Magic ?

Mordoth · September 2008

I briefly tried out LoTR with a buddy key someone emailed me and it seemed to me that there's really not much in the way of magic in LoTR. Was I just missing it? The closest class to a mage seemed to be more of a support/healing type class.

I like mages and wizards.

Sovrath · September 2008

Originally posted by Mordoth

I briefly tried out LoTR with a buddy key someone emailed me and it seemed to me that there's really not much in the way of magic in LoTR. Was I just missing it? The closest class to a mage seemed to be more of a support/healing type class.
I like mages and wizards.

There is a huge reason as to why there is no blatant magic in the game. Having said that if you do a search on rune keeper you will see the arguments.

krispyb · September 2008

The upcoming Mines of Moria expansion has a new class called 'Rune Keeper', which is more like what you probably want.

BUT: The game tries to model itself on Lord of the Rings as much as possible - which means following the 'lore' of the books. Therefore there cannot really be 'magic users' in the fantasy sense of the word - they just aren't within the realms of the books - no fireballs etc.

The 'magic' there is is more 'of nature'... summoning the forces of nature. But then the runekeeper does do some funky stuff

Jaxom92 · September 2008

Originally posted by Mordoth

I briefly tried out LoTR with a buddy key someone emailed me and it seemed to me that there's really not much in the way of magic in LoTR. Was I just missing it? The closest class to a mage seemed to be more of a support/healing type class.
I like mages and wizards.

I think you'll find what you're looking for in the Runekeeper after the expansion comes out.

While I agree with the rationalization for the new class in principle, the gameplay doesn't change. It might as well be a true "magic" user rather than on who harnesses the "nature of runes." IMO, it breaks the intent of the lore if not the letter. Still, it should attract folks who like to play magic classes, and it'll be pretty damn cool to see in action regardless of it's lore-abiding-ness.

Mordoth · September 2008

I've read the series of books many times, except the Hobbit (which I read in 6th grade) and although there isn't any overt mage-type characters detailed in the novels, there is plenty of magic in Middle Earth.

Personally, I don't see an issue with introducing a more magic focused class as the books primarily follow the hobbits which are definately not magic users. In this sense, there may well have been more overt magic use in Middle Earth but outside the realm of what is experienced in the novels. I wouldn't describe myself as a LoTR scholar or anything close to that. I've just read the novels, not including the Silmarillion (language was too stilted for me.)

erandur · September 2008

Hrm, I'd not only read the books , but read the lore! Magic is supposed to be only for gods and demi-gods (like Gandalf). The loremaster was already a minor violation of the lore, the rune-keeper is a major violation... Even Turbina said they were walking away from the lotr-lore. That together with the increased level cap, made me quit...

Mordoth · September 2008

Originally posted by erandur

Hrm, I'd not only read the books , but read the lore! Magic is supposed to be only for gods and demi-gods (like Gandalf). The loremaster was already a minor violation of the lore, the rune-keeper is a major violation... Even Turbina said they were walking away from the lotr-lore. That together with the increased level cap, made me quit...

Where's the lore if not in the books?

beaverz · September 2008

The magic in lotr lore isnt like what you get in most mmos where one class just throws fire, water or whatever it is. Here magic has many forms, sorta enchants like in frodo's sword (sting), word magic like the ford of bruien word incatation that makes the river wipe the nazguls away. Or much more complex magic that can only be used by legendary hcaracters (gandalf, saruman, witch king, sauron).

If there is a word incantation that make a river turn into horses, why wouldnt there be one that casts a firebal, or ray of light.

Dont say that something made by turbine is against the lore just beause you didnt see it in the movies. As long as they dotn start making characters that look like wow's mages we should be ok.

Sovrath · September 2008

Originally posted by beaverz

The magic in lotr lore isnt like what you get in most mmos where one class just throws fire, water or whatever it is. Here magic has many forms, sorta enchants like in frodo's sword (sting), word magic like the ford of bruien word incatation that makes the river wipe the nazguls away. Or much more complex magic that can only be used by legendary hcaracters (gandalf, saruman, witch king, sauron).
If there is a word incantation that make a river turn into horses, why wouldnt there be one that casts a firebal, or ray of light.
Dont say that something made by turbine is against the lore just beause you didnt see it in the movies. As long as they dotn start making characters that look like wow's mages we should be ok.

