Thread: The Validity of the Runekeeper

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Let me put it this way: if Tolkien didn't have Luthien going around zapping anyone or anything, what makes you think Galadriel (who was less powerful than Luthien) would be any different? And yes, if Elf-lords are anything to go by she'd wear mail, yes she's carry a sword and likely a shield, too; we know Galadriel was strong and athletic. As to what powers she might have that'd be useful in battle, I can think of various things she might be able to do (terrify or disorient the defenders, maybe?) but the real question here is, why are you immediately assuming that it has to be 'zapping stuff'? Not only are you not thinking outside the box, you haven't even got the right box to start with. This is not generic fantasy.

No where in my post do I offer my interpretation of what Galadriels role at Dol Guldur was, I merelly suggested that your view would be against seeing her "zapping" stuff, which I was correct in assuming, similarly when discussing the rings of power is said "The magical nature of the rings while undefined", nowhere did I describe them as weapons. You seem to have a bad habbit of misquoting and misrepresenting peoples views, which precludes civil discussion, and you have turned what used to be the most civil section of the forums into a vehicle for your bullying fundementalism.

Originally Posted by Morthaur

No where in my post do I offer my interpretation of what Galadriels role at Dol Guldur was, I merelly suggested that your view would be against seeing her "zapping" stuff, which I was correct in assuming, similarly when discussing the rings of power is said "The magical nature of the rings while undefined", nowhere did I describe them as weapons. You seem to have a bad habbit of misquoting and misrepresenting peoples views, which precludes civil discussion, and you have turned what used to be the most civil section of the forums into a vehicle for your bullying fundementalism.

The magical powers of the Rings weren't wholly undefined, we know what they weren't destructive weapons, and that the Three Rings of the Elves weren't weapons at all. 'That is not their power', Elrond says, if I remember rightly. So in the context of this discussion, the RK and all its flashy, destructive, weaponised elemental magic, what was your point in even mentioning them? There's nothing to connect the two.

You also made a pointedly sarcastic remark about what Galadriel could do since I'd 'precluded' her from zapping people. The clear implication of that is that you think she would go around zapping people, or else there'd have been no reason for you to take exception to what I was saying. And don't try and pretend you weren't being sarcastic, not with that bit about "does she just run around screaming Elbereth?" on the end.

Originally Posted by Morthaur

You seem to have a bad habbit of misquoting and misrepresenting peoples views, which precludes civil discussion, and you have turned what used to be the most civil section of the forums into a vehicle for your bullying fundementalism.

If we are truly being accurate, I do not think that there is another person posting in this forum who has been bullied or insulted more than Radhruin. The reason for this: A defense of Tolkien as it stands in the written word and the implied desire that the essence of the Professor's works survive the translation into the forms of movies or games.

I understand that there are many of you that prefer the watered down and puerile versions of Tolkien as represented by the concept of the Rune-Keeper. I will go on the record as saying that I do not and am in complete agreement with Radhurin on this issue.

This is a Tolkien forum. A modicum of respect for the Professor and those who appreciate his work is the least that one should show before posting. For those who do not wish to do so, the marvelous and magical worlds of Dungeons and Dragons and World of Warcraft await you.

Originally Posted by JGP

If we are truly being accurate, I do not think that there is another person posting in this forum who has been bullied or insulted more than Radhruin. The reason for this: A defense of Tolkien as it stands in the written word and the implied desire that the essence of the Professor's works survive the translation into the forms of movies or games.

I understand that there are many of you that prefer the watered down and puerile versions of Tolkien as represented by the concept of the Rune-Keeper. I will go on the record as saying that I do not and am in complete agreement with Radhurin on this issue.

This is a Tolkien forum. A modicum of respect for the Professor and those who appreciate his work is the least that one should show before posting. For those who do not wish to do so, the marvelous and magical worlds of Dungeons and Dragons and World of Warcraft await you.

I fully agree with you here. I was deceived over the nature of the RK in the beginning, but I did hold this position the entire time. Once I realized that we didn't have the same basic facts(difficult to debate when you don't start from the same place :-D ) I corrected my perception and found that Radhruin and I aligned nearly perfectly. Rad really is quite brave for standing up for his position, as most of the others who hold it are incapable of playing the game due to their annoyance. He is the one being bullied, not the bully.

Originally Posted by JGP

If we are truly being accurate, I do not think that there is another person posting in this forum who has been bullied or insulted more than Radhruin. The reason for this: A defense of Tolkien as it stands in the written word and the implied desire that the essence of the Professor's works survive the translation into the forms of movies or games.

I understand that there are many of you that prefer the watered down and puerile versions of Tolkien as represented by the concept of the Rune-Keeper. I will go on the record as saying that I do not and am in complete agreement with Radhurin on this issue.

This is a Tolkien forum. A modicum of respect for the Professor and those who appreciate his work is the least that one should show before posting. For those who do not wish to do so, the marvelous and magical worlds of Dungeons and Dragons and World of Warcraft await you.

Well said. We all know there's a game to go with this website and there are many forum categories here in which one can discuss and debate it's various aspects. This is the only forum that is intended to be devoted to the actual literature and the Author himself. For some of us these are very important books, right on par with works by Tolstoy, Twain, Kafka, etc. There's something important Tolkien is trying to say here, beyond the actual plot-line and it shouldn't be cheapened with the suggestion that it's just D&D type stuff. The man literally wrote thousands of pages about this world. He had the time and the paper to add as much magic as he wished into the tales but he didn't. A lack of outright denial does not validate something as fact. Take the entire scope of his writings into consideration, not just a few chosen moments.

Peace all

Magic should be mostly subtle and rare in ME. I don't really like LM's or RK's much as they tend to kill the ME immersion for me. Those two classes seem to just be around to attract gamers that would whine because there is a lack of flashy spells in the game.

[QUOTE/]
Originally Posted by BotLike
"I'd rather have RK's deleted : P ( Yeah absurd right ? )

They have nothing to do with the lore , no matter how hard turbine tried to make us think so.
In my eyes, it's just a flashy class , needed for every MMO : |

If we ever get new race/class combos it should be Elf captains.

