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.
It isn't something I could just provide a quote or two on and put an end to it. If you don't know the lore I can't help you in that regard. The RK is the only class which has no basis in the lore as a concept, runes don't have innate power. That's what it all comes down to.
Originally Posted by Daeross
Why then are you singling out RKs?
It's just game mechanics.
Game mechanics are things which are necessary in order to transform something like a book into game format. Like our mounts being summoned from thin air for example. It's only that way because it's very hard to do it any other way within the confines of what a game is capable of. This has nothing to do with the RK.
Originally Posted by Daeross
What 'subtle magical abilities'?
Are you confusing Tolkien's elves and dwarves with some other versions of them?
No, as if you had read my quote above you would have realised that both elves and dwarves have a subtle magic unto themselves which allows them to, for example, create Moon-letters. If you've read LotR you would have seen more examples of 'elf magic', as the Hobbits called it, like the rope Sam got from Lorien, or the Lorien cloaks themselves. Stuff that the normal folk of latter day Third Age Middle-earth couldn't make. Also in earlier times the Doors of Durin. What about the stuff made by Eol the Dark Elf? Gurthang? What about blades which could glow when orcs are near?
Originally Posted by Daeross
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.
You really want me to comment on that?
"'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 isn't something I could just provide a quote or two on and put an end to it. If you don't know the lore I can't help you in that regard. The RK is the only class which has no basis in the lore as a concept, runes don't have innate power. That's what it all comes down to.
I'm not asking you for a quote; I'm asking you to back-up those claims you make.
So far it has seemed that you've simply decided RKs are lore-breaking, and haven't even bothered to stop and think about your reasons for that.
Those who defend RKs as lore-appropriate have stated, in numerous ways, why they think so.
You, however, have only commented that they're lore-breaking, without explaining your stand.
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
Game mechanics are things which are necessary in order to transform something like a book into game format. Like our mounts being summoned from thin air for example. It's only that way because it's very hard to do it any other way within the confines of what a game is capable of. This has nothing to do with the RK.
Are you okay with Fellowship Maneuvers, then? What about their flashy effects is 'necessary'? What is 'necessary' about Minstrels and LMs' 'orbital ion cannon' effects? What is 'necessary' about glowing patches of ground?
What is 'necessary' about any effect of class skills?
And what makes RKs so very different?
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
---No, as if you had read my quote above you would have realised that both elves and dwarves have a subtle magic unto themselves which allows them to, for example, create Moon-letters.---
And despite this belief of yours that elves and dwarves have 'subtle magical abilities', you're against RKs, who are only available to elves and dwarves.
All peoples of ME have their own 'magics'; Hobbits are so good at hiding that it's nigh on magical if you ask humans. Humans have their own magics; Bëor springs to mind. If you discount that, one should think, then, that humans' ability to adapt and survive should be enough to.
I'm not asking you for a quote; I'm asking you to back-up those claims you make.
So far it has seemed that you've simply decided RKs are lore-breaking, and haven't even bothered to stop and think about your reasons for that.
Those who defend RKs as lore-appropriate have stated, in numerous ways, why they think so.
You, however, have only commented that they're lore-breaking, without explaining your stand.
My posts must be coinciding with your blind spot. I'll try again:
RKs have no basis in the lore because runes have no inherent power in Middle-earth.
I, and Rad, and in many other threads on the subject which you clearly haven't read, have time and again explained what runes are (an alphabet) and have explained the perceived connexion with magic (the magic derives not from the runes themselves but from the makers of a given object, like that map or the Doors of Durin).
Originally Posted by Daeross
Are you okay with Fellowship Maneuvers, then? What about their flashy effects is 'necessary'? What is 'necessary' about Minstrels and LMs' 'orbital ion cannon' effects? What is 'necessary' about glowing patches of ground?
What is 'necessary' about any effect of class skills?
And what makes RKs so very different?
I've explained what game mechanics are so I'm not going over that again.
