The beards on female humans is a symbolic update that heralds huge changes

[Radhruin_EU]

Will invalidating people because of how they look make LOTRO a more welcoming community?

Nobody's 'invalidated' if they can't directly reflect their RL identity in a roleplaying game. <--- Do you even understand the concept?

[Arnenna]

Go back and read that in the context of the entire sentence rather than picking a out a single phrase and generalizing it. Of course I was referring to confidence in a very limited statement respresenting the views of most of the people being accused of vile things by you and others in this thread simply for being opposed to insertion of a RL ideology into a pre-modern setting. This is extrapolated from the reasons others have also given for their opposition, which is that anything added to the game needs to be at least plausible in the context of Middle Earth or have a very good gameplay-related reason for existing.

On the contrary, you wrote . . . . "Despite what we critics of this patch are being accused of, I feel confident speaking for most of us",

Well, I'm a critic of the latest patch too. I wish for them to allow players the continued use of the old avatar options. If the patch is to nail representation, then those players deserve to have the old looks that they love, available to them. I don't understand why they want them, because to me, they are dated and old looking, but, they like them, that's what counts. I haven't accused anyone of anything either, vile or otherwise, so please retract your statement. Agreeing that SSG have made the right move with their new options, does not equate to accusation (vile or otherwise) of those that oppose them.

The reason for such things existing is that they very much did exist in RL at the time. Sure they weren't classified at the time, nor now for most part, but that doesn't erase them from history.

There's also a massive difference between being able to have some visible facial hair and growing a long, thick beard.

A person assigned male gender at birth, but has chosen to identify as female, has zero problem growing a full, thick beard.

There's already much better "trans representation" in the game in the form of the paid race change, which allows you to change your character's sex. That's a highly-requested feature in every MMO and has a practical reason no one can argue with: business. This nonsensical addition, on the other hand, is just another attempt in a long line of appropriating history and established literature to push gender theory where it doesn't belong.

Not the same though. If a player wishes to represent as female, meaning a female looking form, a female sounding name, female styled hair and eyes, padded undergarments and a face full of hair, they should be able to, and without cost.

[Arnenna]

Nobody's 'invalidated' if they can't directly reflect their RL identity in a roleplaying game. <--- Do you even understand the concept?

Not all players play the RP side of the game though. That's why we have a /RP on/off switch. Some want to reflect their own identity in their characters, whether you agree with it or not. It's well known fact. Now, they can, a little bit more than they could, and that's a good thing.

[infinitewhimsy]

I'll just leave this here.

Something for the bored boomers who actually believe they can get SSG to reverse a decision through arguments or some vague notion of majority pressure to think about. If such a thing were possible we would never have come to this pass to begin with.

In the end you're just going to go in circles arguing with ideologues, who are probably more angry at the world than at you or even the topic at hand. It's a total waste of time.

[TesalionLortus]

All your posts, from when the Rings of Power was first started, are
attempts to white wash anything Tolkien wrote into cuddly white english bs.

So, how about you stop appropriating the anti-racist Tolkien to suit your political agenda?

Not going to feed any more fuel into this because obviously it makes no sense and you conveniently keep omitting all nuances pointed out (apparently already forgot about the one pointed out by myself and Phantion in their nice big rant no less, and that's despite the fact you actually agreed with the latter), but let's just say this: Radh and I have had our differences (and they can be stubborn, like very strict and a little bit unnerving sometimes ; ) ) but you're seriously reaching here, there was never any "agenda" - oh, but it bothers you people did not like RoP's take on things, I see, and that there are actually some decent arguments against it, that's the issue? LOTRO should handle everything like RoP then, from this point onward? Is that it? Well, I'm sorry but if we're talking about agenda... I wonder where is the real agenda

Not all players play the RP side of the game though. That's why we have a /RP on/off switch.

Don't mistake RP channel/server (which is like the hardcore hardcore RP) with a casual, typical rpg side of immersion in games (which is also very common and well known, creating character that looks like yourself - or somewhat like yourself but not entirely - can even tie into this rpg aspect of a game, but that's exactly why underlying lore basis need to be there for flavor).

a little bit more than they could, and that's a good thing.