People are not arguingas to whether or not an incantation can create fire or lightning or whatver.

They are arguing that the beings who have access to this power are:

A, above players as they are very special beings

B, Do not have instant access to this as no where do you see Characters such as Gandalf or even Elrond say to each other "hey... let's go to Helm's deep and start toasting our enemies with walls of fire or earth quakes w00t!"(and yes, I know the elves weren't at Helm's Deep... just an example)

C, that access to this power seems to be situational and used rarely and in far more subtle ways.

Their is a lot of magic in The Lord of the Rings but it doesn't manifest in your Dungeons and Dragons Fireball wielding, Tensers Floating Disk using, Elric summoning Demons sort of way.

It's subtle. The problem is that the average player just doesn't have the capacity to appreciate that. It's understandable but it's sad as it makes the world richer.

I remember the early D&D books and there was a note that indicated that Dungeon Masters had to make a decision as to how magic and magic items were to be used in their campaings. The note goes on to say that they could either have it plentiful (more of a Harry Potterish, everything is magical sort of way, wands everywhere, etc) or more rare so that one Wand or one Amulet was powerful and something to be coveted and protected if found.

The Lord of the Rings is a bit more the latter.

That's why people are a bit miffed.

And to the person who quit over the changes, I can understand quitting because the world is not close to Middle Earth but quitting because of raising the Level Cap? That confounds me. If it is a level based game then of course they are going to want to raise the Level Cap.

erandur · September 2008

Originally posted by beaverz

The magic in lotr lore isnt like what you get in most mmos where one class just throws fire, water or whatever it is. Here magic has many forms, sorta enchants like in frodo's sword (sting), word magic like the ford of bruien word incatation that makes the river wipe the nazguls away. Or much more complex magic that can only be used by legendary hcaracters (gandalf, saruman, witch king, sauron).
If there is a word incantation that make a river turn into horses, why wouldnt there be one that casts a firebal, or ray of light.
Dont say that something made by turbine is against the lore just beause you didnt see it in the movies. As long as they dotn start making characters that look like wow's mages we should be ok.

Because we're normal players, Gandalf etc. are demi-gods... Normal creatures didn't use magic, not even the elves. Except the demi-gods (thought it was something like maia's or something like that) and normal gods, the is NO magic whatsoever.

erandur · September 2008

Originally posted by Sovrath
And to the person who quit over the changes, I can understand quitting because the world is not close to Middle Earth but quitting because of raising the Level Cap? That confounds me. If it is a level based game then of course they are going to want to raise the Level Cap.

Simple, the grind during the last levels (45-50) was awful... Kill 20 orcs, blabla, reward: 4k xp. You needed to do 20-40 quests like that, 400-800 creatures, and that's just for 1 level. It's WAY too level-based, and their leveling system just ends up in a FedEx grind. That's why most people quit around lvl 20-30.

I just couldn't survive grinding for another 10-20 hours for a few levels... That's probably why Guild Wars is so great for me. But yea, of the current players who are lvl 50, most of them don't mind those quests. I suppose I'm a bit excentric, I love the lore, the game just didn't turn out how I wanted... The beginning was great though , the shire is by far the best place in ME so far. If Turbine cares about what their players think, they'll keep in mind that everybody does get bored of killing 20 X. And if those woods after Moria (forgot the name) turn out like they're described (the most beautiful place in ME), I'll probably get back, just for the scenery.

Sovrath · September 2008

Originally posted by erandur

Originally posted by Sovrath
And to the person who quit over the changes, I can understand quitting because the world is not close to Middle Earth but quitting because of raising the Level Cap? That confounds me. If it is a level based game then of course they are going to want to raise the Level Cap.

Simple, the grind during the last levels (45-50) was awful... Kill 20 orcs, blabla, reward: 4k xp. You needed to do 20-40 quests like that, 400-800 creatures, and that's just for 1 level. It's WAY too level-based, and their leveling system just ends up in a FedEx grind. That's why most people quit around lvl 20-30.

