Give us an option to turn beards off on females please. ( except dwarfs )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khazvere

These forums are not the place to discuss faith or the supposed veracity of religious texts either.

---

Correct. Which is why I offered for you to send me a DM if you wish to discuss it.


Now...back to the topic of "bearded ladies added to LOTRO"...

Indeed, no need in this thread for assertions about any religious text being the most historical book there is.

As a hypothetical: let's assume the devs are going to make similar appearance updates to the other races. Now, if player representation and identity are all-important, then how do you think the following should be handled?

- should races/genders that don't have beards be given them as an option, just because the player may have a beard and that's part of how they express their identity? Yes or no?

- likewise, should all Dwarves be allowed the option to be beardless because the player may not have a beard and that's important to them? Yes or no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

As a hypothetical: let's assume the devs are going to make similar appearance updates to the other races. Now, if player representation and identity are all-important, then how do you think the following should be handled?

- should races/genders that don't have beards be given them as an option, just because the player may have a beard and that's part of how they express their identity? Yes or no?

- likewise, should all Dwarves be allowed the option to be beardless because the player may not have a beard and that's important to them? Yes or no?

---

I'd add the ability to scale your characters, regardless of race. For instance I'm rather tall, but I really enjoy playing hobbits. I insist that I should be able to play as a six foot two hobbit ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khazvere

These forums are not the place to discuss faith or the supposed veracity of religious texts either.

---

You can't blame players because it was devs who open Pandora's Box to add more "real life" issues into fantasy game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmagor

You can't blame players because it was devs who open Pandora's Box to add more "real life" issues into fantasy game

---

No actually, I recall seeing threads where some players did request more diversity. Not saying that was the sole reason for new changes. People ever wished for various things - some of it more, some less, fitting in the world. It has been a constant compromise and as things pile up, we all experience that last drop, so to speak, in different places.

For me, the game was most Tolkien I could find, outside of the books. Not exactly the lore, nor was I strongly bent on it, but kept the spirit of it for most part, something I would like to see going. It is like traveling to another country, real and/or imaginary, where I go to experience what is still authentic and unique. Both roses and thorns. Perhaps selfish of me, but so are the others with their own wishes, so I'll call it equal :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfhelm

I'd add the ability to scale your characters, regardless of race. For instance I'm rather tall, but I really enjoy playing hobbits. I insist that I should be able to play as a six foot two hobbit ;)

---

lol Exactly. In the past I've always said, "Don't give the Devs any crazy new ideas!" But after seeing bearded ladies...six foot Hobbits doesn't seem nearly so bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

As a hypothetical: let's assume the devs are going to make similar appearance updates to the other races. Now, if player representation and identity are all-important, then how do you think the following should be handled?

- should races/genders that don't have beards be given them as an option, just because the player may have a beard and that's part of how they express their identity? Yes or no?

- likewise, should all Dwarves be allowed the option to be beardless because the player may not have a beard and that's important to them? Yes or no?

---

No to both. Neither are human, therefore, can never represent a player. The current changes were added to more diversely represent players. AKA, Humans. Dwarfism is real in the human race in RL, so there could be an argument produced for a human in that case, but from a standpoint of the race of dwarf, the make believe kind in Tolkien's works, then no.

Lots of folk dodging around what they really want to say. Cowardly if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

As a hypothetical: let's assume the devs are going to make similar appearance updates to the other races. Now, if player representation and identity are all-important, then how do you think the following should be handled?

- should races/genders that don't have beards be given them as an option, just because the player may have a beard and that's part of how they express their identity? Yes or no?

- likewise, should all Dwarves be allowed the option to be beardless because the player may not have a beard and that's important to them? Yes or no?

---

The devs made a decision. They want everything open. Nothing limited but all cultural/ethnic options open no matter your choice of character. Have everything open then, I say. And sure as hell I don't wanna see any other race such as Stout-axe which would equal a cash grab and a massive disfiguration of the creation panel on top of what they already did - since now, it can all be handled under one mishmash creation panel, then this is how it should be done, so there is some consistency here and a rule to the madness. Having one treatment for one race and different for another would be bonkers. You can't have your cake and eat it too. PS: I know it's controversial and all that, but at this point rainbow hair wouldn't bother me either. Hey, it's the same argument -> Anyone hardly looks at other characters, so anything goes. Not like I need them to add them but wouldn't surprise me if they did, and would hardly change much, considering where we are.