Not always and depends. Not exactly a "good thing" if the execution is lacking and you can see a visible drop in quality of storytelling or some other underlying game elements associated with the worldbuilding/immersion. That is not to say you can't do it at all but some middle-ground/effort is needed, and we heard no word from SSG what's coming next and whether something is coming to address that... hopefully it will come, and sooner than later

[TesalionLortus]

Something for the bored boomers who actually believe they can get SSG to reverse a decision through arguments or some vague notion of majority pressure to think about. If such a thing were possible we would never have come to this pass to begin with.

The quote is to be appreciated But still, no one said anything about reversing, especially amongst the ones more recently active. And SSG shouldn't be viewed as morons sooo... who is to say they don't consider some actually good arguments, assuming they read that stuff anyway

PS: and hey! I'm no boomer

[Radhruin_EU]

Yes it absolutely does.

Nothing you say here has anything to do with what I just said. I already posted a direct quote from Tolkien saying that the hobbits were imagined as 'just rustic English people, made small' and mentioned earlier how he said that he was thinking of late Victorian times, when he was a kid. You can have that quote as well "It is in fact more or less a Warwickshire village of about the period of the Diamond Jubilee" (so around 1897; Tolkien was five years old then). And this is the countryside we're talking about, not London (which was already quite a diverse place back then, as the capital of the Empire, if nothing like today) or one of the other large port cities. What on earth do you imagine things were like back then, out in the English countryside? Oh, and just to hammer the point home: I was born and raised less than fifteen miles from the very village Tolkien was thinking of and I've been there, so I have no difficulty whatsoever intuiting where he was going with that. I have no idea where you're getting your ideas from.

[Radhruin_EU]

Not all players play the RP side of the game though. That's why we have a /RP on/off switch. Some want to reflect their own identity in their characters, whether you agree with it or not. It's well known fact. Now, they can, a little bit more than they could, and that's a good thing.

Actual RP isn't the point there. The RPG concept is that you're playing as a character, a made-up person, typically in a made-up setting and scenario. That made-up person has their own identity, as they're a character in that story they're like any other fictional character. It's not 'you', the player. And a lot of players do engage in a bit of 'RP lite', as I call it, where they do think of the character *as* a character, of being a person in that world and having some persona distinct from themselves as the player., maybe making some choices on the basis of what the character might do. A bit of gentle "let's pretend", if you will. But that does acknowledge the concept of the character as a pretend person, and not just an avatar.

[Arnenna]

Actual RP isn't the point there. The RPG concept is that you're playing as a character, a made-up person, typically in a made-up setting and scenario. That made-up person has their own identity, as they're a character in that story they're like any other fictional character. It's not 'you', the player. And a lot of players do engage in a bit of 'RP lite', as I call it, where they do think of the character *as* a character, of being a person in that world and having some persona distinct from themselves as the player., maybe making some choices on the basis of what the character might do. A bit of gentle "let's pretend", if you will. But that does acknowledge the concept of the character as a pretend person, and not just an avatar.

I think most players know that they are not actually running around in a video game of another world. Nobody wants their character to be "themselves," but a reflection of who they are - yes. you know some players think it weird if a male plays a female character, and vice versa? It's true. That's how strongly some feel about character reflection. It doesn't bother me, in the world of make believe, and in this MMO, I play both genders. But my main, reflects who I am, both in personality towards other players, and in appearance and gender. I don't think it hurts the game to allow that for everyone. The game will keep going, just as it did after magical hobbits arrived. There is no back story for those either, nor could there be.

[Radhruin_EU]

I think most players know that they are not actually running around in a video game of another world. Nobody wants their character to be "themselves," but a reflection of who they are - yes. you know some players think it weird if a male plays a female character, and vice versa? It's true. That's how strongly some feel about character reflection.

Yes, some. But in my experience, while there may be 'that guy' who'll think it's weird and say so, most players have no problem with it.

It doesn't bother me, in the world of make believe, and in this MMO, I play both genders. But my main, reflects who I am, both in personality towards other players, and in appearance and gender. I don't think it hurts the game to allow that for everyone. The game will keep going, just as it did after magical hobbits arrived. There is no back story for those either, nor could there be.

Okay, but what SSG have now done is to treat that as the default and straight up say that it's about player representation (rather than having a character who looks the part for the world they're in) as if everyone thinks that way and it's all-important. That's not something I've ever seen put like that before now. It's always been the other way round, with the default assumption being that it's a character you're playing and that because it represented a person in the game's world, there was no expectation that it *must* be able to represent aspects of your real self like this. And treating the character and their place in the world as what matters is more natural because it's not only more immersive, but depending on the game's setting there may be some people you can't very well represent in any direct way without messing with the game's setting in some major way.

e.g. if you had a game set in a fantasy version of ancient China, that'd imply a sensible limit on player representation and it would look weird (and hence unimmersive) if it included people who wouldn't be around there.