I just couldn't survive grinding for another 10-20 hours for a few levels... That's probably why Guild Wars is so great for me. But yea, of the current players who are lvl 50, most of them don't mind those quests. I suppose I'm a bit excentric, I love the lore, the game just didn't turn out how I wanted... The beginning was great though , the shire is by far the best place in ME so far. If Turbine cares about what their players think, they'll keep in mind that everybody does get bored of killing 20 X. And if those woods after Moria (forgot the name) turn out like they're described (the most beautiful place in ME), I'll probably get back, just for the scenery.

I suppse as my other mmo was Lineage 2 for 4+ years, it has altered my perception of grind.

When you kill 4 mobs for .01% everything else seems like cake. The leveling in LOTRO was to me so astonishingly easy that I could do it without even breaking a sweat. And as most of that was done through questing it went by extremely fast for me. I have no idea what game you were playing before that had easier leveling.

Professor78 · September 2008

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by erandur

Originally posted by Sovrath
And to the person who quit over the changes, I can understand quitting because the world is not close to Middle Earth but quitting because of raising the Level Cap? That confounds me. If it is a level based game then of course they are going to want to raise the Level Cap.

Simple, the grind during the last levels (45-50) was awful... Kill 20 orcs, blabla, reward: 4k xp. You needed to do 20-40 quests like that, 400-800 creatures, and that's just for 1 level. It's WAY too level-based, and their leveling system just ends up in a FedEx grind. That's why most people quit around lvl 20-30.

I just couldn't survive grinding for another 10-20 hours for a few levels... That's probably why Guild Wars is so great for me. But yea, of the current players who are lvl 50, most of them don't mind those quests. I suppose I'm a bit excentric, I love the lore, the game just didn't turn out how I wanted... The beginning was great though , the shire is by far the best place in ME so far. If Turbine cares about what their players think, they'll keep in mind that everybody does get bored of killing 20 X. And if those woods after Moria (forgot the name) turn out like they're described (the most beautiful place in ME), I'll probably get back, just for the scenery.

I suppse as my other mmo was Lineage 2 for 4+ years, it has altered my perception of grind.

When you kill 4 mobs for .01% everything else seems like cake. The leveling in LOTRO was to me so astonishingly easy that I could do it without even breaking a sweat. And as most of that was done through questing it went by extremely fast for me. I have no idea what game you were playing before that had easier leveling.

Agree I find the levelling quite easy too, and even if there is a bit of a grind to do now and then, at least it goes towards somthing. deeds. There is never any need to kill a mob for just the xp alone.

Mikeha · September 2008

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by erandur

Originally posted by Sovrath
And to the person who quit over the changes, I can understand quitting because the world is not close to Middle Earth but quitting because of raising the Level Cap? That confounds me. If it is a level based game then of course they are going to want to raise the Level Cap.

Simple, the grind during the last levels (45-50) was awful... Kill 20 orcs, blabla, reward: 4k xp. You needed to do 20-40 quests like that, 400-800 creatures, and that's just for 1 level. It's WAY too level-based, and their leveling system just ends up in a FedEx grind. That's why most people quit around lvl 20-30.

I just couldn't survive grinding for another 10-20 hours for a few levels... That's probably why Guild Wars is so great for me. But yea, of the current players who are lvl 50, most of them don't mind those quests. I suppose I'm a bit excentric, I love the lore, the game just didn't turn out how I wanted... The beginning was great though , the shire is by far the best place in ME so far. If Turbine cares about what their players think, they'll keep in mind that everybody does get bored of killing 20 X. And if those woods after Moria (forgot the name) turn out like they're described (the most beautiful place in ME), I'll probably get back, just for the scenery.

I suppse as my other mmo was Lineage 2 for 4+ years, it has altered my perception of grind.

When you kill 4 mobs for .01% everything else seems like cake. The leveling in LOTRO was to me so astonishingly easy that I could do it without even breaking a sweat. And as most of that was done through questing it went by extremely fast for me. I have no idea what game you were playing before that had easier leveling.