Ow , and remove man lore-master too : * Makes no sense."

Mellonbeleg

"There are three types of magic in Middle Earth(in the books and from Tolkien)

Music-Luthien Tinuviel and the Aniur who sang the whole thing to be in the first place.

Nature(the subtle shaping thereof)-Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf, Cirdan the Shipwright.

Language-Celebrimbor the ring smith, Fegulund, any elf or dwarf who uses magic without music or nature(all of the dwarven magic items)

What are our three caster classes based off of the use of:Music, Nature, and Language.

[/QUOTE]

Silly Bot.... all caster classes are based based on this... but just to clarify, Tolkein ripped most of his world from the Norse and surrounding mythos, and Runes are norse....
runo (cf. Old Norse run "a secret, magic sign, runic character,")
Runes are the secret language of magic.

And there you are wanting elf captains.... an elf cannot be a captain because an elf is a dwarf and a dwarf cannot be a captain. Whats that you say... elves are not dwarfs?
In his The Book of Lost Tales, Tolkien develops a theme that the diminutive fairy-like race of Elves had once been a great and mighty people, and that as Men took over the world, these Elves had "diminished" themselves. This theme was influenced especially by the god-like and human-sized Ljósálfar of Norse mythology.... and if you check you will find that Elf and dwarf are the same in norse myth, ergo if a dwarf cannot be a captain, neither can a dwarf! HAHA! (if you do not understand the last line, read the paragraph again)

Alfr is norse for elf, and as you notice is human character, the name would have been Ljosalfar which was my minstrel on another another server and not wanting to confuse myself, Alfr, a god-like human sized elf... go ahead, make a Elf of any class and call him a captain... do not reply on turbine to make all the fantasy for you, do some of it yourself.

I kind of understand some people's arguments, BUT.....

Since J.R.R. Tolkein did not write it, it does not fit...
WHAT? Yes, Middle Earth is HUGE, with a LOT of content, but he did not write about everything. This would be impossible.

Did he ever specifically write that it was impossible for someone in his world to exclusively use "Battle Magic"?

Did he ever specifically write that a magic user cannot use a runestone to conjure his magic?

Did he ever specifically write that a magic user cannot "shoot lightning from his fingers"?

If the answers to this are "YES", then the RK does not fit. If the answers are "NO", then all that Turbine has done is create a class based on an area of what you call "lore" that hasn't been expounded on.

Also, if the answers are "NO", the why are we arguing? It is up to the creators of the LOTRO "lore" to make whatever they will of it.

And, it is up to us, as the consumers, to either go along with it(i.e. Continue to pay and/or play), or to reject it (i.e. shut down our accounts, uninstall the game, and allow LOTRO to go bankrupt).

Since LOTRO and Turbine are still going strong, I guess we have made our choices.

You can grumble about it if it makes you feel better, but this is the way things stand, and all it does is lower your enjoyment of the game to get so worked up.

My 2 coppers on the subject!

From what I recall of the books is that magic is fading along with the Elves during this time period....so there should not be a slew of casters running about. Dwarves were not casters from what I remember....though they did craft magical items. Most other magic was just blessings, curses, and visions. I have yet to see the shadow realm mentioned in this game. Of the wizards(Istari) in Middle Earth...there are only five.

Originally Posted by BdxZjcGkac

I kind of understand some people's arguments, BUT.....

Since J.R.R. Tolkein did not write it, it does not fit...
WHAT? Yes, Middle Earth is HUGE, with a LOT of content, but he did not write about everything. This would be impossible.

Did he ever specifically write that it was impossible for someone in his world to exclusively use "Battle Magic"?

Did he ever specifically write that a magic user cannot use a runestone to conjure his magic?

Did he ever specifically write that a magic user cannot "shoot lightning from his fingers"?

If the answers to this are "YES", then the RK does not fit. If the answers are "NO", then all that Turbine has done is create a class based on an area of what you call "lore" that hasn't been expounded on.

Also, if the answers are "NO", the why are we arguing? It is up to the creators of the LOTRO "lore" to make whatever they will of it.

And, it is up to us, as the consumers, to either go along with it(i.e. Continue to pay and/or play), or to reject it (i.e. shut down our accounts, uninstall the game, and allow LOTRO to go bankrupt).

Since LOTRO and Turbine are still going strong, I guess we have made our choices.

You can grumble about it if it makes you feel better, but this is the way things stand, and all it does is lower your enjoyment of the game to get so worked up.

My 2 coppers on the subject!

By your logic, using machine guns, lightsabers, space ships and radioactivity-derived superpowers in LOTRO is fine too then, because
1) Tolkien did not specificially write they were impossible to use
2) Consumers like them



Sometimes it's best not to say "he didn't write about X, so using X is fine.", but instead look at the available material and saying "X was written about, so X is fine, and a Y logically derived from X can probably be used as well because of Z written here."

Or in this case; "Magic was written about, so magic is an element in the world, yet Tolkien stresses its diminished nature and subtlety, and that it can only be used in two ways. Therefore generic fingertip-lightning from certain other fantasy worlds are best put aside."

I personally have no problem with the Runekeeper as a game construct. To say it matches Tolkien's vision of ME is absurd, but I disagree with the arguments that dwarves were non-magical in nature.

Tolkien's writings changed wholesale throughout his lifetime. The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are the only extant Middle Earth tales that he personally released, and the use of magic differs between the two markedly. In "Roast Mutton," the dwarves place "a great many spells" on the treasure they do not carry away from the troll hole. The map that Gandalf provides to Thorin is undoubtedly of Dwarvish make and contains "magical" runes that can only be read on a certain day by a certain moon. There is obviously mention of Dwarves casting spells and using runes in just the Hobbit, and the LOTR is a continuation of the Hobbit and solidifies the incidents that occur therein.

If you return to partial works that were released posthumously, a dwarf curses the gold of Glaurung and indirectly causes the destruction of Doriath (in earlier versions printed in the Book of Lost Tales). He later changed this and the curse is omitted from the Silmarillion, but it again shows that Tolkien at least at some point saw Dwarves having potent magical powers.

