Board Thread:General Mod Discussion/@comment-25981649-20170215202502/@comment-25012056-20170221124145

Gandalfthegreatestwizard- EpicMithrandir wrote: High King Ithilion wrote: I think it's okay to expand on what we don't know, so long as it is done conservatively. For example, I helped Grievous come up with names for several Nazgul. All of them could concieveably be in the lore itself, so I'm okay with that. As long as it isn't a major focus of the game, it's fine. But if we're creating huge, detailed Rhunic histories, monsters in the Harad, or Mallorn Ents, then we've gone too far.

Ithilion, Discussions Moderator (Auta i lome) 03:23, February 21, 2017 (UTC) Exactly. Conservative is the operative word.

On a side note,  why would you need the names of the Nazgul? I mean, when added they don't each need to have their own names. They can simply be Nazgul. Can't they?

Well, we have the name of one and the race of three. We can't just leave the backstories of what I would consider major characters half-done for the mod. Now, I find it likely that the Nazgûl themselves would be known as the Nazgûl with titles (The Witch-King, the Black Easterling, the Dawndeath, etc), but the factions they would have came from could reference the original names in tales or city names (such as Khamûl's Tower.) Even though getting the Nazgûl stories done isn't what the mod team is going for right now, names allow for greater depth with the factions.

Gen. Grievous1138 (LOTR Mod Wiki Admin) comlink 12:41, February 21, 2017 (UTC)