/agree

I am a Lineage 2 player myself so when I hear people talk about he grind in games like Lotro and WoW it kinda makes me laugh.

TheTruthTold · September 2008

Originally posted by erandur

Hrm, I'd not only read the books , but read the lore! Magic is supposed to be only for gods and demi-gods (like Gandalf). The loremaster was already a minor violation of the lore, the rune-keeper is a major violation... Even Turbina said they were walking away from the lotr-lore. That together with the increased level cap, made me quit...

I am sorry to say, you do not know the lore. Gandalf was not a god or demi-god. Magic is not a violation of lore. Turbine was speaking about the person that would be using the magic. Aragorn used magic, when he healed those at Minas Tirith, leaves and magic. It was also magic in The Hobbit, that Gandalf struck the wargs and wolves with fire. I could go on for quite some time on these things, but my point is made. You do not know the lore.

To the OP, Rune Keepers will be the magic using class. They will be quite a powerful class, and very nice in that aspect. Be sure to read some more on MMORPG.com on this.

erandur · September 2008

Originally posted by Lazer7

Originally posted by erandur

Hrm, I'd not only read the books , but read the lore! Magic is supposed to be only for gods and demi-gods (like Gandalf). The loremaster was already a minor violation of the lore, the rune-keeper is a major violation... Even Turbina said they were walking away from the lotr-lore. That together with the increased level cap, made me quit...

I am sorry to say, you do not know the lore. Gandalf was not a god or demi-god. Magic is not a violation of lore. Turbine was speaking about the person that would be using the magic. Aragorn used magic, when he healed those at Minas Tirith, leaves and magic. It was also magic in The Hobbit, that Gandalf struck the wargs and wolves with fire. I could go on for quite some time on these things, but my point is made. You do not know the lore.

To the OP, Rune Keepers will be the magic using class. They will be quite a powerful class, and very nice in that aspect. Be sure to read some more on MMORPG.com on this.

Gandalf is a maiar (demi-god), servant of the Valar (gods). You can't really call them gods, that's true, but there isn't really any difference. http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/m/maiar.html As for the other 'magic', that's more like the lore-master's magic. Which I barely find any more supernatural than hunters who keep pulling arrows, without having any. Not sure if Aragon used any magic at Minas Tirith, should read the books again. But of course Gandalf used magic in the hobbit, as he is a maiar...

So you do not know the lore.

Sovrath · September 2008

Originally posted by erandur

Originally posted by Lazer7

Originally posted by erandur

Hrm, I'd not only read the books , but read the lore! Magic is supposed to be only for gods and demi-gods (like Gandalf). The loremaster was already a minor violation of the lore, the rune-keeper is a major violation... Even Turbina said they were walking away from the lotr-lore. That together with the increased level cap, made me quit...

I am sorry to say, you do not know the lore. Gandalf was not a god or demi-god. Magic is not a violation of lore. Turbine was speaking about the person that would be using the magic. Aragorn used magic, when he healed those at Minas Tirith, leaves and magic. It was also magic in The Hobbit, that Gandalf struck the wargs and wolves with fire. I could go on for quite some time on these things, but my point is made. You do not know the lore.

To the OP, Rune Keepers will be the magic using class. They will be quite a powerful class, and very nice in that aspect. Be sure to read some more on MMORPG.com on this.

Gandalf is a maiar (demi-god), servant of the Valar (gods). You can't really call them gods, that's true, but there isn't really any difference. http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/m/maiar.html As for the other 'magic', that's more like the lore-master's magic. Which I barely find any more supernatural than hunters who keep pulling arrows, without having any. Not sure if Aragon used any magic at Minas Tirith, should read the books again. But of course Gandalf used magic in the hobbit, as he is a maiar...

So you do not know the lore.

agreed. He is not a demi-god in that he makes decisions on how the world works. But he is a being (part of a goup of beings) that is completely far above mortals and Elf Kind.

TheTruthTold · September 2008

Originally posted by erandur

Originally posted by Lazer7

Originally posted by erandur

Hrm, I'd not only read the books , but read the lore! Magic is supposed to be only for gods and demi-gods (like Gandalf). The loremaster was already a minor violation of the lore, the rune-keeper is a major violation... Even Turbina said they were walking away from the lotr-lore. That together with the increased level cap, made me quit...