[Ellethariel]

nothing to see here, folks. just more of the same people trying to trojan horse their politics into the forum under the guise of lore concerns...

Thank you for this reply so I didn't have to post a similar one. b/c I'd have been nude.

[auximenes]

Thank you for this reply so I didn't have to post a similar one. b/c I'd have been nude.

...

[Arnenna]

Yes, some. But in my experience, while there may be 'that guy' who'll think it's weird and say so, most players have no problem with it.


Okay, but what SSG have now done is to treat that as the default and straight up say that it's about player representation (rather than having a character who looks the part for the world they're in) as if everyone thinks that way and it's all-important. That's not something I've ever seen put like that before now. It's always been the other way round, with the default assumption being that it's a character you're playing and that because it represented a person in the game's world, there was no expectation that it *must* be able to represent aspects of your real self like this. And treating the character and their place in the world as what matters is more natural because it's not only more immersive, but depending on the game's setting there may be some people you can't very well represent in any direct way without messing with the game's setting in some major way.

e.g. if you had a game set in a fantasy version of ancient China, that'd imply a sensible limit on player representation and it would look weird (and hence unimmersive) if it included people who wouldn't be around there.

Nope. What they've done is made it an option for more people. There is a choice and it's not forced upon "everyone." You still have the option to play a character as a person in a game world, there is no "must," involved and your character can be a million miles from your RL self if you want it to be. I'd wager, there will be far more characters fitting that bill, than the other way around. That's certainly how it is in my character panel.

Ancient China didn't allow people from other parts of the world into the region for most part, however, there were foreign visitors. So yes, while it would be something to see, it wouldn't be weird. And besides that, we're talking about adaptation here and entertainment media has been casting outside of the indigenous since before I was even born. The King and I, being an example.

It's only weird and unimmersive if you want it to be. Excluding people that don't fit in with a particular group is not good. It would mean, for example that some groups of people could never be in a movie or game unless it is set within a very recent time frame. Why? Because some people find it breaks their flow? That they shouldn't be there? The world has moved on from that, thank goodness, and it still has a lot more moving to do.

[TesalionLortus]

Nope. What they've done is made it an option for more people. There is a choice and it's not forced upon "everyone."

I think you don't get the point Radh was making, like at all. There was something forced upon everyone, from rpg standpoint - sameness. Character creation choices meaningless now and available all across the board, and even if one wanna create a legit lotro Haradrim, by the rules of immersion and rpg, they can't. There is no choice here. Some more adequate hairstyles are missing and no lore flavor, no origins. It's a only a one-sided choice for those who don't care. Was forced upon everyone, because even just creating a Breelander character is gonna feel cheaper now and less satisfying from immersion standpoint. This ties into what was already discussed and what they can do to address that, but I find it a bit disingenuous when you still keep saying things like that because it's not true - it's not just a new option in isolation, it changes things in a way that it is forced upon everyone now. Maybe you don't care, maybe others don't, but there are plenty of people who actually do. And yes, as Radh pointed out, regardless of variety of choices offered, in most other games if not all, the default is that you play a character that belongs in the setting, with choices primarily set up in a way that makes this work. But apparently we're stuck with actively vocal players who can't differentiate between what's an expected standard in gaming and what's not, and unfortunately SSG seems to have similar problems sometimes.

It's only weird and unimmersive if you want it to be. Excluding people that don't fit in with a particular group is not good. It would mean, for example that some groups of people could never be in a movie or game unless it is set within a very recent time frame. Why? Because some people find it breaks their flow? That they shouldn't be there? The world has moved on from that, thank goodness, and it still has a lot more moving to do.

Oh, and here I'm done because I don't want to get into any "politics" territory. But if what you're suggesting here is that everything should be shoehorned into everything and that's "a good thing," and that portraying history inaccurately and falsely with hypothetical black Julius Ceasar, Asian Cleopatra or people of varied ethnicities in prominent roles where they clearly didn't belong from what we know about certain societies of the past, then all I can say is this is a disgusting premise and collapse of academic reason (the reason Tolkien himself pretty much represented, by the way, and applied in his works).