As for skill effects - they're just that, effects, they're not *meant* to be happening literally, they're just a bit of bling for the player. This doesn't fly with RKs however because if all those elemental effects (though some skills are clearly described as being literal) are meant to be taken purely as effects then exactly what is the RK using to cause damage? This may also apply to a few Minstrel/LM skills but they have other things going for them lore-wise to make up for it.
Originally Posted by Daeross
And despite this belief of yours that elves and dwarves have 'subtle magical abilities', you're against RKs, who are only available to elves and dwarves.
It isn't a belief that elves and dwarves have subtle magical abilities, it's cold hard fact. How do you explain a blade that can glow when orcs are near? Or blades which can "talk"? Or the umpteen other inventions of dwarves and elves which, from our perspective, are magical?
There is a world of difference between that and what the RK class is all about.
Originally Posted by Daeross
All peoples of ME have their own 'magics'; Hobbits are so good at hiding that it's nigh on magical if you ask humans. Humans have their own magics; Bëor springs to mind. If you discount that, one should think, then, that humans' ability to adapt and survive should be enough to.
I have no idea what any of that has to do with Rune-keepers.
Originally Posted by Daeross
Please do.
What on earth did anything you said in your last post have to do with Rune-keepers? We're not talking about some metaphorical 'power of the spoken word', we're talking about plain magical abilities. The idea that scratching a rune on a rock could either create fire to blast your foes, or somehow 'symbolically' damage them in some other way is ridiculous from a Middle-earth perspective.
"'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."
RKs have no basis in the lore because runes have no inherent power in Middle-earth.
Why?
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
As for skill effects - they're just that, effects, they're not *meant* to be happening literally, they're just a bit of bling for the player. This doesn't fly with RKs however because if all those elemental effects (though some skills are clearly described as being literal) are meant to be taken purely as effects then exactly what is the RK using to cause damage? This may also apply to a few Minstrel/LM skills but they have other things going for them lore-wise to make up for it.
Oh. Have you never been hurt by words? Have you never been elated by praise?
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
It isn't a belief that elves and dwarves have subtle magical abilities, it's cold hard fact.
If it is so, and it is so absolute as you claim, then where is it said? Where is it written, published while Tolkien was alive?
This single thing you should be able to find for me; I promise to drop the issue if you can show me where it is said that elves and dwarves have 'subtle magical abilities'.
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
How do you explain a blade that can glow when orcs are near? Or blades which can "talk"? Or the umpteen other inventions of dwarves and elves which, from our perspective, are magical?
Guess what?
Those blades, those creations? They were inscribed with either tengwar or cirth, occasionally both.
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
There is a world of difference between that and what the RK class is all about.
Yes, there is. Because those things are all physical, and have a physical function/effect, whereas RKs affect their target's morale. The RKs curse at their target to make them lose the will to fight, and they praise/cheerlead their target to keep their spirits up, keep them fighting.
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
I have no idea what any of that has to do with Rune-keepers.
You're the one insisting elves and dwarves have some curious magical quirk that others in ME lack.
Originally Posted by Beleg-Of-Doriath
What on earth did anything you said in your last post have to do with Rune-keepers? We're not talking about some metaphorical 'power of the spoken word', we're talking about plain magical abilities. The idea that scratching a rune on a rock could either create fire to blast your foes, or somehow 'symbolically' damage them in some other way is ridiculous from a Middle-earth perspective.
How so?
Funny that, though... scratching two rocks together will create spark...
My posts must be coinciding with your blind spot. I'll try again:
RKs have no basis in the lore because runes have no inherent power in Middle-earth.
I, and Rad, and in many other threads on the subject which you clearly haven't read, have time and again explained what runes are (an alphabet) and have explained the perceived connexion with magic (the magic derives not from the runes themselves but from the makers of a given object, like that map or the Doors of Durin).