I am sorry to say, you do not know the lore. Gandalf was not a god or demi-god. Magic is not a violation of lore. Turbine was speaking about the person that would be using the magic. Aragorn used magic, when he healed those at Minas Tirith, leaves and magic. It was also magic in The Hobbit, that Gandalf struck the wargs and wolves with fire. I could go on for quite some time on these things, but my point is made. You do not know the lore.

To the OP, Rune Keepers will be the magic using class. They will be quite a powerful class, and very nice in that aspect. Be sure to read some more on MMORPG.com on this.

Gandalf is a maiar (demi-god), servant of the Valar (gods). You can't really call them gods, that's true, but there isn't really any difference. http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/m/maiar.html As for the other 'magic', that's more like the lore-master's magic. Which I barely find any more supernatural than hunters who keep pulling arrows, without having any. Not sure if Aragon used any magic at Minas Tirith, should read the books again. But of course Gandalf used magic in the hobbit, as he is a maiar...

So you do not know the lore.

You once again are wrong. Maiar is not a demi-god... and you are taking it from the Silmarillion. He is an Istari in the Lord of the Rings. Eru is God. Gandalf is a lesser Ainur, or a holy one. He serves the servents of Eru. If you still don't agree with that, the very words of Tolkien, both in 1965 and 1971 refers to Gandalf as an angelic being, not a demi-god.

Look again at how Aragorn healed the people in Gondor. It also mentions how he learned it from the elves, from Elrond Half Elven.

Here is a quote from Gandalf for you as well: 'I once knew every spell in all the tongues of Elves or Men or Orcs, that was ever used for such a purpose. I can still remember ten score of them without searching in my mind.'

The Fellowship of the Ring, Book I, page 400

Sovrath · September 2008

Originally posted by Lazer7

You once again are wrong. Maiar is not a demi-god... and you are taking it from the Silmarillion. He is an Istari in the Lord of the Rings. Eru is God. Gandalf is a lesser Ainur, or a holy one. He serves the servents of Eru. If you still don't agree with that, the very words of Tolkien, both in 1965 and 1971 refers to Gandalf as an angelic being, not a demi-god.
Look again at how Aragorn healed the people in Gondor. It also mentions how he learned it from the elves, from Elrond Half Elven.
Here is a quote from Gandalf for you as well: 'I once knew every spell in all the tongues of Elves or Men or Orcs, that was ever used for such a purpose. I can still remember ten score of them without searching in my mind.'
The Fellowship of the Ring, Book I, page 400

No you are wrong (not like we get prizes for being right or wrong!). Istar are of the Maiar. And the term demi God is apt if you look at the context that it is a greater being. I would probably say if you want to quibble you could use Arch Angel (or angelic which you noted) which is certainly lesser. The problem with someone using demi-god (myself included) is it conjures of the idea of "god" but slightly lesser. Because of that you get people who want to be literal and want to attribute things like followers and religion.

A note by Tolkien (Unfinished Tales, page 394), dated by his son as probably coming from 1972, right before Tolkien died, basically states right out their origins and purpose.

We must assume that they [the Istari] were all Maiar, that is persons of the 'angelic' order, though not necessarily of the same rank. The Maiar were 'spirits', but capable of self-incarnation, and could take 'humane' (especially Elvish) forms... Now these Maiar were sent by the Valar at a crucial moment in the history of Middle Earth to enhance the resistance of the Elves of the West, waning in power, and the Men of the West, greatly outnumbered by those of the East and South. It may be seen that they were free each to do what they could in this mission; that they were not commanded or supposed to act together... and that each had different powers and... were chosen by the Valar with this in mind.