[Radhruin_EU]

Nope. What they've done is made it an option for more people. There is a choice and it's not forced upon "everyone." You still have the option to play a character as a person in a game world, there is no "must," involved and your character can be a million miles from your RL self if you want it to be. I'd wager, there will be far more characters fitting that bill, than the other way around. That's certainly how it is in my character panel.

Ancient China didn't allow people from other parts of the world into the region for most part, however, there were foreign visitors. So yes, while it would be something to see, it wouldn't be weird. And besides that, we're talking about adaptation here and entertainment media has been casting outside of the indigenous since before I was even born. The King and I, being an example.

It's only weird and unimmersive if you want it to be.

It's weird and unimmersive by design, now, which it wasn't before.

In ancient China, just how many Europeans do you think there might have been just walking around? I picked that example for a reason. Opposite ends of the entire Eurasian continent, you know? Thousands of miles even as the crow flies, a trip that would have taken years if you were to attempt it back in the day Marco Polo style and was notably hard and dangerous even with the Silk Road to follow. People didn't try to take their trade goods the whole way along it themselves, there were middlemen; that's why cities sprang up in some places along it, where goods changed hands. Anyone going the whole way in either direction was really rare. It wasn't until the Age of Sail that there was an alternative but it still required a voyage of several months, having to go the long way round and that wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs either.

Now compare that with Middle-earth: also a very long way into the 'East of East', which to people in the West was a semi-mythical place which was proverbially far off; also, presumably, a dangerous trek that would take a long, long time in either direction; and no trade route all the way from East to West nor free flow of anything, because of that nasty Sauron chap. Yet now we have guys who look like they ought to be from there just sitting around in Bree (and supposedly *from* there!) alongside everybody else. Do you know what that'd compare to in real life? The latter half of the 19th century, with steamships and the Suez Canal and huge amounts of trade going on. This is what you get when you take the modern world for granted and project it back onto an 'ancient' one: it's just plain weird.

As for The King and I, these days you wouldn't get casting like that in a movie with someone from Vladivostok playing the King of Siam (Thailand, in other words) so I'm not sure why you think that helps. (Yul Brynner was awesome, but that's by the by). That movie was made in the mid 1950s, things were different then. You know what else was on at the movies around then? John Wayne playing Genghis Khan in The Conqueror. I don't know if you've seen that, but it's hardly Hollywood's finest moment. So yeah, movies from the Fifties, perhaps not the best thing to reference...

Excluding people that don't fit in with a particular group is not good. It would mean, for example that some groups of people could never be in a movie or game unless it is set within a very recent time frame. Why? Because some people find it breaks their flow? That they shouldn't be there? The world has moved on from that, thank goodness, and it still has a lot more moving to do.

So everyone has to be in everything, always, no matter what it's about or where or when it's set? That's a ridiculous premise as it allows for no exceptions, no matter what the cultural or historical context might be, or any other consideration for that matter.

[Baggins]

Nothing you say here has anything to do with what I just said. I already posted a direct quote from Tolkien saying that the hobbits were imagined as 'just rustic English people, made small' and mentioned earlier how he said that he was thinking of late Victorian times, when he was a kid. You can have that quote as well "It is in fact more or less a Warwickshire village of about the period of the Diamond Jubilee" (so around 1897; Tolkien was five years old then). And this is the countryside we're talking about, not London (which was already quite a diverse place back then, as the capital of the Empire, if nothing like today) or one of the other large port cities. What on earth do you imagine things were like back then, out in the English countryside? Oh, and just to hammer the point home: I was born and raised less than fifteen miles from the very village Tolkien was thinking of and I've been there, so I have no difficulty whatsoever intuiting where he was going with that. I have no idea where you're getting your ideas from.

So in a round about way are you could be suggested that Nu LOTRO is be influenced by American views and culture rather than British views and culture?

[Fadil]

Chuckle all you want but from what I gather they were described as ranging from A to B, with your swarthy being only part of that, not defining, and once again you omit the fact it was generations ago and peoples closer to our timeframe in Middle-earth were generally described differently, without any mention of swarthy. (Which was like more exclusive to the Haradrim, part of why they appeared strange). And none of what you said above refers in any way to hobbits or elves.

One last time, because you just honestly dont seem to get it.
Tolkien was a professor in English Language and Literature and a philologist. Apart from writing the books we so enjoy, he constructed many languages.
Etymology, the study of the history/ origin of words, was his speciality.
In fact , he worked for 2 years at the Oxford English Dictionary, where his job was to investigate the etymologies – the roots – of words.
He was especially interested in the Germanic and Anglo-saxon roots of language/ words.