Personally, I would have done it differently, and had some origin-defined uniqueness, even if with slightly extended ranges of options than before, but well, we are where we are. So...

It's all fine and makes sense for business... as long as they build a variety of cultural in-universe choices (including hairstyles, beards etc) to tap into what their game is actually all about, plus interesting, appealing, more detailed origins adequate to all possible character generations (plenty to choose from at that, I would hope). Then they can add rainbow colors all they want, since there would be adequate rpg options for players who want to immerse themselves in this specific world and descriptive pointers for them to be able to do so. So the game won't be behind any other game in this regard and if there is one thing I wish for the game is that it doesn't look like some half-baked, laughable product, only inclusive to those super familiar with it, that hardly conveys a sense of what it's all about and what lore it offers (which is how it looks like now, if judged by confusing mishmash creation options and piss-poor 2 sentence long 4 western origins to choose from).

Oh, and of course... I would still expect the usual coherent, thoughtful treatment for landscape and NPCs.


PS: What they could add to make some lore guidance would be pictures of NPCs or characters generated with accordance with their lore under different origins labels - so even if they have "whatever goes" (beardless dwarf female, and equally beardless males) the suggestion of female on said picture is a proper bearded dwarf female (hopefully unlike Fastrith...) and bearded dwarf male, both in accordance with their origins, so the general inspiration ideas could differ for Longbeards, Stout-axes, Zhelruka etc and from there a guided player can create something of their own to uphold the idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TesalionLortus

The devs made a decision. They want everything open. Nothing limited but all cultural/ethnic options open no matter your choice of character. Have everything open then, I say. And sure as hell I don't wanna see any other race such as Stout-axe which would equal a cash grab and a massive disfiguration of the creation panel on top of what they already did - since now, it can all be handled under one mishmash creation panel, then this is how it should be done, so there is some consistency here and a rule to the madness. Having one treatment for one race and different for another would be bonkers. You can't have your cake and eat it too. PS: I know it's controversial and all that, but at this point rainbow hair wouldn't bother me either. Hey, it's the same argument -> Anyone hardly looks at other characters, so anything goes. Not like I need them to add them but wouldn't surprise me if they did, and would hardly change much, considering where we are.

Personally, I would have done it differently, and had some origin-defined uniqueness, even if with slightly extended ranges of options than before, but well, we are where we are. So...

It's all fine and makes sense for business... as long as they build a variety of cultural in-universe choices (including hairstyles, beards etc) to tap into what their game is actually all about, plus interesting, appealing, more detailed origins adequate to all possible character generations (plenty to choose from at that, I would hope). Then they can add rainbow colors all they want, since there would be adequate rpg options for players who want to immerse themselves in this specific world and descriptive pointers for them to be able to do so. So the game won't be behind any other game in this regard and if there is one thing I wish for the game is that it doesn't look like some half-baked, laughable product, only inclusive to those super familiar with it, that hardly conveys a sense of what it's all about and what lore it offers (which is how it looks like now, if judged by confusing mishmash creation options and piss-poor 2 sentence long 4 western origins to choose from).

Oh, and of course... I would still expect the usual coherent, thoughtful treatment for landscape and NPCs.


PS: What they could add to make some lore guidance would be pictures of NPCs or characters generated with accordance with their lore under different origins labels - so even if they have "whatever goes" (beardless dwarf female, and equally beardless males) the suggestion of female on said picture is a proper bearded dwarf female (hopefully unlike Fastrith...) and bearded dwarf male, both in accordance with their origins, so the general inspiration ideas could differ for Longbeards, Stout-axes, Zhelruka etc and from there a guided player can create something of their own to uphold the idea

---

I'm not aware of any decision or announcement that they have made to open character creation to represent the players - for all races. I must have missed that. All I've seen is a statement that simply applies to human characters, so that they can represent the humans that play them. The update was to represent the playebase, not game characters. AFAIA, there are no elves, hobbits or Tolkien Dwarves in the real world, to represent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnenna

I'm not aware of any decision or announcement that they have made to open character creation to represent the players - for all races. I must have missed that. All I've seen is a statement that simply applies to human characters, so that they can represent the humans that play them. The update was to represent the playebase, not game characters. AFAIA, there are no elves, hobbits or Tolkien Dwarves in the real world, to represent.