When Eru created the world, he sent fourteen of the greater members of his spiritual choir (the Ainur) to guide and protect the world and its peoples. Many lesser spirits went as well, to serve as helpers and servants. The greater spirits became known as the Valar, while the lesser were termed the Maiar. The Wizards gained their power through being supernatural beings who had predated the creation of the world. Another note in Unfinished Tales (page 395), about Gandalf specifically, says:

It was believed by many of the 'Faithful' that 'Gandalf' was the last appearance of Manwë himself... But I think it was not so... To the overthrow of Morgoth he sent his herald Eonwë. To the defeat of Sauron would he not then send some lesser (but mighty) spirit of the angelic people, one coeval and equal, doubtless, with Sauron in their beginnings, but not more? Olórin was his name. But of Olórin we shall never know more than he revealed in Gandalf.

So ok, let's say "sort of Angelic" and call it a night. Nevertheless, he wouldn't have problems with "Rats and Goblins" (reference anyone? anyone? Bueller? Bueller?)

And even Gandalf didn't throw around lighting and fire and thunder whenever he felt like it. If he did why would he have need of a sword?

More good stuff:

One last interesting piece of evidence comes from a brief narrative of a council of the Ainur (printed on page 393 of Unfinished Tales), which is incomplete and had illegible pieces, but which clearly demonstrates the messengers to be of that class of being, and also sheds some light on the purpose given the Wizards when they were sent to Middle Earth.

It was resolved to send out three emissaries to Middle-earth. 'Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their wisdom and knowledge, and confusing them with fears, cares, and weariness coming from the flesh.' But two only came forward: Curumo, who was chosen by Aulë, and Alatar, who was sent by Oromë. Then Manwë asked, where was Olórin? And Olórin... asked what Manwë would have of him. Manwë replied that he wished Olórin to go as the third messenger to Middle-earth... But Olórin replied that he was too weak for such a task, and that he feared Sauron. Then Manwë said that was all the more reason why he should go...

The narrative goes on to tell how Curumo (Saruman) takes Aiwendil (Radagast) at the pleading of Yavanna, and that Pallando is brought by Alatar as a friend. With Olórin added to the mix, the total of five Istari mentioned in the appendix to the Lord of the Rings is reached. The meeting in question is intriguing because it demonstrates a possible origin for Saruman's contempt of Radagast. Also made clear is the reason why Gandalf refrained from using his power to persuade people like Denethor to listen to him: it was forbidden (which made Saruman's failure all the greater).

Defining something in Middle Earth is difficult, because technically nothing besides the Lord of the Rings is final. However, since Tolkien's writing in this section, being as late in his life as it was, probably represented the last opinion he developed of the issue of Wizardly origins, it seems fair to announce: the Wizards were Maiar.

As far as Aragorn, yes he did learn healing from Elrond but he is not a man like you and I are men. He was Numenorian. Besides incredibly long life I imagine that it would also allow him to use other abilities that normal men would not have access to.

TheTruthTold · September 2008

From the way Erandur states demi-god, I am gathering he means a minor god, which is one of the definitions. From how you state it, I agree. It is a poor word of choice in general as the definitions are many, and can be vague, including, "A person who is highly honored or revered." I also do not believe Gandalf was Manwe, as I have heard many of the discussions on this. You will find many of them on the Lord of the Rings Fanatic Plaza.

As we get further into this, from this point, it is reaching technicalities. That is not to say, it will not be interesting, but it is not something that one can be wrong or right on, unless the author states one way or the other. This is why I have watched or listened to many, if not all, of Tolkien's interviews.

erandur · September 2008

Well, I said he wasn't really a demi-god, but got pretty close to it. My point is, only a few are able to use magic, the Maiar, Valar, etc. All together maybe 100 people. How many people will be using real magic, when rune-keepers arrive? Way too many.

Sovrath · September 2008

Originally posted by Lazer7

From the way Erandur states demi-god, I am gathering he means a minor god, which is one of the definitions. From how you state it, I agree. It is a poor word of choice in general as the definitions are many, and can be vague, including, "A person who is highly honored or revered." I also do not believe Gandalf was Manwe, as I have heard many of the discussions on this. You will find many of them on the Lord of the Rings Fanatic Plaza.

I would have to agree. I have even used the word demi-god but I alway think of it as more of a being on the stature of loki. The problem is that because of the major religions that flourish today, when one says demi-god one immediately conjures a "one" god and then subordinates the individual "a bit".

