[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] General Suggestions

Dúrin's Bane: A reimagining for the iconic spell

<< < (5/6) > >>

Fredius:
Well well well, thought I would sneak a peak at MU and it seems I found an interesting egg here xD. I would like to express my thoughts on the matter of this concept, though I will keep it brief (EDIT: not so brief as I hoped apparently), so as to not clutter the discussion with even more "points of views".

Firstly, I absolutely love the general outline of this concept, so for starters you can already put me in the in favour group. Regarding the points of what the Shaman's role would be when the Balrog isn't there, or what the powers of the controllable Balrog would be; I am all fine with them so you won't hear me say much about it. I would, however, like to adress the issue of the theme and lore of the concept, and hopefully put both sides' minds at rest.

Thematically, I have to a certain extent agree with Walk that this does not seem like how a Balrog should "fight" the battles for the Goblins. The powers that the Shaman possesses give the impression that he lures (or deceives, however you want to call it) the Balrog into attacking the enemy. However, the way that it is set up contradicts your effort to keep the Balrog a neutral force who doesn't pick a side in the war :P. If the Shaman drops Dwarven prisoners on a certain spot, or dresses Goblins up in Dwarven rags, doesn't that give away that the Balrog sees these Dwarves more of an enemy than it does with the Goblins? I'm not saying this is wrong, and I will get to that later in my post. I understand that he would also kill Orcs in his vicinity, but look at it this way; if you put those Dwarven prisoners at the other side of the map, and the Balrog happened to be closer to your own base, then surely a creature that regards both as an enemy would rather attack the enemy that is closer, right? I know that he can only be summoned near the Shaman, but like I said this is just pure talk on the theme of the concept itself.

Furthermore; Oak gave some examples of how other evil powerful beings (i.e. Sauron and Saruman) were tricked to the extent that they lost the war. However, this is not the same kind of deception as to what is presented in the concept. What we saw in the movies or read in the books were strategic and subtle misdirections that the forces of Good used to change the tide of the war. In this concept, the Balrog is just being baited like a trained dog to attack something, only that this dog can also attack the trainer if he comes too close :P.

To get to my point here, I wouldn't want to change the abilities and powers altogether that you guys came up with, but instead of deception and bait as the main theme of this concept, I would like to propose to change the theme into a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of play. Eventhough the Balrog would kill anything that comes too close to him, I can safely say that he definetly would prioritize killing a Dwarf over an Orc. Why? Because Orcs are Evil, just like him. They are creations of his master, and acted as his allies during the wars of the First Age. So, that the Balrog in this concept prioritizes Dwarven prisoners or illusions over the Goblins themselves, is something I agree with. But instead of having him being "deceived" or "lured" by those prisoners, let it just come from his own will. Basically:

Shaman: Can you 360 no-scope those Dwarves over there plox?
Balrog: Fine, but if you or your kind trespass my safe-space, I will make sure to show you why the chicken did not cross the road.
Shaman: *Dabs while crying.*

There is one thing that I would like to give some more depth in, and that is his level 10 power. The power talks about giving the Balrog an offering so that you can temporarily control him. How about having that offering be a Balrog totem that can be seen in the Third Age PS2 game?


You can also have some Goblin sacrifices bound around it, they can use the same animation as the cocooned soldiers that you have to rescue in the BFME1 Shelob's Lair mission. The sacfice that Walk mentioned can be implemented this way then xD.