As to the magic of elves, and the people of the Valar, it is obvious that the use of "magic" diminishes them. Sauron puts his power into the ring and is totally unmade when it is destroyed. Galadriel is a shadow of her youth by the LOTR. Even the Valar are diminshed, such as when Yavanna is unable to recreate the trees devoured by Ungoliant, as she no longer has the power that she put into them.

The Numenoreans, being born of half-elven blood, would presumably have had this reserve of power that elves had, though Tolkien himself never verbalized certainty of it to my knowledge ( a note to a letter he sent [156] has a question mark next to the idea of spells being cast by men on swords). Additionally, some men were given power directly or through relics by elvish or valar sources (the Nazgul, the Mouth of Sauron). I see no possible argument for human loremasters.

Originally Posted by Magdon1

I personally have no problem with the Runekeeper as a game construct. To say it matches Tolkien's vision of ME is absurd, but I disagree with the arguments that dwarves were non-magical in nature.

Tolkien's writings changed wholesale throughout his lifetime. The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are the only extant Middle Earth tales that he personally released, and the use of magic differs between the two markedly. In "Roast Mutton," the dwarves place "a great many spells" on the treasure they do not carry away from the troll hole. The map that Gandalf provides to Thorin is undoubtedly of Dwarvish make and contains "magical" runes that can only be read on a certain day by a certain moon. There is obviously mention of Dwarves casting spells and using runes in just the Hobbit, and the LOTR is a continuation of the Hobbit and solidifies the incidents that occur therein.

Sorry, but that argument's bogus. The style of magic used in LOTR is different to that in The Hobbit - no more of the 'firework' style of magic from Gandalf, in particular - and so LOTR doesn't lend credence to its older sibling in so straightforward a manner. The two tales are presented differently, in different contexts and in different styles (The Hobbit was originally written as a stand-alone fairy-tale, LOTR as an epic with ties back to the Quenta Silmarillion). The thing to remember about Dwarves is that yes, they were magical but in specific ways: in crafting, above all, and in keeping their treasures hidden.

If you return to partial works that were released posthumously, a dwarf curses the gold of Glaurung and indirectly causes the destruction of Doriath (in earlier versions printed in the Book of Lost Tales). He later changed this and the curse is omitted from the Silmarillion, but it again shows that Tolkien at least at some point saw Dwarves having potent magical powers.

He changed his mind about a lot of things, you shouldn't simply pick the point that best suits whatever argument you're trying to make - what would matter here would be what he'd got in the back of his mind when writing LOTR. There's no sign of Dwarves possessing potent magical powers there, except as regards the things they made.

The Numenoreans, being born of half-elven blood, would presumably have had this reserve of power that elves had, though Tolkien himself never verbalized certainty of it to my knowledge ( a note to a letter he sent [156] has a question mark next to the idea of spells being cast by men on swords). Additionally, some men were given power directly or through relics by elvish or valar sources (the Nazgul, the Mouth of Sauron). I see no possible argument for human loremasters.

The Numenoreans weren't collectively of Half-elven descent - you're thinking of the Line of Kings, there. On the whole, the Numenorean people were the descendants of the Edain who were blessed by the Valar after the War of Wrath - the first generation of children born on Numenor were different from their ordinary Edain parents, having been blessed with all that business of being very tall, long-lived and so on. There's a definite thread that on the whole Men weren't 'meant' to use magic - not divinely intended to do so - and that the sorcerers in Sauron's employ had effectively done the Middle-earth equivalent of a deal with the Devil in order to gain power. They're 'cheating', if you like, but it's evil and there's a price to be paid. So yeah, lore-wise, as a rule you shouldn't expect to find magicians among the good guys (at least, not among Men). That, of course, clashes wholesale with what's generally seen in modern fantasy and hence player expectations for a game like this - I've seen people really struggle with this or flat-out reject it because it's so different from what they're used to.

The roots of the subject are far upstream, as Tolkien himself uses popular mythologies from North, Uk, Germany etc. You use quite references from the Silmarion for exemple, but this work until his last breath was subject to so many "remaniements" (sorry i'm french^^)/changes, reorganisations. As any creator does, he took what inspired him from what was already imagined, and push it his own way -without touching the essence of it. As it is a timeless, common tresor. And magic is a full part of it. As he said:
« Ne vous mêlez pas des affaires des magiciens, car ils sont subtils et prompts à la colère. »
(trad."don't mess up with magician business, because they are subtils and quick to anger.")

In my opinion this game came as close as possible to reflect his wonderfull interpretation/mix/vision, of quite a few old myths,
and the Rune keeper is just a succesfull interpretation/vision/mix of the ultimate sorcer: the writer himself (J.R.R.T.). His powerfull worlds will keep us alive and happy for everlasting.

A Lotro friend and artist playing in the Sirannon server.

Originally Posted by Symbolika1

In my opinion this game came as close as possible to reflect his wonderfull interpretation/mix/vision, of quite a few old myths,
and the Rune keeper is just a succesfull interpretation/vision/mix of the ultimate sorcer: the writer himself (J.R.R.T.). His powerfull worlds will keep us alive and happy for everlasting.

I'm afraid I must disagree on both points.
This game isn't nearly as close as possible to reflect his vision, because the storyline, geography and lore are changed from his books so often and sometimes quite severely. Heck...even PJ's movie trilogy, which was pretty terrible in following the storyline, has now become a better reflection than this game imo.

As for the RK class being an interpretation of the writer himself...
a) What makes you think that? I don't see the analogy. They both use words to reshape reality, is that it?
b) Why would a class be the writer? Especially when there are so many running around.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Sorry, but that argument's bogus. The style of magic used in LOTR is different to that in The Hobbit - no more of the 'firework' style of magic from Gandalf, in particular - and so LOTR doesn't lend credence to its older sibling in so straightforward a manner. The two tales are presented differently, in different contexts and in different styles (The Hobbit was originally written as a stand-alone fairy-tale, LOTR as an epic with ties back to the Quenta Silmarillion). The thing to remember about Dwarves is that yes, they were magical but in specific ways: in crafting, above all, and in keeping their treasures hidden.