I've listed numerous instances of runes with magical or powerful properties within the lore (another that I just remembered: His shining shield was scored with runes / to ward all wounds and harm from him), but that apparently coincides with your blind spot. And because I couldn't find any backing for your claim, where does Tolkien say that the makers of a given object are responsible for the power of the runes? Celebrimbor o Eregion teithant i thiw hin is about as magical as a signature on a painting, and in many other cases we don't even know who is responsible for the runes inscribed on any given object. And even if what you said is true (and I don't even entirely doubt it, given how you've demonstrated a good grip on lore), how does it contradict the RK class? You just said yourself that
It isn't a belief that elves and dwarves have subtle magical abilities, it's cold hard fact.
I do agree with that, there is plenty of evidence for magic, both in terms of crafting and situation-based [ETA: Even though Galadriel's definition famously differs from Sam's when he asks to see Elf-Magic]. And look what races are playable as RKs. Coincidence?
Last edited by EllisIstarnie; Jul 26 2012 at 02:10 PM.
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.
There is no actual framework having to do with 'true names' in particular. 'Sauron' wasn't Sauron's true name, no more than 'Gandalf' or 'Mithrandir' were Olorin's. As for Luthien, I imagine that her singing about those things as part of a song which expressed her intent, which she empowered herself by means of her own power. It's not about what's said being magical in itself (there's nothing special about the words Gandalf uses to start a fire). That's a difference from the usual fantasy fare: these aren't inherently magical words, they're words given magical force by someone.
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?
As I already said, the RK is "the only class where it's all made up from the get-go" (emphasis added this time), as it's made up from whole cloth. A runic magician would likely have a rune-staff with many spells carved into it, just as Odin's spear-haft was supposed to, rather than jugging umpteen rocks with runes on. Runic spells were carved into stone for permanence, not portability. So Turbine couldn't even give us the classic image of such a person, but rather something that relies for effect not on any authenticity but on the average gamer's vague understanding of runes as being magical symbols on rocks.
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.
It's the specific link between runes (remember that that's what we're talking about, please) and the elements in particular that is bogus. I did not say that there is no fire-magic in the lore, nor that the Enemy didn't have power over cold. Ringil, however, was only said to glitter like ice, no more than that - not that it was some sort of frost-sword - and there is nothing to say that the Three Rings had literal elemental powers, either. You're reading more into that than is actually there.
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.
The point all along has been was that the RK could have been made infinitely more lore-friendly; the reason it is not was that Turbine wanted an elemental mage class to keep the pew-pew-pew crowd happy. No more, no less. The point I was trying to make there is that it the imagery employed could have been anything, anything at all (including the contending world-views that Finrod and Sauron employed in the duel), making the result something more like an illusionist class.
I find it difficult to believe that 'normal' players couldn't have got their heads around that. It's a familiar enough concept in games.
No, the Tengwar aren't runes, but that is a common mistake and doesn't invalidate the RK as a whole.
I didn't say that. It is, however, one more thing that's utterly wrong.
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.
And what has that got to do with Turbine making stuff up?
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.
I think they picked it for the very simple reason that every n00b who's ever played a fantasy game knows what a rune is, at least in the magical-symbol-on-rock sense that appears in games all the time. The point is that Tolkien had deliberately avoided being that 'Norse' with his runes. Turbine couldn't even follow through on that 'Norseness' once they'd reintroduced it, and instead we got all that nonsense with waving around little rocks. It's neither one thing nor another, it's a kludge.
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.
The RK wasn't 'interpretation' of anything in the books. It was all about getting an elemental mage into the game no matter what and then writing some waffle about how it was supposed to work. It's hackwork, not creativity: genuinely creative solutions were eminently possible but Turbine's management weren't interested, they wanted some stereotypical pew-pew-pew to keep mage fans happy.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Jul 26 2012 at 02:34 PM.
As I already said, the RK is "the only class where it's all made up from the get-go" (emphasis added this time), as it's made up from whole cloth.