Julio229:

--- Zitat von: Walküre am 14. Feb 2020, 16:35 ---
--- Zitat von: The_Necromancer0 am 14. Feb 2020, 02:03 ---It's been a while since I last laid eyes upon a Walkürian Essay . Glad to see you haven't lost your touch.  xD
--- Ende Zitat ---

 8-)


Necro:


--- Zitat ---5. I'm not sure this is relevant. As far as I can see both concepts address separate parts of the faction, and could theoretically both be implemented without conflict unless I've missed something. And even if they were to have overlap I don't think suggestions are limited to a first come first serve basis. Multiple suggestions of overlapping concepts exist and have existed in the past as such I'm not sure how this part can serve as a relevant argument against this proposal.
--- Ende Zitat ---

You're right. My remarks on other proposals may have come off as a clumsy attempt to lump everything up a bit; I meant no such thing, of course. I do think it would be wise of us to keep our eyes wide open and focus on the bigger picture, though. I'm quite certain that the own success of the Misty Mountains faction will be, one way or the other, tied to our capacity of devising the most unique, yet consistent, general scheme; something saving both variety and solidity, because it's always been the team's main objective to capitalise on differentiation: three distinct Goblin kingdoms, sporting each its proper heroes and lore, three different styles shaping structures, weapons, and strategy, and a wide-ranging spell-book which ought to value any soul that this grand system is comprised of. Hence, this is the furthest we could get from pre-4.0 versions of the game, where the faction itself was more intended to personify the sheer chaos existing in its parts and muster all sorts of monsters in a single place.

Said that, my mentioning Smaug served to draw a comparison between the two heroes, and praise what I find a more than fitting solution to portray the topic of allegiance by accurate means. That proposal, in fact, seems to delve beautifully in the lost tales of dragons, Dwarves, and Orcs, alongside presenting to us nothing so controversial to stomach. It is the exact harmony that I wish to see here, too.


--- Zitat ---Heroes shouldn't be added just for the sake of adding heroes, heroes need a role and they need a function.
--- Ende Zitat ---

I confess that inserting wholly made-up content in such consolidated mechanics worries me far more than an aimless hero, canonical or not, might do. It is my personal view that fictional material needs, majorly, to fill in blank spaces and offer 'conceptual aid' when all other options fail. As written above, the Balrog is arguably one of the most known features ever. Nonetheless, I'm sure we'll succeed in our seeking :)


Oak:


--- Zitat ---Using a loyalty based relationship for a faction of orcs that would just as happily turn on each other than on their enemies doesn’t seem to make as much sense to me.
--- Ende Zitat ---

No, obviously. Blind fealty would be as bad a choice as going fully berserk and turning the Bane into a mere mindless pawn. Furthermore, being so indiscriminate in one's killing, as Necro suggested, would better cater for Nameless Things, which, feeding off their prehistoric state, would be quite likely not to tell apart friends from foes; if we take issue with the definition of 'friends', given the inner perfidious nature of the Orc-race, we could more accurately regard Goblins as standing by the same side of our flaming demon: the Evil. So, we do have a thin layer of affiliation, in some ways, despite it being wavering at times. I guess there is enough chance to play with this whole 'shade of grey', for, as you reminded me of, it is not a black-and-white case that we're considering. At the present time, however, all still appears to me too imbalanced from the perspective of the Maia.


--- Zitat ---Moving back onto the concept itself, the Goblins aren't “controlling” the Balrog. The Shaman is using simple theatricality and deception to manipulate the Balrog into turning on the Goblins’ enemies. This could just as easily backfire on the Goblins if they happen to get in the way, fully showing that the Balrog isn’t working with them. In reality, the vanilla power (while iconic) suggests far more that the Balrog is subservient to the Goblins (i.e. the player controlling the Goblins). And if there is an argument saying that the Balrog wouldn’t be able to be deceived in such a way…well Morgoth, Sauron and Saruman were outsmarted and outmaneuvered by others at times, and they were all capable of much higher levels of manipulation (see Aragorn using the Palantir to trick Sauron into attacking Minas Tirith before he is ready or forcing him to move his forces to the Black Gate and leave Mordor open). A Balrog is arguably a simpler target for such tactics.
--- Ende Zitat ---