He changed his mind about a lot of things, you shouldn't simply pick the point that best suits whatever argument you're trying to make - what would matter here would be what he'd got in the back of his mind when writing LOTR. There's no sign of Dwarves possessing potent magical powers there, except as regards the things they made.


The Numenoreans weren't collectively of Half-elven descent - you're thinking of the Line of Kings, there. On the whole, the Numenorean people were the descendants of the Edain who were blessed by the Valar after the War of Wrath - the first generation of children born on Numenor were different from their ordinary Edain parents, having been blessed with all that business of being very tall, long-lived and so on. There's a definite thread that on the whole Men weren't 'meant' to use magic - not divinely intended to do so - and that the sorcerers in Sauron's employ had effectively done the Middle-earth equivalent of a deal with the Devil in order to gain power. They're 'cheating', if you like, but it's evil and there's a price to be paid. So yeah, lore-wise, as a rule you shouldn't expect to find magicians among the good guys (at least, not among Men). That, of course, clashes wholesale with what's generally seen in modern fantasy and hence player expectations for a game like this - I've seen people really struggle with this or flat-out reject it because it's so different from what they're used to.

You seem to forget or be ignorant of the fact that Tolkien continued to change his mind about things until he died. He was still changing the things he wrote between the Hobbit and the LOTR, and if he had written more fiction for public consumption, no doubt it would have changed more. That is one of things I was pointing out, and the argument was to make clear that saying that Dwarves were non-magical in Tolkien's mind is false: they clearly were meant to have some magical ability, albeit small.

I did not say ALL Numenoreans were of half-elven decent, I said the ones "being born of half-elven blood." Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't support the idea that RKs or even Lore-masters are canonical, but they make for a fun game that is richly tied to the complete works of Tolkien, start to finish, not just the LOTR. I think the fuss over them is frankly silly.

Dwarves did have some magical ability but it was related to crafting...not spellcasting. And even artifact crafting was very rare among the dwarves. Other than Elves and the Istari there were no flashy caster types. Magic is fading out, which is why the Elves are going bye-bye.

Originally Posted by Magdon1

You seem to forget or be ignorant of the fact that Tolkien continued to change his mind about things until he died. He was still changing the things he wrote between the Hobbit and the LOTR, and if he had written more fiction for public consumption, no doubt it would have changed more. That is one of things I was pointing out, and the argument was to make clear that saying that Dwarves were non-magical in Tolkien's mind is false: they clearly were meant to have some magical ability, albeit small.

Not at all. Tolkien did keep changing things, but the point is that if we're talking about LOTR, then what matters is his thought process in writing that book and not ideas he'd already discarded or ideas he'd yet to have. In turn, what you're still missing is that LOTR isn't a straight sequel to The Hobbit. I know you were saying that Dwarves were magical, I'm just pointing out that it was in a much more specific way than with the Elves. I don't recall anyone saying Dwarves were non-magical, as they obviously couldn't be if they could make neat stuff like, say, the Sword of Kings or the Nauglamir.

I did not say ALL Numenoreans were of half-elven decent, I said the ones "being born of half-elven blood." Don't put words in my mouth.

What you said implied they all were. If that wasn't what you meant, fair enough but don't say I'm putting words in your mouth. You said 'The Numenoreans, being born of helf-elven blood' and phrased that way that very much suggested you meant all of them.

I don't support the idea that RKs or even Lore-masters are canonical, but they make for a fun game that is richly tied to the complete works of Tolkien, start to finish, not just the LOTR. I think the fuss over them is frankly silly.

There's nothing about the RK that's tied to anything except generic fantasy. Hence the fuss. I thought I smelled a rat when you came out with that line about Dwarves 'using runes', as if that alone were sufficient to justify all the other nonsense.

Originally Posted by Symbolika1

The roots of the subject are far upstream, as Tolkien himself uses popular mythologies from North, Uk, Germany etc. You use quite references from the Silmarion for exemple, but this work until his last breath was subject to so many "remaniements" (sorry i'm french^^)/changes, reorganisations. As any creator does, he took what inspired him from what was already imagined, and push it his own way -without touching the essence of it. As it is a timeless, common tresor. And magic is a full part of it. As he said:
« Ne vous mêlez pas des affaires des magiciens, car ils sont subtils et prompts à la colère. »
(trad."don't mess up with magician business, because they are subtils and quick to anger.")

In my opinion this game came as close as possible to reflect his wonderfull interpretation/mix/vision, of quite a few old myths,
and the Rune keeper is just a succesfull interpretation/vision/mix of the ultimate sorcer: the writer himself (J.R.R.T.). His powerfull worlds will keep us alive and happy for everlasting.

Two things there:

- Tolkien himself didn't make the act of writing out to be magical in anything other than a poetic sense. He has runes being invented by an Elf for the simple purpose of writing things down, unlike the Norse version where runes were inherently magical and used by the gods themselves, with Odin having learnt the runes through great personal sacrifice. That's a huge contrast. Sometimes it's important to understand which bits of Northern myth he didn't borrow.

- let's not forget that whatever flowery imagery you try to wrap round it, it still involves Elves and Dwarves blasting Orcs with lightning, something which is miles away from anything Tolkien wrote about and painfully contemporary rather than 'timeless'. The RK is a comic-book style sorcerer, and oddly enough JRRT wasn't writing a comic-book.

Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg

First, I thank Hallasan for agreeing with me that we all really agree that, in concept, the runekeeper fits in the lore, and the only argument is how far it is from fitting in actuality and for realizing that this thread was designed to debate that, not the Lore V. "good game" stuff which belongs elsewhere.

Wow, talk about delusional. There is NO way the runekeeper fits in the lore. Loremasters are pretty much a break with lore too but nowhere near as bad as RKs -- and I'd willingly give up my LM if they deleted RKs tomorrow. RKs annoy me even more than Turbine continuing to draw a distinction between orcs and goblins in the game. There is absolutely nothing about the runekeeper based in the lore other than the word "rune". The dwarves and elves inscribed runes into objects to mark them and sometimes to imbue them with innate power but they did NOT throw curses, argue with animals or fart lightning.