[...]
The point all along has been was that the RK could have been made infinitely more lore-friendly; the reason it is not was that Turbine wanted an elemental mage class to keep the pew-pew-pew crowd happy.
[...]
The RK wasn't 'interpretation' of anything in the books. It was all about getting an elemental mage into the game no matter what and then writing some waffle about how it was supposed to work. It's hackwork, not creativity: genuinely creative solutions were eminently possible but Turbine's management weren't interested, they wanted some stereotypical pew-pew-pew to keep mage fans happy.
Thank you for the evidence that you have ignored my previous posts again and keep harping on the same tune. As I'm tired of trying to talk to a brick wall (it's an effective method to shut up diverging opinions, I have to grant you that) and put up with an attitude that seems extremely condescending to me (I apologize if I am misreading your and Beleg's posts, but that is the message arriving at this side of the computer screen, and I know I'm not the only one thinking so) and makes proper discussion impossible, I'll make a final summary of what I've said before, and then bow out of this thread, so you can continue patting each other on the head and propagate your "lore-abiding" opinion as long as you like. I'm sure we'll clash again in some other thread.
Okay, here goes:
The rune-keeper is an elemental mage, yes. No one ever ever ever disputed that. No one claimed that rune-keepers as they are in the game occur in the books (and I suspect given that statement you won't even read the rest of my post). Minstrels as they are in the game don't. Burglars as they are in the game don't. Champions as they are in the game don't. Hunters as they are in the game don't. Etc. for the other classes.
But there is elemental magic, and more importantly, elemental magic tied to runes/writing - not in the sense of the rune-keeper carrying rune-stones to evoke a particular effect, no, but it exists - moon runes respond to light, which classically reads either as a subset of fire or aether (in Middle-earth I'd go for the latter, given the very Christian association of light = good/holy), the One Ring's tengwar respond to fire, the runes on Andúril, which seem to be tied to its fiery glow, and there also are runes connected to protection and healing as evidenced on Eärendil's shield. The runes of power on Moria's door glow because they are made of Ithildin, I'll grant you that, but they are also providing an enchantment that will prevent anyone without the password from entering. Again, I'm not actively looking for examples, so there probably are a ton more that don't come to mind currently.
Especially with Tolkien's magic (of the non-Ainur kind) conceptualized as an innate power made manifest through a form of craft (in this case, writing/carving something into stone - it doesn't matter if there is a non-magical use of writing as well; that's not the only use it has. There are non-magical songs as well.), and the examples above, which are just that (and thus require people to carry them out), the RK is not terribly lore-breaking. I don't know if these are the examples Turbine went by to justify the existence of this particular class, but ultimately it doesn't matter. Lore to support the decisions they made exists, whether they used it to please the "pew-pew-pew crowd" or something else.
In short, simple math:
Magic user (elf or dwarf) crafts runestones with elemental connections + uses them for battle or healing = RK.
And now I'm out. Tear me to shreds if you feel like it. *shrug*
Magic user (elf or dwarf) crafts runestones with elemental connections + uses them for battle or healing = RK.
And now I'm out. Tear me to shreds if you feel like it. *shrug*
That would-be connection is bogus: the existence in the book of (non-runic) writing that reacts to fire and glows but produces no heat itself is in no way the same as runes that supposedly produce fire on demand. The latter is simply generic fantasy, the 'fire rune' sort of thing you can see in other games.
As for the rest of your post, Jeff Steefel openly admitted there was no lore to the RK, that it was just something that was added to the game because it was considered to be necessary in a game of this sort. You've been trying to defend the indefensible all along; you're far from the first, and sadly I'm sure you won't be the last.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Jul 26 2012 at 08:19 PM.
The books you've read about Middle-earth, in that case, are different from mine. The versions I read were written by a person enamoured with languages enough to create a whole universe just because of a desire to have a place where words might flourish. A person by the name of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien.
Classic fallacy...