I dare say that it doesn't import much, whether the shaman's manipulation is to be more of a masquerade/farce or the other way round, being my opposition to the entire masterminding motif quite stark. Let us name it which title we deem fine for the purpose, but the point stays, anyway. The Balrog is going to be tricked into obeying someone else's will, and this 'someone' pales woefully before the magnitude of an entity who is recounted to be older even than time and space, and who can easily decide to take sides during combat, albeit temporarily and not in charge of any host (which is, after all, the task of military leaders). Continuing with my reasoning, it is right to remember the very few times in which the weaker overpowered the stronger by wit or luck; it must also be noted that exceptional events, like those addressed, entail the necessary presence of the superhuman and the sublime. Namely, who, other than the mightiest Elf in the annals, could ever have bested Sauron and his snares, overcome the ferocity of a bloody werewolf, enchanted Morgoth into oblivion, and ultimately conquered the compassion of Mandos himself? This could go for Ar-Pharazôn routing Sauron's innumerable legions just by fear, the fateful duel atop Moria's summit, or even the very mission that Frodo undertook, where the forces of the Good came to be aided by a splendid conjunction of favourable happenings (the awakening of Ents, the Grey Army, the rightful Heir of Men reclaiming his throne,...). In Lúthien's case, she was the harbinger of a destiny going beyond the reach of the Valar themselves.

Now, you may realise that every protagonist being counted among the most memorable figures of Arda's history, embodies capabilities and a fate that a simple Goblin shaman could never stand a chance with. This is the argument at the root of my reply. And, I agree with Necro, when he cites this passage as the most arduous to accept; it is, in my very personal opinion, the weak belly of the holistic construction.


Set counter-arguments aside, I don't want pessimism to seep through my comments, only. I would be glad to hint at possible solutions to keep all our contributions together in the decent manner that the very thread requires.

My proposal:


--- Zitat ---Briefly, I reckon the shaman may well remain and therefore fulfil his duty: not that of a sorcerer-like shaman, but one aligning to the characteristics of an evil grand-priest. The Grand-Priest of the Goblins. That is, an uncanny 'religious' leader, much versed in the occult (though unable to perform direct magic, as we intend it by Tolkien's standards), whose main occupation will be to awake Durin's Bane from his dormant state and win his 'benevolence' through the offering of victims, as the demon's rage is hard to placate and ever longs for preys to incinerate to nothingness.

This is to say that the Balrog will become the de facto god whom Moria's Orcs worship in terror, down the gloom and darkness of the abyss. A mysterious cult, that has them be in wait for such fiery divinity to rise again, or, should we mean to add an alternative spin, that terrifies them all, and it's not uncommon for primitive religions (beliefs) to revolve around the concept of fearing the idol or deity whom its very acolytes revere and pray. Additionally, the lore of evil cults goes back a long time and furnishes us with concrete elements to refer to: the cults dedicated to Morgoth in Númenor, with sacrifice and cruel rites as its key-pillar, or the religion-like, fearful veneration that Evil Men show towards Sauron, who, by consequence, acts both as sovereign and god. In line with such precedents, the Bane might be our fell god presiding over the underworld of Moria, while I would leave it for the player to ask themselves whether the Balrog, from his side, is unconscious or not of his godly status among Goblins, or whether he, too, acts as a deity would in relation to his zealots. Nevertheless, these are questions that might increase the sense of intrigue and serve for the perfect obscure background to operate in.

The task of our grand-priest would thus consist of stirring the beast, drawing his attention, and offering sacrifices, in order to let the player assume total control of the Maia (his benevolence). The current concept already deals with the idea of appeasement and providing offers, but we have to make sure that everything inferring manipulation or deception will be jettisoned for good, together with black magic (in its more traditional connotation). Then, I add, the Bane is not going to deal damage to your forces in any case; were the player to fail to win his support, he will roam the battlefield as their non-playable ally for a while.
--- Ende Zitat ---

--- Ende Zitat ---

Well, first of all, thanks for your input, Walk! Glad to see you offer your thoughts about the suggestion  :) about the points you bring up themselves, I think Oak and Necro have pretty much summed up my feelings on the matter, so I'm not sure I can add anything else  :P anyway, I appreciate you dropping by!