---

Apply the context to what I said. This is just word play now but meaningless without context. I think I expressed well enough why I think it's either one way or the other, not some bonkers detachment of one race but not others, and maybe then also throw in a River Hobbit as a new race with their own new options? = Complete utter chaos and mismatch between how everything is being set up and what are the customization rules/options/limitations, and even more confusing to every single newbie who would like to somewhat grasp a sense of this world during character creation process.



Here is what I would do going forward:

- Stout-Axe, in a stretched way, kinda makes sense to remain detached from dwarves, since the actual Kambrada still exist, so Kambrada can be used as origins under regular dwarf race, but captivity in Mordor origin isn't exactly too typical and not something denizens of Middle-earth would just know about, so doesn't need to be there under regular dwarf race. And captivity in Mordor is certainly something unique here, so ok, let's leave it as a "race."

- High Elves, while technically just elves, do make sense for race due to their mythical origins and witnessing the Light

- and so do Beornings because of shape-shifting.

Going forward, not sure if they can come up with anything adequate for a race and creating a "River Hobbit" as a race is stupid, seeing how with the right customization options delivered to hobbits you should be already able to make a "River Hobbit" of any skin tone if combined with upcoming "Corsair" class, for example. What would be the point of such a race other than a lousy cash grab? Note that the appeal of all new races were their unique looks and new racial options, but since now they opened these up for free... you wanna tell me they won't offer the same treatment for other races and will keep coming up with play pretend "races" just to charge us for new looks and skin tones? No way! Riot! So... of course this should not happen.

As for any mechanics, same can be achieved through a new class, even to a better extent. So perhaps a class inspired by a River Hobbit ideas, released together with some additional cool customizations for hobbits to enrich said "river" hobbit customization options on a regular hobbit, is far more valuable addition. An excuse to deliver some cool, more specific options for free for everyone and make certain creations possible on a race of hobbits, but you're still offering something in terms of mechanics with this new class, so that's how you get the buyers. Say, they can add a new caster or hunter/javelin inspired class based on Easterling or Haradrim culture, and with that come some cool new options for the race of men, based around said culture/class. Adding new "races" makes little sense at this point. It would only make things worse and more laughable.

And under each race there should be adequate origins of course, with rich descriptions and even images of lore-accurate appearances as some pointers to give a general feel of said people and how they generally look like in the lore, as to satisfy rpg character creation factor and allow players to immerse themselves according to the rules of the setting. Plus, maybe for specific ones like High Elves and Stout-Axes (to lesser extend Beornings) they could still keep some limits, to still make them distinct and meaningful, in accordance with what they represent in the lore in a highly specific way, since they're not just a bland "race" (dwarf, hobbit, elf, man) but a highly specific thing of their own.

That's really like the only sensible way to do it and do it good, if we're talking some quality and clarity. I would very much like this game to appear decently and like there is some nice quality behind it that makes it stand out - in a good, immersive way - from the very first moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TesalionLortus

Apply the context to what I said. This is just word play now but meaningless without context. I think I expressed well enough why I think it's either one way or the other, not some bonkers detachment of one race but not others, and maybe then also throw in a River Hobbit as a new race with their own new options? = Complete utter chaos and mismatch between how everything is being set up and what are the customization rules/options/limitations, and even more confusing to every single newbie who would like to somewhat grasp a sense of this world during character creation process.

---

How is it bonkers? They can only represent RL people through human characters. You know, because only humans are playing the game.

Now, I'm not saying that they shouldn't introduce other options for other races, but then, it will very much be about character representation, not player representation. That means, they will have to stick quite tightly to lore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnenna

How is it bonkers? They can only represent RL people through human characters. You know, because only humans are playing the game.

Now, I'm not saying that they shouldn't introduce other options for other races, but then, it will very much be about character representation, not player representation. That means, they will have to stick quite tightly to lore.

---

That this kind of separation in a computer game with a great focus on story and such, with great worldbuilding, even works in your mind and seems acceptable considering new players who might not even be familiar with Tolkien as much and may want to approach/learn it like they do any other game worlds, that's a bit "off" yes. And far from a good quality standard. See, that's a problem, human characters should be given some lore ties too, it's wrong if there aren't any at all. Likewise, if there are such open options with humans, then other races deserve those too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TesalionLortus

That this kind of separation in a computer game with a great focus on story and such, with great worldbuilding, even works in your mind and seems acceptable considering new players who might not even be familiar with Tolkien as much and may want to approach/learn it like they do any other game worlds, that's a bit "off" yes. And far from a good quality standard. See, that's a problem, human characters should be given some lore ties too, it's wrong if there aren't any at all. Likewise, if there are such open options with humans, then other races deserve those too.