Tolkien loved the written word
Turbine come up with something that is supposedly about the written word
Therefore whatever Turbine make of that is okay?
That would-be connection is bogus: the existence in the book of (non-runic) writing that reacts to fire and glows but produces no heat itself is in no way the same as runes that supposedly produce fire on demand. The latter is simply generic fantasy, the 'fire rune' sort of thing you can see in other games.
Sweetheart, we've talked about game mechanics before (besides, it's tengwar that produce the healing attunement, cirth that deal damage, so your argument = invalid). Minstrels' songs in lore also don't produce light beams, and I really don't give a fig what happens in other games. We're talking about LotRO, and you're pretty much grasping at straws here, dearie.
As for the rest of your post, Jeff Steefel openly admitted there was no lore to the RK, that it was just something that was added to the game because it was considered to be necessary in a game of this sort. You've been trying to defend the indefensible all along; you're far from the first, and sadly I'm sure you won't be the last.
I'm trying to "defend the indefensible" because one person who happens to say this is the exec of LotRO? So if the exec of Pigs Can Fly Inc. tells you that yes, pigs can fly, and I'm saying "no", that's also indefensible? No offense to Mr. Steefel (whose opinion I definitely respect, I just happen to disagree on the basis of points I made above), but Radh, honey, your argument is bogus.
I know there are no Rune-Keepers in the books. Which is not a problem as LotRO doesn't claim to be the books; there is a lot in that game that has absolutely no foundation in lore and yet happened in the game. The Epic Vol. I comes to mind. It's my opinion, however, that the existence of RKs as a warrior/healer-mage class is not indefensible because Turbine did a good job using extant material (outlined in my replies to the thread) to build a necessary character concept that otherwise doesn't exist in the books and yet fits within Middle-earth, and I did use lore to arrive at that conclusion. It's as good a compromise as the other classes are. You're still welcome to disagree (and I can see why you do, honestly, even if I don't share the opinion), but sugar, you don't get to dismiss me as fundamentally wrong because our opinions don't match. Nor are you some kind of guardian of the lore, that position resides with Christopher Tolkien, and in case of the game, with Turbine. And people are still free to disagree.
Mwah. Now I'm really out of this thread, unless the topic returns to more generic discussion and a friendlier tone. Hope you don't mind my attempt to spread some luuuv.
Last edited by EllisIstarnie; Jul 26 2012 at 11:28 PM.
You can justify the concept of a RK however you want to try and crowbar it into the lore if it makes you happy. However they way it is represented, executed and explained in game is completely alien to Tolkien's works and has no roots whatsoever.
Justifications like "Tolkien uses magic words loads on stuff to do things" don't really hold. If some great Elf craftsman of the bygone ages inscribed a stone with some particular runes so that it was always cold to the touch, regardless of it's surroundings, that wouldn't be unimaginable in Tolkien's works. Of course the real power comes from the Elf, not the letters. Also note that the stone is unlikely to be able to summon lightning from the sky, or set people on fire.
Even the use of Dwarves as a race option because "Dwarves use runes loads" shows Turbine's lack of effort in realising a "magic user" class. The Lore Master is teetering on the edge as it is, with its "battlefield scientist" explanation, let alone Dwarves who can shoot fire from their hands.
An ability to subtly influence the surroundings, cast shadow on someone, make it so the sun just happens to shine on them in such a way that they become too hot, tired, to confound or cast doubt etc is not something alien to Tokien's works. It is power that is intrinsic to the being wielding it though, and usually that being is a Maiar which I think Turbine should probably think twice about including as a "race".
I understand that people want to rationalise away the RK so it isn't so blindingly lore inappropriate. I've tried it myself but even the class description ~"based on Celebrimbor who used runes.. to.. er... Magic!"~ flies in the face of everything you've ever read authored by Tolkien, including Roverandom.
