...oh yeah, and poor monks again...they don't even get an analogy.

---

>Kayse scrambles to avoid being sucked into the void!

I think the motivation for making Smeagol a capped Rogue is that even Aragorn had difficulties finding and nabbing him. Granted, since Frodo and Sam were able to fight him off (together), I suppose this could be a bit questionable.

Every elf in the series has to be post-cap.

- Guards haul off the stupid corpse. -

>I think mainly Sam and Frodo can fight him off because 1) Frodo has the ring and 2) By the end in Mordor, he's very starved etc; not sure how to represent that latter one precisely in GS terms, but there are plenty of ways to imagine it. Huge death's sting and no nodes

I think you're (in general, not YOU Daid) missing the best part of this type of conversation.

Mutant training choices.

Ineffective post cap character? What'd you do, put all your TP's in Arcane Symbols?? Haha?!

Smeagol's Stats are not maximized for growth (or if GS had such a mechanism, age actually debilitates some stats)(or you know, one of Kenstrom's evil effects following a quest, where your character has a penalty and random RT because he entered the spirit land, aka "interviewed by Saruman"), and he put all his TP's into Survival, Climbing, Swimming, Hiding/Stalking, Harness Power and Lores (but he doesn't know any spells!), and he only 1x'd his weapon use. So, he's weak and ineffective with a weapon, but MAN is he good at hiding and climbing.

Follow?

Legolas makes MFIRE look much better than it really is. 3 second RT!

Point being, take some of the more unusual mutant builds and see what they are weak at - extrapolate from there. My post cap ranger doesn't know 125, surely some of the LOTR characters aren't perfectly trained, either. In fact, from a purely fiction writing perspective, it's generally the weaknesses that make a character interesting/relatable - I am SURE that can be applied towards GS training paths.

---

~ Bill, Coyote.

The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination.
~ Voltaire

>In fact, from a purely fiction writing perspective, it's generally the weaknesses that make a character interesting/relatable

An interesting observation, but one that I personally disagree with.

One of my favorite aspects of LotR is that its characters are resolved to their respective purposes, and at the height of their powers. What weakness there is, usually stems from opposition to an external and greater force. My greatest objection to the movies was in how they corrupted so many strong characterizations into ones filled with those "interesting" and "relatable" weaknesses.

Aragorn is the most prominent example. As written by Tolkien, he has firmly chosen his course and doesn't waver for an instant in his goals to defeat Mordor, claim his kingship, reunite Gondor and Arnor, and wed Arwen. He works for decades at this goal, and the events of LotR are the natural continuation of how he has spent his life. As interpreted by Jackson, he constantly whines that he doesn't want to become king, and shows only the leadership that is forced upon him by circumstances (usually in the form of Gandalf or Elrond). It makes the movies much weaker than they should have been.

The worst corruption was undoubtedly of Denethor and Faramir; I can never quite decide which one came off worse in the movies. They were both far better in the original story than they were portrayed on film.

Perhaps not quite on topic for the original thread, but by coincidence I've been watching the three movies again recently (the first half of RotK just tonight, and the last half will be tomorrow night), and as usual, got aggravated at the movie-imposed weaknesses.

>>In fact, from a purely fiction writing perspective, it's generally the weaknesses that make a character interesting/relatable

>An interesting observation, but one that I personally disagree with.

Hmm. Excellent response!

I will concede that Jackson's interpretation of the writing went too far, in his attempt to create conflict and melodrama on the big screen. I have always been disturbed by the relative fruitiness of the Hobbits and the relative comic relief of the Dwarves, something that I, in my own fantasy fiction writing, have strived to work hard against, while still trying to hold true to the "idea" of those races, and what they represent (which, of course, is subject to incredible interpretation, whether or not Jackson-ish).

In the fiction writing "tips" section of the internet, which is tremendously overloaded and repetitious, it is basically a mantra that a character must be flawed. No one wants to read about the perfectly handsome man/woman with the perfectly balanced skill set, who can kill an Orc with his/her bare hands and cook a perfect meal and of course, he/she is the perfect lover. No, he/she must be flawed, challenged by the events and circumstances of the story, and it must seem that he/she may actually be unable to complete the challenge at hand - BUT - with the help of (whatever global thematic element) the challenges are overcome and the flawed hero wins the day.

I'm certain that's what Jackson was trying to achieve, and I agree he went too far. However, I enjoy the movies, because the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous, and I can appreciate the interpretation, even if that's not how I would do it.

In the vein of this thread, with LOTR characters translated to GS terms, their relative excellence and skills would be "balanced" by their statistical and training weaknesses, i.e., there's only so many training points, and ... I stand by my point in this. That neither Frodo nor Samwise are anywhere near capped, nor Smeagol (albeit older and more experienced and therefore higher level), and that they achieve what they do (whether in movie or book) is made more poignant because of their relative weakness, and the impossibility of their tasks.

In GS terms, it's a 40 training character surviving a foray into the Rift, and living to tell about it. That's an interesting story. A 2x capped character hunting in the Rift - can - be interesting, but it won't be - as - interesting.

---

~ Bill, Coyote.

The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination.
~ Voltaire