--- Zitat von: Fredius am 15. Feb 2020, 16:00 --- Well well well, thought I would sneak a peak at MU and it seems I found an interesting egg here xD. I would like to express my thoughts on the matter of this concept, though I will keep it brief (EDIT: not so brief as I hoped apparently), so as to not clutter the discussion with even more "points of views".

Firstly, I absolutely love the general outline of this concept, so for starters you can already put me in the in favour group. Regarding the points of what the Shaman's role would be when the Balrog isn't there, or what the powers of the controllable Balrog would be; I am all fine with them so you won't hear me say much about it. I would, however, like to adress the issue of the theme and lore of the concept, and hopefully put both sides' minds at rest.

Thematically, I have to a certain extent agree with Walk that this does not seem like how a Balrog should "fight" the battles for the Goblins. The powers that the Shaman possesses give the impression that he lures (or deceives, however you want to call it) the Balrog into attacking the enemy. However, the way that it is set up contradicts your effort to keep the Balrog a neutral force who doesn't pick a side in the war :P. If the Shaman drops Dwarven prisoners on a certain spot, or dresses Goblins up in Dwarven rags, doesn't that give away that the Balrog sees these Dwarves more of an enemy than it does with the Goblins? I'm not saying this is wrong, and I will get to that later in my post. I understand that he would also kill Orcs in his vicinity, but look at it this way; if you put those Dwarven prisoners at the other side of the map, and the Balrog happened to be closer to your own base, then surely a creature that regards both as an enemy would rather attack the enemy that is closer, right? I know that he can only be summoned near the Shaman, but like I said this is just pure talk on the theme of the concept itself.

Furthermore; Oak gave some examples of how other evil powerful beings (i.e. Sauron and Saruman) were tricked to the extent that they lost the war. However, this is not the same kind of deception as to what is presented in the concept. What we saw in the movies or read in the books were strategic and subtle misdirections that the forces of Good used to change the tide of the war. In this concept, the Balrog is just being baited like a trained dog to attack something, only that this dog can also attack the trainer if he comes too close :P.

To get to my point here, I wouldn't want to change the abilities and powers altogether that you guys came up with, but instead of deception and bait as the main theme of this concept, I would like to propose to change the theme into a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of play. Eventhough the Balrog would kill anything that comes too close to him, I can safely say that he definetly would prioritize killing a Dwarf over an Orc. Why? Because Orcs are Evil, just like him. They are creations of his master, and acted as his allies during the wars of the First Age. So, that the Balrog in this concept prioritizes Dwarven prisoners or illusions over the Goblins themselves, is something I agree with. But instead of having him being "deceived" or "lured" by those prisoners, let it just come from his own will. Basically:

Shaman: Can you 360 no-scope those Dwarves over there plox?
Balrog: Fine, but if you or your kind trespass my safe-space, I will make sure to show you why the chicken did not cross the road.
Shaman: *Dabs while crying.*

There is one thing that I would like to give some more depth in, and that is his level 10 power. The power talks about giving the Balrog an offering so that you can temporarily control him. How about having that offering be a Balrog totem that can be seen in the Third Age PS2 game?


You can also have some Goblin sacrifices bound around it, they can use the same animation as the cocooned soldiers that you have to rescue in the BFME1 Shelob's Lair mission. The sacfice that Walk mentioned can be implemented this way then xD.
--- Ende Zitat ---

Hi, Fredius, and thanks for the support and your input, first of all  :)

You definitely raise some really good points and a nice compromise that helps reconcile Walk's posture and the concept's posture about what the Balrog ability theme should be. I think that "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach is quite interesting, and might work for the better in the suggestion, rather than the Goblins trying to avoid the Balrog while somewhat making it work against their enemies. So I definitely think that is a good solution, and we'll try to remake the power strings and descriptions in accordance with that!

About the level 10, I think that is a good idea, and I'll always be happy with a nod to The Third Age :P the way the ability works originally would be to just buy the temporary upgrade for a single use, on which case the description could be changed to mention the Balrog totem, but maybe it could actually spawn the Balrog totem on the field (like you propose) and make the upgrade be buyable through the totem instead. I think that's a nice compromise indeed, and the goblins part is a good way to include Walk's proposal for sacrifice to be a part of the concept.