The black powder used as a storyline in North Downs fits the lore, throwing fireballs BARELY fits (if you're Gandalf, wearing the Ring of Fire and using pine cones as a base for your fireballs) -- calling down lightning or any of the other garbage doesn't. The RK was introduced because some idiots thought this game needed the traditional "glass cannon" to draw in customers -- not because they'd read The Hobbit, TLOTR or any of Christopher Tolkien's collections of his father's works -- and it shows.

Originally Posted by Felaguin

Wow, talk about delusional. There is NO way the runekeeper fits in the lore. Loremasters are pretty much a break with lore too but nowhere near as bad as RKs -- and I'd willingly give up my LM if they deleted RKs tomorrow. RKs annoy me even more than Turbine continuing to draw a distinction between orcs and goblins in the game. There is absolutely nothing about the runekeeper based in the lore other than the word "rune". The dwarves and elves inscribed runes into objects to mark them and sometimes to imbue them with innate power but they did NOT throw curses, argue with animals or fart lightning.

The black powder used as a storyline in North Downs fits the lore, throwing fireballs BARELY fits (if you're Gandalf, wearing the Ring of Fire and using pine cones as a base for your fireballs) -- calling down lightning or any of the other garbage doesn't. The RK was introduced because some idiots thought this game needed the traditional "glass cannon" to draw in customers -- not because they'd read The Hobbit, TLOTR or any of Christopher Tolkien's collections of his father's works -- and it shows.

I explained this later on, and took a whole lot of flack before I did. I am not writing it out again. Please continue reading.
I agree that the RK does not fit in implementation.

Yeah, having read a bit of this thread it's clear that Radh has a very accurate view of things. His tone is keeping him from winning friends

I have tried multiple times to play a RK and each time, by about level 15, I shudder and say to myself, "This is ridiculous! Who fights with a ROCK?" Because NOBODY fights with rocks, not even in Middle-earth. There were so many ways to tie the Rune-keeper at least a little better with the source material and they missed them all in favor of a generic fantasy caster, starting with rocks as weapons. Wouldn't a "rune-sword" have taken the edge off just a little?

Even the flashier abilities of other classes can kind of be edged into the lore in a figurative sense. It does say that Anduril "shone like flame" or some such, so I can see why a top level ability might have some zip and zowee (even if Minis and LMs are pushing it). But to have just about every ability have some kind of flashy visual representation is excessive and ridiculous. How many times have you seen little green floaties or a flash and said, "Ah man, here comes a Runekeeper."

So without any academic Tolkien references, and with respect to the possibility that they are rather fun to play, I'm telling you that RKs are just a misfit. So there.

Well, I've read this thread (and others like it over the years) with great interest, and it seems to me that the self-appointed defenders of the lore in these threads take a lot for granted. For instance, in terms of the infallibility of the source material. Anything that actually appears in the Hobbit or LOTR is complete gospel and can't be argued with.

It's worth remembering, however, that whatever we might know, or think, to be true, Professor Tolkien himself while writing these books and sundry reference materials used the conceit that they were merely translations of the journals/travelogues of Bilbo and Frodo. With, to be sure, some added appendices and so forth added at a later date. So, the lore side of this debate is treating these very limited works, written by the most ignorant race in all of Middle-Earth (true, by two of the best educated of that race, but still), as the absolute be-all and end-all of everything there ever can or will be within Tolkien's world.

The world, or even just Middle-Earth, being quite a bit larger than what we get to see in Bilbo and Frodo's little travelogues. These are straight line trips, with no sight-seeing. Bilbo goes from Bag End to the Lonely Mountain and back, by almost the exact same road. The Fellowship's traveling is a bit more spread out, but even considering every bit of narrative that is really only one member of the Fellowship telling another about something they did, I'd say that less than 20% of the actual landmass of Middle-Earth is seen in the sources we have. Even throwing in all the stuff in Beleriand, that doesn't exist in the Third Age, and hasn't for 6,000 years at the time of LOTR we've barely seen anything of what there is to see in Middle-Earth.

Speaking of time passing by... The actual accumulated text of both books covers maybe twenty years worth of time? The Hobbit takes place in just about one calendar year, if I'm not mistaken. While LOTR takes place between Bilbo's 111th birthday and the year of his 131st, so call it roughly 21 years, the vast majority of which is skipped over between the first and second chapters. The actual action depicted in the books, Bilbo going There and Back Again and the time between Frodo leaving Hobbitton and let's be nice and say the Battle of Bywater covers just over two calendar years. All the rest of that time is dispensed with in paragraphs. And this is supposed to be the Encyclopedia of Middle Earth?

Ah, but what about the Silmarillion? Flawed as it is, as quick as some lore jobs are to dismiss it as Christopher messing with the master, you can't say that it lacks scope, taking place as it does over thousands of years, or that it was written by a race whose claim to fame and greatest source of pride is that nothing ever happens in their country. Ah, but that's just it, these are elvish tales, elvish myths and legends, written by the elves, from an elvish perspective. The elves don't even understand what other people mean when they use the word "magic". Why on earth would you expect to read about runekeepers in the legends of a people who consider that kind of thing totally natural?

An author writing about the modern day might write a sentence like, "They took a taxi to the airport, arriving early enough so that getting though security wasn't an issue." That same author wouldn't take the trouble to explain that a taxi is a kind of automobile, utilizing an internal combustion engine and get into how all of that works. The author would probably also skip the explanation of what an airport is precisely and the exact physics behind heavier than air powered flight. Not to mention all of the details involved in "getting through security".

True, nowhere does Tolkien write about Maehadros moving his runekeepers into the fray to counter Morgoth's Balrog fire-demons with the power of their cold-speech, but it seems likely that no elf would have needed any such sentence. How else do you fight Balrog fire-demons? Or werewolves if you don't have a Hound of Valinor handy? Or dragons? Tolkien's battle scenes are usually pretty vague, usually favoring stylized descriptions such as "and many of the foe fell before him that day, with yet many more, fearing the puissance of his skill, turning aside from his very visage, and thus did he emerge from the battle virtually unscathed", rather than "slicing and dicing his way through the carnage, using his blade as shield and weapon both. Blocking the cut of one foe before turning and beheading another and then cutting low to remove the leg of yet a third, laughing all the while." My point being, we don't get much nuts and bolts, we get turning points. Glaurung being driven from one battle by the dwarves. The easterlings betrayal of Maedhros. The charge of the Rohirrim, moving beyond the Silmarillion now. You get the picture.