But it still ties it to the idea of some creating all powerful being and Gandalf was certainly not that.

Interesting enough, I just looked up demigod because I was questioning whether Loki would be considered one or not.

It seems that (at least from wikipedia) it is a term that describes the outcome of the union between a god and a mortal.

So because of this, I think term demi-god might not work in many instances if one were to take it in this context.

However, I also imagine that to the average person (and I certainly include myself in that) the term probably has lost this meaning and could very possibly take on a more literal meaning... God Like but not a full god.

hmmm, this all certainly sounds a bit geeky huh? don't really remember having a discussion like this on the Lineage 2 or Warhammer forums

edit: andyes Erandur, your point is my point as well. now hundreds and thousands of players in virtual middle earth are going to be sending lightning bolts over my head.

Papadam · September 2008

The thing is that magic in Middle Earth is very hard to define.. not even Tolkien himself seemed to be able to really explain what "magic" really is and how its used... In this thread Berephon (Turbines "Lore monkey") http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?t=144805&page=7 is discusing how he views "magic"...

"These are not my "laws," but Tolkien's, drawn from his own writings, which are publicly available at any bookstore, for those who wish to research it themselves. Take it or leave it, these are the rules by which LotRO is designed in accordance with our license and IP, rules which may be bent (sometimes to the point of straining), but not seriously or intentionally broken, unless it proves necessary. (There have been a few minor fractures for gameplay's sake, but nothing shattered so far.) While a lot of these things cannot be discussed in-game, we strive not to contradict them in-game either. (Of course, the laws of "magic" in Middle-earth are very easily extrapolated just within the volume of LotR.)"

boyobear · September 2008

You all made really valid points about the lore and such. In my opinion, the easiest way to fix the "lore break" of the Rune-Keepers (not completely but better than it will be) is to make the class an "epic" class. Either you have to get to level 50 or 60 and you can create one. If it's 50, then not as many accounts will be making one right when they get it and if it's 60, there will be even fewer. Sure, eventually everybody will get to level 60 and make one. By that time, though, maybe a few of the people who reached 60 first would have gotten bored with their RK. Either way, it would be the best way to have Rune-Keepers spread out throughout the level brackets of 1 - 10, 11 - 20, 21 - 30, etc.

I don't know. I just think that, as useful and probably amazing as the class will be, the fewer Rune-Keepers there are, the better. (then their value in the group will be appreciated more instead of just "Oh great. Another f****** Rune-Keeper.")

(And I apolagize if some of the things I said didn't make sense, haha.)

TheTruthTold · September 2008

This sounds much like the way SWG was going to do the Jedi. I am not sure how they ended up doing it, but they had the same type of plan for the Jedi introduction. I do not see this happening, but it is an interesting idea.

The one thing I gathered from how magic was mentioned in the books, and interviews, is that magic was not abundantly used. Wether a lost skill of old, or a skill for the elder, or even a skill that belonged only to a chosen few, it was obvious that it did not flow as abundantly as the Rune-Keepers will. Beyond that, I can not honestly cast an opinion on that which I have not tried.

qombi · September 2008

Originally posted by erandur

Originally posted by beaverz

The magic in lotr lore isnt like what you get in most mmos where one class just throws fire, water or whatever it is. Here magic has many forms, sorta enchants like in frodo's sword (sting), word magic like the ford of bruien word incatation that makes the river wipe the nazguls away. Or much more complex magic that can only be used by legendary hcaracters (gandalf, saruman, witch king, sauron).
If there is a word incantation that make a river turn into horses, why wouldnt there be one that casts a firebal, or ray of light.
Dont say that something made by turbine is against the lore just beause you didnt see it in the movies. As long as they dotn start making characters that look like wow's mages we should be ok.

Because we're normal players, Gandalf etc. are demi-gods... Normal creatures didn't use magic, not even the elves. Except the demi-gods (thought it was something like maia's or something like that) and normal gods, the is NO magic whatsoever.

This feels oddly familar ..... PreCU anyone. Jedi Knights everywhere!

Howdy, Stranger!

Magic ?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Magic ?

Comments