Walküre:
Oak:


--- Zitat --- I still believe you're missing the point a little bit. The Balrog "obeying someone else's will" is, in reality, the equivalent of the Shaman making the enemy seem like a much more appealing target. If there are goblins in that area, then the Balrog will not discriminate and will destroy them just as willingly as anyone else.
--- Ende Zitat ---

I go by what is written in the presentation, and manipulation or deception does seem to be prevalent as a core-theme. However varying the degree, the intrinsic substance at the concept's base does not change. Deceiving someone into non-deliberate actions is nothing short of another form of control, subtler and often independent from the victim's realisation of his/her very condition (which makes it extremely wicked). All bonds subsisting by 'virtue' of wile/treachery are inevitably destined to be asymmetrical; it's quite consequential. Deriving from it, it also means that one of the two parties involved in the exchange will in the end thrive to the detriment of the other. That's where lore inaccuracy lies, in my opinion. There would be no fair trade-off, anyway, but it shouldn't be so disproportionately advantageous towards the shaman (on a figurative note, at least). We should shift from the whole notion of deception.


--- Zitat --- Doesn't bringing every achievement down to divine intervention or miracles belittle them a bit? In any sense, the full victories can still be brought down to the Dark Lord's being tricked by others. Saruman was tricked by the Hobbits who brought the ents to his door. It was something as simple as Gimli's complaints that helped bring Saruman to anger and break his spell on the Rohirrim. Sauron attacked Minas Tirith/The Black Gate because Aragorn showed himself in the Palantir. The whole War of the Ring was Gandalf and Aragorn using misdirection against Sauron to draw his attention elsewhere while Frodo reached Mount Doom. The Witch King was defeated because he underestimated those beneath him (i.e. Merry and Eowyn). The conclusion here is that being powerful doesn't mean you're omniscient. They can still be outsmarted and outmaneuvered by others. And for something that, from the information we have, was a lot simpler than Sauron or the dragons, it would be simpler to misdirect it.
--- Ende Zitat ---

Some do not like the overflowing religious inexorability that pervades olden tales, yes. It is why, I suppose, the Silmarillion had been given a lukewarm welcome at the time. I think it all boils down to readers' likings, even though it's not for them to decide what these stories are actually about. The First Age is the quintessential age of the epic, the myth, and the divine. It was made to be so for a reason: the further you progress in time, the more magic and enchantment make space for the disenchanted mundane (while Men become the predominant race in Middle-earth). It glorifies things, I believe; it ennobles them, instead of belittling them. Ancient deeds are what most sacred there might be for the majority of peoples/civilisations.

The War of the Ring is but a piece of that favourable concatenation of events which I spoke of above. Not only was every hero aided by exceptional characters (the true catalyst for change), but everything belonged to a definite arc that was not at all casual. The last pages of the Silmarillion go on to sort of prophesy that victory would be the making of little ones, against all odds. Hobbits themselves are recurrently said to possess capacities that surpass what meets the eye. I don't want to spark another major debate, but predestination is hidden somewhere in the late Third Age as well. Gandalf himself consoles Frodo by saying that he was meant to have the Ring, and that happened in force of some design. The Silmarillion highlights that aspect quite extensively. Just think about Éowyn and her foretold duel (by the words of Glorfindel), also; there are plenty of examples to contemplate, if we are to enter the realm of prediction.

Therefore, you may comprehend that, when we run out of ancient heroes from a lost past, lesser (good) characters nonetheless present a certain story propping them up, whereas a Goblin would be the least imaginable candidate for a role lying out of the ordinary, intertwining with that of a Maia. An entirely fictional character, by the way. Let's put it this way: everyone can be manipulated, but not everyone can manipulate (a Maia) :)


--- Zitat --- Also, I feel that redoing the entire concept to fit your perspective of the scenario may not be the best way of viewing it? Especially considering that it's already gone through quite a lot of support and changes (that still work with the core of the concept) for the short time that it has been on the forums.
--- Ende Zitat ---

I'm simply elaborating on my ideas on how and why this proposal could be restructured differently. Needless to say, my word does not and will never prevail over yours or anybody else's. Feel free to do what you deem best with my thoughts. I hope, at the end of the day, that we shall find a way through our divergences. Reaching compromises is equally integral to joining forum discussions.