---

Well, I don't know what to say to you to make it feel any better. When it comes to human representation, as in real people, not game characters, they can't pick and choose. They either have to cover all bases, or leave well alone and cover none. This update covers people of colour and also the LGBTQ community, because no doubt, people from both those groups play the game.

I'd argue alonside you for many options for other races in the game. Elves should be able to have much longer hair for example. Hobbits should be able to have browner skin, to reflect the differences between Sam and Frodo, is another. And lots more.

But those races can never represent the player base. The player base is 100% human. The other LOTRO races are fictional, not real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnenna

But those races can never represent the player base. The player base is 100% human.

---

Not true. If someone wants to be a hobbit but see/reflect their IRL self/skin but as a hobbit, the same rules apply. Furthermore, you can't make a one-sided argument like that and claim it's just about reflecting real world humans, and use it as a shield to withhold options from other races because there are plenty of players who will happily use these new options on humans for all sorts of RP (even if some options are still lacking, but still) and would expect the same standard on other races too. That's what I meant. Btw, you don't have to make me "feel better" about any of this. Like, I'm not saying any of this to lament my personal satisfaction, it's more like I have genuine worry about the game's quality/first impression, because as I said, it's not common in any of these other games, and far from industry standard, this level of chaos and mismatch. So hopefully they'll provide it attention it needs and make sense of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TesalionLortus

Not true.

---

It's not true that the player base is 100% human?

Okay :)

Excuse me then while I go have some deep thoughts about RL hobbits and Elves, sitting at their computers, playing LOTRO.

Why you so angry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnenna

It's not true that the player base is 100% human?

Okay :)

Excuse me then while I go have some deep thoughts about RL hobbits and Elves, sitting at their computers, playing LOTRO.

---

It was about that first sentence rather than the latter, and you should know it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TesalionLortus

It was about that first sentence rather than the latter, and you should know it ;)

---

That's the thing. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is only one way to represent human beings in a game, and that is via human characters. Only humans play video games. Elves don't exist, so they don't, Hobbit's don't exist, so they don't either. Dwarves (fictional race) don't exist either, so they don't play video games. They are not part of the player base - which is 100% human.

The update was to better represent the player base (the humans that play it). It wasn't to better represent the races of Middle-earth.

What is it that you don't get about that?

I'm sure new options will arrive for other races in game soon enough. Who knows, they may go bonkers and ignore lore on those, or they may not. That's something to face when it gets here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnenna

That's the thing. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. There is only one way to represent human beings in a game, and that is via human characters. Only humans play video games. Elves don't exist, so they don't, Hobbit's don't exist, so they don't either. Dwarves (fictional race) don't exist either, so they don't play video games. They are not part of the player base - which is 100% human.

The update was to better represent the player base (the humans that play it). It wasn't to better represent the races of Middle-earth.

What is it that you don't get about that?

I'm sure new options will arrive for other races in game soon enough. Who knows, they may go bonkers and ignore lore on those, or they may not. That's something to face when it gets here.

---

Not sure what I can say if you don't understand the meaning by now. Think of something like the Witcher or any other series with colorful casting - people do feel represented by black elves or asian dwarves, this factor is not just limited to humans. By this virtue better representation of the player base (yes, humans) extends to all human-like races too (but not necessarily to something vastly different like ugly orcs, aliens, entire different species with no human characteristics etc)

Well, the thing is they don't need to go "bonkers" - even if they open these options up, there can still be a sensible method to it that includes the lore. They can do both, that's all I was saying, in summary, and it can still be done for humans, to include both.

This thread really reminds me of Intel's "Bleep" debacle. It's comedy gold if nothing else. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arnenna

I'm not aware of any decision or announcement that they have made to open character creation to represent the players - for all races.

---

It was said, I believe, in one of the streams. I recall them saying that it will not come fast but with time, so no date attached to it yet. And we don't know anything about new cosmetic looks for other races.

Since this conversation has long and repeatedly devolved into racism, homophobia, and religious debate, it is now closed.