As for us never seeing battlemagic or runekeepers in the lore, well, as I said in the Silmarillion you have to consider the source, elves who consider that thing as natural as breathing. A book about breathing would be pretty boring. And then in the Hobbit and LOTR... well, Elrond magics up the Bruinen against the Nazgul, Gandalf fighting the Nazgul at weathertop and the wargs before the journey into Moria. But the big thing to consider here, again, is the source. Hobbits. You can count the number of dwarves that actually appear in these books on your fingers and toes. Thirteen dwarves in the Hobbit, plus Gimli in LOTR. Maybe throw in Dain if you want to. And elves? Elrond, Glorfindel, Arwen, Galadriel, Celeborn, Thranduil Legolas. A couple of councillors at Elrond's big council. Cirdan only appears right at the end and has no lines. It's not really surprising the hobbits never see any battle runekeepers.

But what about Gandalf? he never really does any pew-pew during these big battles does he? Well, the answer is, we don't really know. The only battle Gandalf was really there for and fully participated in is the Battle of Five Armies in the Hobbit and Bilbo is unconscious for most of that, so we have no idea what Gandalf's doing. As for the Battle of the Hornburg, Gandalf spends all that time gathering forces and Huorns and so forth, and only really arrives at the end of the battle. No need for pew-pew. During the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, Gandalf is pretty much in the Houses of Healing the whole time. And the Battle at the Black Gate gets basically called when the Ring is destroyed, and besides Gandalf's busy riding the back of an Eagle rescuing Frodo and Sam during the mopping up. So, who knows what he would have done in any of those battles if things had gone a bit differently?

Gandalf's a Maiar!!! Elves and dwarves can't do that kind of stuff!!! Well..., if you say so. That's just your opinion though. Even this "magic is innate" stuff isn't in the actual text of anything. And Tolkien can usually be counted on to weigh in on both sides of these debates. I seem to recall in his essay on the Istari that was included in Unfinished Tales that they were forbidden from using their own powers and were restricted to such means and devices as they could learn in the mortal shapes they wore. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. maybe I'm remembering correctly but Tolkien contradicts that somewhere else. Point is, again, Tolkien never really made up his mind about a lot of stuff and see-sawed back and forth on both sides of various issues. And anyway, Gandalf says himself in LOTR regarding opening the doors of Moria (i'm paraphrasing here), that he once knew every spell of this kind in the languages of men, dwarves and orcs. Later on he tries to cast a shutting spell against the Balrog, realizes that will be too flimsy, and uses a Word of Command, to spectacular effect. What i'm getting at is: where did he learn all this stuff? It can't be native Maiar stuff if it's in the languages of men, dwarves, orcs or even elves. Again as Gandalf himself says (me paraphrasing again) about saruman, as great as his lore is, even it must have source.

And the Istari don't even remember what they're there for, exactly! Remember they don't even know the Necromancer is Sauron until Gandalf goes in and finds out for himself. They were still worried about him though. The whole White Council. What or who did they think he was? A Nazgul? Seems unlikely, enslaved to their rings as they are, that one would just set up shop on his own. Or be very effective if he did. Seems like the only other answer would be some kind of evil Mannish sorcerer. My main point being, if they weren't even allowed to remember that they were sent specifically to oppose Sauron, it seems unlikely they remember they have uber Maiar powers.

To sum up:

1. There's much more, quantitatively, that we don't know about Middle-Earth, than we do know, so taking what we do know as everything there is or ever can be seems silly, especially considering the ostensible sources of what we do know. One more example, there's four whole houses of dwarves that we know nothing about except the clan names. Maybe that's where all the dwarven runekeepers are.

2. There's some pretty powerful magic being used in Middle-Earth, not just by Wizards and Maiar, and

3. Big deal, Gandalf and Saruman are a higher form of spiritual being, they still had to do all the grunt work at Hogwarts (or whatever) like everyone else. Main advantage of Istari I'd say would be functional immortality. And the elves can even match that.

Not trying to say runekeepers are the best idea Turbine ever had, something a little more subtle would have been appreciated, but it's hard to make the case a lot of people are making in the definitive "case closed" way they like to make it, without closing your eyes to an awful lot.

Originally Posted by KidShowbusiness

-snip-

Your argument boils down to two things, one being "Tolkien doesn't specifically mention it so it can occur", which I pointed out in an earlier post. Down that path lie machineguns and spaceships in LOTRO. You don't add stuff just because it isn't specifically mentioned, especially when it simply doesn't fit the world.

The other part of your argument is misinformation, by claming stuff like the Istari weren't allowed to use power unless they could learn in it their mortal shapes, or that Gandalf could have been using lots of magical displays during battle but we didn't see it.
Both are untrue; the first is never mentioned in Unfinished Tales. They simply weren't allowed to use their power so openly, the only time Gandalf did use some 'real' power was when fighting the Balrog, away from mortal eyes.
"And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men and Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden to advise and persuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt."
In other words, the Valar had learned from their past mistake to show those puny mortals their divine abilities.

As for the second...as we know even from a lore-simple book like LoTR: Gandalf himself in his mortal body couldn't even conjure up a single flame without having a flammable medium such as torchwood (or a pinecone) in the most pressing of situations, yet you expect any Dwarf or Elf to summon magical explosions around their foes with a snap of the finger?

You don't seem like a dishonest fellow who willfully spreads misinformation, but I'd research a bit before posting things like that.

Originally Posted by BirdofHermes

They simply weren't allowed to use their power so openly, the only time Gandalf did use some 'real' power was when fighting the Balrog, away from mortal eyes.

And also when he had to fend off all nine Ring-wraiths at Weathertop (thought I'd drop that in before someone else does) but the general case is sound and I agree entirely with your post.


KidShowBusiness: I'm sorry, but you're simply (re-)imagining Tolkien's work as distorted by the expectations of mainstream modern fantasy, with flashy magic being hurled about at the drop of a hat. It's not really like that, what you see in the game is just for purposes of the game, to meet those same expectations.