It's true, some have already expressed themselves positively, but I would warn against making an argument out of it. The fact that this thread was opened only recently is to me a more than reasonable motive to press on and seize the chance to debate it further; if I had come later to the party, I guess it would have been immensely harder for us all to have fruitful talks.

Nevertheless, I'm always leaving the door ajar for alternatives of various kinds. I just indicated what could represent a nice, conceptual start from which we can move on and perfect Julio's suggestions. Sacrifice, as a main theme, can be scrapped and concentrate more upon the religious side of our shaman/grand-priest. Namely, what if he were to unlock different types of rituals as he levels up? Once he gets to level 10, his prayer will finally gain the Balrog's favour and bring the deity to your side (the threat of incurring his wrath may stay, if you aim to come up with risk/reward mechanics). Whatever our eventual decision be, I'm going to think about other variations in the meantime.

Lest I lose myself in the usual boring essay, I now summarise in plain fashion what of my concept I believe answers our needs more efficiently:

• On top of all, we would extricate ourselves from that lore controversy that I kept talking about so far. Plus, the shaman would be appointed to a proper, more defined role, where direct magic or supernatural skills play no part.
• Evil cults being celebrated in the deep of the mine's abyss, sounds definitely more intriguing, arcane, and, last but not least, plausible. As said, it references very interesting sections of the canons: sacrificial rites in Númenor, within the broader belief in the Evil, and the dual status of the Dark Lord, as both king and god, among the brutish Men at his command.
• By nature, Goblins are absolutely more prone to fearful reverence or even subjugation in regards to a superior, divine entity. They thus suffer such relationship, rather than profiting from it as the dominant party. No trick or trap, here.
• We are finally provided with a clear hierarchy linking the two sides to each other. The dreadful god at the top, and his frightened serfs at the bottom. The shaman, prostrate and in self-abasement, embodies the exact bridge between the godly and the terrene.

I feel the current concept does not manage to explain the real source of the shaman's powers, the bond between the Balrog and Goblins is quite blurred, therefore unclear, and I still worry about lore disruptions getting in our way.


Julio:


--- Zitat --- Well, first of all, thanks for your input, Walk! Glad to see you offer your thoughts about the suggestion  :) about the points you bring up themselves, I think Oak and Necro have pretty much summed up my feelings on the matter, so I'm not sure I can add anything else  :P anyway, I appreciate you dropping by!
--- Ende Zitat ---

And I thank you for kindling my interest in forum debates once more. It was a pleasure to stop by and make my voice be heard. If anything, adding as many contributions as we can to the topic will do nothing else than good; I’m certain of it. As I replied to Oak, the concept itself sounds extremely well-thought, game-wise, and it surely succeeds in trying to bring something really unique to life. My concerns addressed the lore behind it, and I strove to head to another direction. I would like to say, though, that I don’t expect every single one of my considerations to be taken into account. If you consider your final plans worthy of being implemented as it stands, go for it; I can only imagine the vast amount of effort that’s been poured into your proposal. In the end, the last word on the matter is to be the team’s and nobody else’s :)

Julio229:

--- Zitat von: Walküre am 15. Feb 2020, 20:58 --- Oak:


--- Zitat --- I still believe you're missing the point a little bit. The Balrog "obeying someone else's will" is, in reality, the equivalent of the Shaman making the enemy seem like a much more appealing target. If there are goblins in that area, then the Balrog will not discriminate and will destroy them just as willingly as anyone else.
--- Ende Zitat ---