Sweetheart, we've talked about game mechanics before (besides, it's tengwar that produce the healing attunement, cirth that deal damage, so your argument = invalid). Minstrels' songs in lore also don't produce light beams, and I really don't give a fig what happens in other games. We're talking about LotRO, and you're pretty much grasping at straws here, dearie.
What has that got to do with what I said? Where in the book are there runes as a source of FRPG-style battle-magic? There aren't. The only cirth we have that respond to an external stimulus are the moon-letters on the map in The Hobbit, and from that you're trying to conjure runes that let people hurl lightning about. So just who is it who's clutching at straws, here?
The Minstrel's 'spell' effects are all supposed to be metaphorical, without exception, and hence the lightshow isn't supposed to be 'real'. The RK is different, thanks to Turbine's inconsistent spell descriptions and how its elemental damage skills are accorded the appropriate damage type (fire, etc.).
I'm trying to "defend the indefensible" because one person who happens to say this is the exec of LotRO? So if the exec of Pigs Can Fly Inc. tells you that yes, pigs can fly, and I'm saying "no", that's also indefensible? No offense to Mr. Steefel (whose opinion I definitely respect, I just happen to disagree on the basis of points I made above), but Radh, honey, your argument is bogus.
You still saying "no" when even the game's executive producer admitted years ago that it was unthinkable in lore terms (in a moment of probably misguided but welcome honesty) merely demonstrates that you're being unreasonable. He also said that he'd had to argue a case for it with Tolkien Enterprises (as Middle-earth Enterprises used to be called) which is a firm indication that it's not lore-worthy, it's solely a 'game' thing. We also heard from elsewhere that some of the devs had been unhappy with the decision to include it and again, they'd not have been unhappy if it really went along with the whole Middle-earth thing.
I know there are no Rune-Keepers in the books. Which is not a problem as LotRO doesn't claim to be the books; there is a lot in that game that has absolutely no foundation in lore and yet happened in the game. The Epic Vol. I comes to mind. It's my opinion, however, that the existence of RKs as a warrior/healer-mage class is not indefensible because Turbine did a good job using extant material (outlined in my replies to the thread) to build a necessary character concept that otherwise doesn't exist in the books and yet fits within Middle-earth, and I did use lore to arrive at that conclusion. It's as good a compromise as the other classes are. You're still welcome to disagree (and I can see why you do, honestly, even if I don't share the opinion), but sugar, you don't get to dismiss me as fundamentally wrong because our opinions don't match. Nor are you some kind of guardian of the lore, that position resides with Christopher Tolkien, and in case of the game, with Turbine. And people are still free to disagree.
Waffle. The RK is, for example, the only class which does not have a physical weapon, just those little rocks which they nonetheless get to parry with. That bit of metagaming is handily demonstrative of how little this class has to do with Middle-earth, where even truly powerful beings like Gandalf have use for a sword. How is that particular detail a 'good job', then? It's clumsier than for the other classes, they could hardly have made it more blatant that here's something that's all game, no lore. So yes, you're wrong - the RK is demonstrably further 'out there' than the other classes in every single way, although Minstrel runs a close second.
The mere fact that the RK is an elemental mage when it could so very easily have been something more lore-friendly is proof positive that Turbine weren't interested in doing right by the extant material, solely in making a cynical appeal to mage fans in order to get sales or retain existing subs. Again, Steefel said that this class exists because a game of this sort needs one; originally, the LM was supposed to be as much of a mage as the game was ever going to get because of the whole Middle-earth thing. The LM wasn't quite so much of a pocket wizard back then, either, it's been jazzed up since; they stopped pretending, once the RK had been introduced. There was one hell of a fuss when the RK was announced, in consequence of the U-turn they were visibly executing, probably the biggest argument we've ever had about anything and echoes of which still occur every once in a while, even now when it's been three and a half years since MoM came out. You don't get to pretend that none of that discussion ever happened.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Jul 27 2012 at 04:02 AM.
Looks like a chunk of the 'debate' has been removed, most of which was perfectly fine.