Originally Posted by KidShowbusiness

Well, I've read this thread (and others like it over the years) with great interest, and it seems to me that the self-appointed defenders of the lore in these threads take a lot for granted. For instance, in terms of the infallibility of the source material. Anything that actually appears in the Hobbit or LOTR is complete gospel and can't be argued with.

Well, we "self appointed defenders of the lore" do so because we love Tolkien's works and we are because we love Middle Earth. Of course anything that appears in The Hobbit or LOTR can't be argued with. Do the devs need to tweak the books to make it work with gameplay? Of course. But there is a really fine line.

3. Big deal, Gandalf and Saruman are a higher form of spiritual being, they still had to do all the grunt work at Hogwarts (or whatever) like everyone else. Main advantage of Istari I'd say would be functional immortality. And the elves can even match that.
.

Hogwarts or whatever? If you're going to post here in the Tolkien subsection please try not to thumb your nose at his works. Do it in the General Forums section but not here.

Do I like Rune Keeper? I hate it. I'm a traditionalist. I feel this goes against his works. But I can understand why Turbine brought the class in, and like I said on page one, I think Turbine did a pretty good job at finding a compromise to make it work.

I quite enjoy the RK, actually. I recently rolled one and am happily leveling him after getting sick of the endgame grind. However, being a roleplayer, I keep the divide between his class and his character very strict. His character bears no mention whatsoever of his ability to call down lightning from the heavens as a class. He's simply a quiet writer that keeps to himself, but he is NEVER in character when leveling, etc. I understand that RKs are a bit shaky as far as lore (and, frankly, would be a bit of a challenge to justify in role-play), but I still very much enjoy the class regardless.

I can see validity to all arguments here. I enjoy the game for its gameplay and also for its lore and interpretation of the books, and I keep the two very separate.

If one were to return to the actual wording of this thread: the "Validity" of the Runekeeper, I think most Tolkien purists would oppose the class. In fact, I really loved the initial game concept that Loremasters were more like alchemists and tricksters, and the Minstrels healed by keeping up morale, as opposed to magically sealing wounds. That idea has been watered down a bit with the Runekeeper

Generally speaking (without there being a really firm distinction), the concept of "Magic" is reserved for beings of divine or semi-divine nature, like the Istari wizards, the Maiar, and the characters of Maiar descent like Elrond and Galadriel. And magic is a fickle mistress, very hard to command, and almost impossible to fathom as a normal being.

In several passages in LOTR, Gandalf also mentions, that he COULD be using some more magical powers, but that would be the equivalent of putting up a big sign for Sauron saying "Here we are!" So he avoids it whenever possible, and restricts his activities to relatively simple "Party-tricks".

I think that would make it impractical for a character to effectively fight the forces of Mordor, by largely relying on Magic.

Entirely from a game-balance perspective, I have nothing against the Runekeeper. But I do wish they had implemented the ideas (Ranged damage, etc) in a different way, like shooting a weapon or throwing an object, rather than casting lightning and fireballs.

So the RK is actually based on Tolkien himself and his magic pet rock "Critter's Bane"...

S'nice to come back and find this matter settled!

Heavily armoured battle frenzied champions don't fit with Tolkien's view of ME, in fact any plate mail at all ruins it. Wardens? I don't recall any mention of Sparta in Middle-earth, nor their hoplites. No class really fits in with the lore and frankly we shouldn't expect it to. That being said a "mage" class was unavoidable. The LM's "battlefield chemistry set" explanation wasn't enough apparently so in wades the RK. As people have said prior, "magic" in its many, varied forms was not something flashy or obvious in Middle-earth except in the rarest of cases, and even then was fairly subtle c.f. raging flood waters vs actually shooting lightning at someone's face.

It's been said you can interpret the huge lightning strikes and fireballs as "visualisations" of what is, in actuality, a much more subtle effect. Something to let you know your RK is doing damage because IRL (or at least, in Middle-earth) you wouldn't see much more than the enemy getting a bit hot under the collar or whatever, similar to Aragorn's "oh my, my sword's really hot, look!" in the film when confronted by Gandalf.

I don't think we should get too hung up on the RK or any class for that matter and their place in the lore. Certain aspects of the game are bound to circumvent the lore as it is "game-ified". Perhaps some classes are less valid than others (but in being so are perhaps more fun for some people). Trying to RP your way around it for personal reasons is fair enough but trying to come up with logical shoe horns to fit them in is never going to work.

Originally Posted by Curandhras

Heavily armoured battle frenzied champions don't fit with Tolkien's view of ME, in fact any plate mail at all ruins it. Wardens? I don't recall any mention of Sparta in Middle-earth, nor their hoplites. No class really fits in with the lore and frankly we shouldn't expect it to.

There's no reason why they couldn't, it's just that Turbine elected to go for 'flashy' rather than 'gritty', presumably trying to be crowd-pleasing. Hence also stereotypical fantasy RPG tropes like plate armour and dual-wielding (done with two full-sized weapons as if that were something commonplace, which is comic-book stuff) as well as flashy magic. Going around with spears and a shield actually fits better than most, though, although the styling may be a little off. They missed the mark there rather than inventing something truly out of place.

That being said a "mage" class was unavoidable. The LM's "battlefield chemistry set" explanation wasn't enough apparently so in wades the RK. As people have said prior, "magic" in its many, varied forms was not something flashy or obvious in Middle-earth except in the rarest of cases, and even then was fairly subtle c.f. raging flood waters vs actually shooting lightning at someone's face.

Indeed, the need to be (mindlessly) crowd-pleasing trumps everything else, it seems.

It's been said you can interpret the huge lightning strikes and fireballs as "visualisations" of what is, in actuality, a much more subtle effect. Something to let you know your RK is doing damage because IRL (or at least, in Middle-earth) you wouldn't see much more than the enemy getting a bit hot under the collar or whatever, similar to Aragorn's "oh my, my sword's really hot, look!" in the film when confronted by Gandalf.