I go by what is written in the presentation, and manipulation or deception does seem to be prevalent as a core-theme. However varying the degree, the intrinsic substance at the concept's base does not change. Deceiving someone into non-deliberate actions is nothing short of another form of control, subtler and often independent from the victim's realisation of his/her very condition (which makes it extremely wicked). All bonds subsisting by 'virtue' of wile/treachery are inevitably destined to be asymmetrical; it's quite consequential. Deriving from it, it also means that one of the two parties involved in the exchange will in the end thrive to the detriment of the other. That's where lore inaccuracy lies, in my opinion. There would be no fair trade-off, anyway, but it shouldn't be so disproportionately advantageous towards the shaman (on a figurative note, at least). We should shift from the whole notion of deception.


--- Zitat --- Doesn't bringing every achievement down to divine intervention or miracles belittle them a bit? In any sense, the full victories can still be brought down to the Dark Lord's being tricked by others. Saruman was tricked by the Hobbits who brought the ents to his door. It was something as simple as Gimli's complaints that helped bring Saruman to anger and break his spell on the Rohirrim. Sauron attacked Minas Tirith/The Black Gate because Aragorn showed himself in the Palantir. The whole War of the Ring was Gandalf and Aragorn using misdirection against Sauron to draw his attention elsewhere while Frodo reached Mount Doom. The Witch King was defeated because he underestimated those beneath him (i.e. Merry and Eowyn). The conclusion here is that being powerful doesn't mean you're omniscient. They can still be outsmarted and outmaneuvered by others. And for something that, from the information we have, was a lot simpler than Sauron or the dragons, it would be simpler to misdirect it.
--- Ende Zitat ---

Some do not like the overflowing religious inexorability that pervades olden tales, yes. It is why, I suppose, the Silmarillion had been given a lukewarm welcome at the time. I think it all boils down to readers' likings, even though it's not for them to decide what these stories are actually about. The First Age is the quintessential age of the epic, the myth, and the divine. It was made to be so for a reason: the further you progress in time, the more magic and enchantment make space for the disenchanted mundane (while Men become the predominant race in Middle-earth). It glorifies things, I believe; it ennobles them, instead of belittling them. Ancient deeds are what most sacred there might be for the majority of peoples/civilisations.

The War of the Ring is but a piece of that favourable concatenation of events which I spoke of above. Not only was every hero aided by exceptional characters (the true catalyst for change), but everything belonged to a definite arc that was not at all casual. The last pages of the Silmarillion go on to sort of prophesy that victory would be the making of little ones, against all odds. Hobbits themselves are recurrently said to possess capacities that surpass what meets the eye. I don't want to spark another major debate, but predestination is hidden somewhere in the late Third Age as well. Gandalf himself consoles Frodo by saying that he was meant to have the Ring, and that happened in force of some design. The Silmarillion highlights that aspect quite extensively. Just think about Éowyn and her foretold duel (by the words of Glorfindel), also; there are plenty of examples to contemplate, if we are to enter the realm of prediction.

Therefore, you may comprehend that, when we run out of ancient heroes from a lost past, lesser (good) characters nonetheless present a certain story propping them up, whereas a Goblin would be the least imaginable candidate for a role lying out of the ordinary, intertwining with that of a Maia. An entirely fictional character, by the way. Let's put it this way: everyone can be manipulated, but not everyone can manipulate (a Maia) :)


--- Zitat --- Also, I feel that redoing the entire concept to fit your perspective of the scenario may not be the best way of viewing it? Especially considering that it's already gone through quite a lot of support and changes (that still work with the core of the concept) for the short time that it has been on the forums.
--- Ende Zitat ---

I'm simply elaborating on my ideas on how and why this proposal could be restructured differently. Needless to say, my word does not and will never prevail over yours or anybody else's. Feel free to do what you deem best with my thoughts. I hope, at the end of the day, that we shall find a way through our divergences. Reaching compromises is equally integral to joining forum discussions.

