this conceptual level lore-breaking you talk about?
It means not even the idea of the class has foundation in the lore. Nothing to do with how the class ends up being constructed, it doesn't even get past the 'Hey! I have an idea for a class!' stage. All of the other classes, even Lore-masters, achieved this first basic step at least.
"'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Rune-Keeper! A Rune-Keeper is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Tolkien's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face."
It means not even the idea of the class has foundation in the lore. Nothing to do with how the class ends up being constructed, it doesn't even get past the 'Hey! I have an idea for a class!' stage. All of the other classes, even Lore-masters, achieved this first basic step at least.
What, the idea of (I quote the class description) RKs being gifted linguists and masters of true names is a fundamental lore-break? I suggest you re-read the books.
As for runes of power - I do think the game mechanics are pushing it a little, with inscribing rune-stones in the middle of battle, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. With the classes, playability trumps lore most of the time. I certainly don't believe that Manwë sends a light beam from on high whenever a mini uses Cry of the Valar. And runes of power do exist in lore - with the One Ring it's not clear whether they are purely descriptive, but you could make points in either direction - and there are enough other examples - the invisible runes on the Morgul knife Frodo was wounded with, the runes on Andúril, the Dragon-Helm of Dor-Lómin, runes of power upon the door of Moria in Gimli's song, and so on.
Besides that, there is no saying what the level of literacy was in Middle-earth overall (several Hobbits could read and write, so could Butterbur, but the Rohirrim didn't, and we don't know about a lot of others. The Fellowship most all were upper crust, and Sam learned from Bilbo). Drawing on Tolkien's sources, specifically the Anglo-Saxon offshoot of Germanic mythology, runes (or really, any form of writing) were regarded as magic because not only did they manage to give the spoken word permanence and in that belief made spells more effective, but because in a mainly oral society not many people could read and understand what was being written. It's easy to pose the same power for RKs if you're so inclined.
What, the idea of (I quote the class description) RKs being gifted linguists and masters of true names is a fundamental lore-break? I suggest you re-read the books.
Beg to differ, I don't think he needs to do that at all (unless you can actually show otherwise).
As for runes of power - I do think the game mechanics are pushing it a little, with inscribing rune-stones in the middle of battle, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. With the classes, playability trumps lore most of the time. I certainly don't believe that Manwë sends a light beam from on high whenever a mini uses Cry of the Valar. And runes of power do exist in lore - with the One Ring it's not clear whether they are purely descriptive, but you could make points in either direction - and there are enough other examples - the invisible runes on the Morgul knife Frodo was wounded with, the runes on Andúril, the Dragon-Helm of Dor-Lómin, runes of power upon the door of Moria in Gimli's song, and so on.
RK is the only class where it's all made up from the get-go. Runes of power inscribed into objects as part of crafting are straight out of the books but the link between runes, magic cast on the spur of the moment and what the RK actually does is bogus in this setting. The whole link to the elements is, as well. You only have to look in the Sil and read Tolkien's poem about the duel between Finrod and Sauron to realise just how much more imaginative it could have been if it wasn't all about fire, frost or lightning and if the effects were really something subtle rather than a clumsy port of stereotypical elemental mage-craft.
Basically what the devs have included is pretty much generic fantasy, including the idea of runes as something quickly scratched on a stone. In traditional rune-magic there were runic spells carved into wands and staves as well (and the haft of Odin's spear, according to myth), and the runes had to be carefully executed if they were to have power (and they needed to be stained to highlight them, too). That's not got much in common with a bit of scritchy-scratchy on a rock while some Orc's trying to take your head off. And then there's the floaty healing rock, which is basically a straight lift from WoW (the Shaman's healing stream totem). Not a pretty picture.
Besides that, there is no saying what the level of literacy was in Middle-earth overall (several Hobbits could read and write, so could Butterbur, but the Rohirrim didn't, and we don't know about a lot of others. The Fellowship most all were upper crust, and Sam learned from Bilbo). Drawing on Tolkien's sources, specifically the Anglo-Saxon offshoot of Germanic mythology, runes (or really, any form of writing) were regarded as magic because not only did they manage to give the spoken word permanence and in that belief made spells more effective, but because in a mainly oral society not many people could read and understand what was being written. It's easy to pose the same power for RKs if you're so inclined.
Not really, and for one very simple reason: in Norse myth, the runes were said to have been a gift from the gods to men, were thought to be a source of magic in themselves, and the gods themselves made use of them (Odin being especially handy with them). In Tolkien's version, which borrows from Norse myth but doesn't slavishly copy it, the runes were invented by an Elf solely as a means of writing, weren't magical in themselves, and the 'gods' had nothing to do with it and had no use for them. If runes were supposed to be all that then the myth should, for example, have included something like Aule teaching them to the Dwarves himself rather than them simply learning them from the Elves and adapting them a bit to suit their language. To top it all off, the game refers to the Elvish Tengwar script as 'runes', too, which it isn't.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Jul 25 2012 at 02:12 PM.
So whilst there are a few skills that suffer from lousy descriptions that make then appear literal, the majority can at worst be taken as ambiguous.
That require them to be literal, rather. How many does it take to put the lie to it? The example I usually use is that of 'Fall to Storm': if someone's fated to be hammered by lightning, it does rather imply that what you're going to follow that up with is 'really' lightning rather than something figurative.
Beg to differ, I don't think he needs to do that at all (unless you can actually show otherwise).
He seems to be under the impression that there are neither linguists nor masters of true names in the lore, both of which is false. The latter admittedly hinges on interpretation - but considering the importance that Dwarves place on the secrecy of their true names, the fact that Sauron doesn't allow for his name to be spelled or spoken, Lúthien's hair-growing spell in the Lay of Leithian, in which she invokes the names of all the longest things in the world - I can see where Turbine found a framework in lore that would allow them to create that character description.
