Oak:
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.
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.
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.
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) :)
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.
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:
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!
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 :)