Originally Posted by Curandhras
You can justify the concept of a RK however you want to try and crowbar it into the lore if it makes you happy. However they way it is represented, executed and explained in game is completely alien to Tolkien's works and has no roots whatsoever.
I'm not really sure it can be justified as a concept either. Elemental damage-dealing mage just doesn't fit.
Originally Posted by Curandhras
Also note that the stone is unlikely to be able to summon lightning from the sky, or set people on fire.
The counter to that is "those things are just effects". Which therefore raises the question as to exactly what is damaging the opponent.
Last edited by Beleg-Of-Doriath; Jul 27 2012 at 08:18 AM.
"'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."
The counter to that is "those things are just effects". Which therefore raises the question as to exactly what is damaging the opponent.
Once more, with feeling, to use a phrase...
What's damaging the opponent is words.
What makes a foe run after a Hunter uses Bard's Arrow?
What about Guardian's Sting makes a foe lose Corruption?
What increases Warden's Parry/Evade/Block when they stab with a weapon (Quick Thrust)?
Etc...
Curandhras, if you truly want to know why it's felt RKs fit the lore, if you haven't simply decided that they're lore-breaking because you say so, then PM me.
We're still dealing with Morale.
We're still stuck on the same things we've gone over before.
Strong enough expression, and animals react, too.
An RK scratches a rune onto a rock and the animal is demoralised? What a well thought-out and sound idea for a class that would be.
Even an orc wouldn't make heads nor tails of the rune, now you're saying animals are able to understand them as well? And that's operating under the debunked idea we are just demoralising our enemies.
This has been one of the most bizarre RK debates I've had, I'll give you that.
"'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."
Curandhras, if you truly want to know why it's felt RKs fit the lore, if you haven't simply decided that they're lore-breaking because you say so, then PM me.
This thread's been hijacked and derailed enough.
Since it's still being hijacked..
I know perfectly well why it's felt that RK's fit the lore. I haven't decided that they're lore breaking because I say so either.
I feel they don't fit the lore, and I have decided this because what I have read, understood and interpreted from Tolkien's works does not suggest that anything like what the RK achieves multiple times every battle could ever be achieved, i.e. causing (perceived, if you want) elemental damage to enemies via use of rune stones.
If the RK was such an adept, why not use a runic sword? Makes far more sense that hitting people with little stones.
I am in no way trying to claim that the RK is the only lore defiling class, they all are to some extent. Wardens' combat style is ridiculous, for example. I have never read of Gondor making liberal use of Spartan Hoplites in their armies. I also doubt that any Hobbit has suitable command over the ainulindale to do serious damage to servants of darkness, or bring people back from the edge of death.
Like I have said, I have no problem with people coming up with their own fudges and contrivances to crowbar the RK in. Imagining the graphical effects as a metaphoric visualisation of what are in fact very subtle affects caused by the RK's intrinsic power manifested in the stones... Or something. That only serves to lessen the brashness of the RK though, it is in no way true to what Tolkien has created and explained as "magic".
I don't know what's wrong with accepting that the RK is introduced as a gameplay element alone. Turbine felt the game needed a simple "mage" class to keep people happy and give the MoM expansion some more marketability, so they introduced it. You can also read maps that instantly teleport you in this game, I have yet to see people rushing to defend this. You can spawn your horse out of your invisible backpack, which also can hold tonnes of ore and ingots with no perceived adverse effects in terms of stamina or speed. There are plenty of conveniences in this game (like every other game) that don't stand up to scrutiny. The Rune Keeper is one of these conveniences, it allows people to play as a magic user in a world where they don't exist. I have no problem with this, we accept that Turbine have to make a game as well as stick to lore. I don't know why people feel the need to defend it's position inside the lore though.
Grand Member Online status:
Reputation:
Originally Posted by Daeross
Poster of Note Online status:
Century Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Reputation:
Poster of Note Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