It's true, some have already expressed themselves positively, but I would warn against making an argument out of it. The fact that this thread was opened only recently is to me a more than reasonable motive to press on and seize the chance to debate it further; if I had come later to the party, I guess it would have been immensely harder for us all to have fruitful talks.

Nevertheless, I'm always leaving the door ajar for alternatives of various kinds. I just indicated what could represent a nice, conceptual start from which we can move on and perfect Julio's suggestions. Sacrifice, as a main theme, can be scrapped and concentrate more upon the religious side of our shaman/grand-priest. Namely, what if he were to unlock different types of rituals as he levels up? Once he gets to level 10, his prayer will finally gain the Balrog's favour and bring the deity to your side (the threat of incurring his wrath may stay, if you aim to come up with risk/reward mechanics). Whatever our eventual decision be, I'm going to think about other variations in the meantime.

Lest I lose myself in the usual boring essay, I now summarise in plain fashion what of my concept I believe answers our needs more efficiently:

• On top of all, we would extricate ourselves from that lore controversy that I kept talking about so far. Plus, the shaman would be appointed to a proper, more defined role, where direct magic or supernatural skills play no part.
• Evil cults being celebrated in the deep of the mine's abyss, sounds definitely more intriguing, arcane, and, last but not least, plausible. As said, it references very interesting sections of the canons: sacrificial rites in Númenor, within the broader belief in the Evil, and the dual status of the Dark Lord, as both king and god, among the brutish Men at his command.
• By nature, Goblins are absolutely more prone to fearful reverence or even subjugation in regards to a superior, divine entity. They thus suffer such relationship, rather than profiting from it as the dominant party. No trick or trap, here.
• We are finally provided with a clear hierarchy linking the two sides to each other. The dreadful god at the top, and his frightened serfs at the bottom. The shaman, prostrate and in self-abasement, embodies the exact bridge between the godly and the terrene.

I feel the current concept does not manage to explain the real source of the shaman's powers, the bond between the Balrog and Goblins is quite blurred, therefore unclear, and I still worry about lore disruptions getting in our way.


Julio:


--- Zitat --- Well, first of all, thanks for your input, Walk! Glad to see you offer your thoughts about the suggestion  :) about the points you bring up themselves, I think Oak and Necro have pretty much summed up my feelings on the matter, so I'm not sure I can add anything else  :P anyway, I appreciate you dropping by!
--- Ende Zitat ---

And I thank you for kindling my interest in forum debates once more. It was a pleasure to stop by and make my voice be heard. If anything, adding as many contributions as we can to the topic will do nothing else than good; I’m certain of it. As I replied to Oak, the concept itself sounds extremely well-thought, game-wise, and it surely succeeds in trying to bring something really unique to life. My concerns addressed the lore behind it, and I strove to head to another direction. I would like to say, though, that I don’t expect every single one of my considerations to be taken into account. If you consider your final plans worthy of being implemented as it stands, go for it; I can only imagine the vast amount of effort that’s been poured into your proposal. In the end, the last word on the matter is to be the team’s and nobody else’s :)
--- Ende Zitat ---

On the topic of the deception theme, I believe Fredius' idea to tweak the concept and make it into a more "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" relationship instead of "manipulation", so to speak, is a very nice compromise between your thoughts on the matter and what Oak, Necro and me think. Feel free to check that out, I found it to be a very good idea keeping in line with that  :)

Walküre:
Yes, that could be a promising beginning. I think I’ll now wait a bit for further developments and let you mould a clearer design. If I’m allowed a sole, innocent wish, it would be great to explore the shaman’s side-status as a grand-priest overseeing bloody rituals beneath the earth, in the very recess of the world. On the other hand, at variance with Smaug, Durin’s Bane will surge to become the de facto god of the Misty Mountains. It would be wonderful to dig into the tradition of evil cults in Arda, and the demon’s angelic nature does support such an interpretation. All three souls of the faction will be fairly distinguished from each other: Goblins/Orcs, the Dragon, and the devilish Deity :)

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[#] Nächste Seite

[*] Vorherige Sete