"It's been said" but it's untrue thanks to the way Turbine wrote the skill descriptions. If you foresee that someone's fate is to be badly hurt by lightning, logic does rather demand that what you then hurl at them really is lightning. Besides, whatever such dubious arguments people try to use, the whole styling remains 'off' for Middle-earth, with the idea that anyone would need no weapon other than magic. We all know that's not even true of Istari, in the Sil it's not even true of Morgoth himself. The RK can't be rehabilitated that easily because it wasn't set up to fit in with anything except player expectations for a mage class, which are by their very nature foreign to the setting.

I don't think we should get too hung up on the RK or any class for that matter and their place in the lore. Certain aspects of the game are bound to circumvent the lore as it is "game-ified". Perhaps some classes are less valid than others (but in being so are perhaps more fun for some people). Trying to RP your way around it for personal reasons is fair enough but trying to come up with logical shoe horns to fit them in is never going to work.

Who's hung up on the RK's place in lore? It's very simple, it doesn't have one; Jeff Steefel admitted as much before the Moria expansion was even launched. And again regarding 'gamification', that's untrue: the design brief for the RK was for an unabashedly powerful elemental mage but it didn't have to be like that. It could have been more subtle but that evidently wasn't what Turbine's management wanted. Don't confuse their choices with the inevitable needs of a game, not in every last detail.

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

There's no reason why they couldn't, it's just that Turbine elected to go for 'flashy' rather than 'gritty', presumably trying to be crowd-pleasing. Hence also stereotypical fantasy RPG tropes like plate armour and dual-wielding (done with two full-sized weapons as if that were something commonplace, which is comic-book stuff) as well as flashy magic. Going around with spears and a shield actually fits better than most, though, although the styling may be a little off. They missed the mark there rather than inventing something truly out of place.

The old champ spear-shield combo always felt fairly at home in ME to me. That's gone, unfortunately.

I thought the dev's admission that the Warden was taken just as much from Tekken/Street Fighter than anything Tolkien ever wrote was indicative of their take on fitting vs. crowd pleasing.

"It's been said" but it's untrue thanks to the way Turbine wrote the skill descriptions. If you foresee that someone's fate is to be badly hurt by lightning, logic does rather demand that what you then hurl at them really is lightning. Besides, whatever such dubious arguments people try to use, the whole styling remains 'off' for Middle-earth, with the idea that anyone would need no weapon other than magic. We all know that's not even true of Istari, in the Sil it's not even true of Morgoth himself. The RK can't be rehabilitated that easily because it wasn't set up to fit in with anything except player expectations for a mage class, which are by their very nature foreign to the setting.

Oh no I fully agree, I was simply pointing out one of the myriad examples of "lore crowbars" I've heard used to attempt to shoehorn the RK in.

Who's hung up on the RK's place in lore? It's very simple, it doesn't have one; Jeff Steefel admitted as much before the Moria expansion was even launched. And again regarding 'gamification', that's untrue: the design brief for the RK was for an unabashedly powerful elemental mage but it didn't have to be like that. It could have been more subtle but that evidently wasn't what Turbine's management wanted. Don't confuse their choices with the inevitable needs of a game, not in every last detail.

Again, the OP/thread title seemed to suggest a discussion on the RK's lore-abiding credentials, whereas I agree there isn't one to be had.

I'm sure their choices aren't inevitable although as you say their pandering to the masses does limit their options as to how sensible they can make the classes. I don't doubt a very solid game could be made well within the restrictions of Tolkien's "laws of physics" so to speak. Like you say though, Turbine are clearly not ones to go down that route.

Okay guys, can we just let the matter drop?

Yes, I had a misconception of the RK that allowed me to think that it was valid(albeit with a few changes)
Yes, I still think that with a little skill editing (hint:it would involve seriously downsizing the visuals and rewording the skill names) it could still fit.
And Yes, my perception has been exposed as fallacious and I no longer thinks it fits as it is.

The thread was more about the validity of magic as a whole than the validity of the Rune Keeper. I have run into people who did not think magic of any kind belonged in Middle Earth, so this thread was meant to combat that. I am one of the people who subscribes to the LM chemistry battle set, so the only one magic really concerned was the RuneKeeper's, so I named it the Validity of the RuneKeeper.

Originally Posted by Mellonbeleg

Okay guys, can we just let the matter drop?

Quite possibly, it depends...

Yes, I had a misconception of the RK that allowed me to think that it was valid(albeit with a few changes)
Yes, I still think that with a little skill editing (hint:it would involve seriously downsizing the visuals and rewording the skill names) it could still fit.
And Yes, my perception has been exposed as fallacious and I no longer thinks it fits as it is.

Leaving aside the whole 'elemental' thing and the inherent silliness of waving a rock about in battle, what doesn't fit is the core concept of a class that focuses on serious damage-dealing via magic, and needing no weapon other than magic. It doesn't matter how you dress that up, nobody short of powerful Maiar should be up to doing serious direct harm by magic and even then, only in limited ways so that even they still needed physical weaponry in combat. Magic as utility (buff/debuff, status effects, crowd control) in combination with physical force is what's really in harmony with the setting. So, if you think that a bit of tweaking of visuals and rewording of skills could fix the RK then no, I don't agree.

The thread was more about the validity of magic as a whole than the validity of the Rune Keeper. I have run into people who did not think magic of any kind belonged in Middle Earth, so this thread was meant to combat that. I am one of the people who subscribes to the LM chemistry battle set, so the only one magic really concerned was the RuneKeeper's, so I named it the Validity of the RuneKeeper.

Yeah, well, anyone who says there's no magic has gone to the opposite extreme and has lost the plot, as that's no more supportable a position than thinking there ought to be mages everywhere just because it's fantasy

I just couldn't help myself! I had to give this hornet's nest one more poke with a stick and see what came buzzin' out!

Heeheehee...

Originally Posted by bambubambubambu

I just couldn't help myself! I had to give this hornet's nest one more poke with a stick and see what came buzzin' out!

Heeheehee...

20 slaps with a wet noodle for you /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap /slap

I know Rad. I am in the nasty habit of drastically understating things I shouldn't. To me, rewording skills and visuals is nearly paramount to scrapping the whole class and starting over. Sorry.