RK is the only class where it's all made up from the get-go. Runes of power inscribed into objects as part of crafting are straight out of the books but the link between runes, magic cast on the spur of the moment and what the RK actually does is bogus in this setting.
It's called game mechanics. None of the classes are particularly lore-friendly in that respect, I really don't know why the RKs get all the flak. The same is true for the careful execution of runic magic - it wouldn't work in-game to carve, dye and then cast a runestone or stave without needlessly bogging down the game. In fact (without having played an RK myself, so this is speculation) I could also see, rather than working on the get-go as I said above, how RKs would carrying the necessary stones with them and cast whatever combat required, the same way a hunter carries a bow and arrows, a minstrel his instrument, or the tank classes their weapons. So that could have been preliminary crafting work done at some indeterminate time. RK players, correct me if I'm wrong?
The whole link to the elements is, as well.
Elemental magic isn't particularly rare in the lore. I'm not going to spend time looking for examples, but what comes to mind are the Bruinen flood, Gandalf's various fire spells, Morgoth's dominion over ice as well as fire, a clear correlation of several Valar with particular elements, the Three being named after water, fire and air with respective powers in at least one case, Fingolfin's sword Ringil being associated with ice, Fëanor burning to ash instead of simply dying, the Silmarils ending in earth/fire, air and water... but of course a link to the elements is bogus if you'd like to dismiss lore evidence in favour of your own opinion.
You only have to look in the Sil and read Tolkien's poem about the duel between Finrod and Sauron to realise just how much more imaginative it could have been if it wasn't all about fire, frost or lightning and if the effects were really something subtle rather than a clumsy port of stereotypical elemental mage-craft.
Could it have been different? Sure. Any class could have been. The duel between Finrod and Sauron could have been a fantastic addition to the mini skill set, but I'm rather positive that it would also overcomplicate game mechanics. I'm a lore fan, but having an instance of backwards and forwards swayed their song for a while isn't really going to cut it for the normal player. Besides, there's no saying you can't play pretend when there's a mini tackling a particularly tricky opponent.
Not really, and for one very simple reason: in Norse myth, the runes were said to have been a gift from the gods to men, were thought to be a source of magic in themselves, and the gods themselves made use of them (Odin being especially handy with them). In Tolkien's version, which borrows from Norse myth but doesn't slavishly copy it, the runes were invented by an Elf solely as a means of writing, weren't magical in themselves, and the 'gods' had nothing to do with it and had no use for them. If runes were supposed to be all that then the myth should, for example, have included something like Aule teaching them to the Dwarves himself rather than them simply learning them from the Elves and adapting them a bit to suit their language. To top it all off, the game refers to the Elvish Tengwar script as 'runes', too, which it isn't.
No, the Tengwar aren't runes, but that is a common mistake and doesn't invalidate the RK as a whole. And you yourself just proved the point I was trying to make by saying that Tolkien borrowed but didn't slavishly copy from Norse myth. Thank you. I'm familiar with the Rúnatal and don't expect Daeron hung from Hírilorn for nine days and nights in exchange for the Certhas, or that a Vala popped in and dropped them on his head. I wasn't saying that there should be a 1:1 agreement, because that would only rehash Norse myth with different names, and I might as well re-read the Edda, not LotR, if Norse myth what I'm after. I'm just saying that Norse/Anglo-Saxon myths and attitudes might have informed why and how Tolkien (and Turbine) chose to create runes with a certain magical air when they weren't simply used as a means of non-magical writing. One doesn't rule out the other.
But the problem really still is the same that started this whole thread - some people don't mind an interpretation of the lore based on what is said on the books (aka creativity, which Tolkien never negated), others do. There isn't just one way to read the books, and there isn't a right or wrong way to read them, either. Insisting that your reading of the lore is the only valid one is going to make you look obstinate and stupid - by all means, dislike RKs for all it's worth, but don't simply dismiss others when you can't force them to agree with you.
Last edited by EllisIstarnie; Jul 25 2012 at 10:53 PM.
It means not even the idea of the class has foundation in the lore. Nothing to do with how the class ends up being constructed, it doesn't even get past the 'Hey! I have an idea for a class!' stage. All of the other classes, even Lore-masters, achieved this first basic step at least.
You keep on claiming that, but don't provide any proof for this opinion of yours, and as such, it remains an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
Each one of those things you've mentioned relates to game mechanics not lore.
Why then are you singling out RKs?
It's just game mechanics.
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
--- Dwarves and Elves could manipulate this using their own subtle magical abilities to, for instance, only appear at certain times.
What 'subtle magical abilities'?
Are you confusing Tolkien's elves and dwarves with some other versions of them?
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
It has nothing to do with runes having innate power. They are just a form of alphabet.
Your showing your colours, there, Beleg.
Runes, alphabet, logographs... no matter what you choose to call the marks that make spoken words last, they've always had power. The more basic the people, the more power they have.
Even in our current societies those marks have power.
Just think of signatures.
Originally Posted by EllisIstarnie
--- I could also see, rather than working on the get-go as I said above, how RKs would carrying the necessary stones with them and cast whatever combat required, the same way a hunter carries a bow and arrows, a minstrel his instrument, or the tank classes their weapons. So that could have been preliminary crafting work done at some indeterminate time. RK players, correct me if I'm wrong?
You know... RKs carry around rune-satchels...
Last edited by Daeross; Jul 26 2012 at 07:59 AM.
Reason: misspell- Oh, SHINY!
Poster of Note Online status:
Reputation:
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Originally Posted by Daeross
Post Master Online status:
Reputation:
Junior Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Century Member Online status:
Jestem tym, czym jestem.
Grand Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Jestem tym, czym jestem.
Poster of Note Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