When that brilliant man decided to describe the races of men in Middle Earth, he described them as white, brown and swarthy, black.
If he, as the close minded folks on these mbs are so desperetae to suggest, wanted to describe certain people as brown or mediterranean, he would
have done exactly that.
He would have picked a word which meant brown/ mediterranean, or with an etymology that meant that.

Instead he picked the word swarthy, which through its germanic origin, is the root word for black in almost every european language.

Period. I dont really care that someone on a messageboard is so offended by the idea black people may have inhabited Middle Earth, that I am ready
to take your interpretation over the brilliance and linguistic depth Tolkien gave us.

[Fadil]

Nothing you say here has anything to do with what I just said. I already posted a direct quote from Tolkien saying that the hobbits were imagined as 'just rustic English people, made small' and mentioned earlier how he said that he was thinking of late Victorian times, when he was a kid. You can have that quote as well "It is in fact more or less a Warwickshire village of about the period of the Diamond Jubilee" (so around 1897; Tolkien was five years old then). And this is the countryside we're talking about, not London (which was already quite a diverse place back then, as the capital of the Empire, if nothing like today) or one of the other large port cities. What on earth do you imagine things were like back then, out in the English countryside? Oh, and just to hammer the point home: I was born and raised less than fifteen miles from the very village Tolkien was thinking of and I've been there, so I have no difficulty whatsoever intuiting where he was going with that. I have no idea where you're getting your ideas from.

Tolkien has written that he styled many of the hobbits and their customs on the simple country folks who he knew during his youth, yet
they were NOT Englishmen, or English.
They are fairy figures, based upon folks he knew, and based upon literary sources like the snergs.
The snergs who loved festivals (hello?), good food and generally seem like the prototype of hobbits.

It has in fact been argued that the values and culture Tolkien used in his stories were so common, that everyone from every country where The Hobbit was
published could identify The Shire, with: my area of origin, the warm, rustic area of my youth.

As for the rest: How about you read up a little before you continue to spout your white centered nonsense on the mbs?
Whole libraries have been filled with books written about the connection between Norse mythology and the third reich.
Tolkien was very aware of all this and wrote at length about that subject.
As someone who hated nazism, and at the same time wrote books where he borrowed heavily from Norse mythology, this was of course a subject that
occupied his mind.
Not to forget that he was born in South Africa (though moved when he was 3), his son was stationed there and he was very much aware of the horrors of apartheid and racism.
Of course, it worried him how his work might be abused or misunderstood.

Just google norse mythology and the third reich, read up, so you dont have to ask where I get my ideas from.

Abusing norse mythology, to turn it into a race centered, white supremacist ideology, connected to a specific area/ land/ culture is exactly why you should be so careful not
to confuse sources or inspiration with actual people or actual country, blood und boden.

[Elmagor]

One last time, because you just honestly dont seem to get it.
Tolkien was a professor in English Language and Literature and a philologist. Apart from writing the books we so enjoy, he constructed many languages.
Etymology, the study of the history/ origin of words, was his speciality.
In fact , he worked for 2 years at the Oxford English Dictionary, where his job was to investigate the etymologies – the roots – of words.
He was especially interested in the Germanic and Anglo-saxon roots of language/ words.

People love his books, people love his Middle-Earth, and yet same people login into Lotro and start ignoring people just because they fail to understand their language in WC

[Fadil]

People love his books, people love his Middle-Earth, and yet same people login into Lotro and start ignoring people just because they fail to understand their language in WC

Yes, good point.
The message that evil can only be defeated when all races, cultures cooperate
went right over a lot of players' heads.

[Arnenna]

I think you don't get the point Radh was making, like at all. There was something forced upon everyone, from rpg standpoint - sameness. Character creation choices meaningless now and available all across the board, and even if one wanna create a legit lotro Haradrim, by the rules of immersion and rpg, they can't. There is no choice here. Some more adequate hairstyles are missing and no lore flavor, no origins. It's a only a one-sided choice for those who don't care. Was forced upon everyone, because even just creating a Breelander character is gonna feel cheaper now and less satisfying from immersion standpoint. This ties into what was already discussed and what they can do to address that, but I find it a bit disingenuous when you still keep saying things like that because it's not true - it's not just a new option in isolation, it changes things in a way that it is forced upon everyone now. Maybe you don't care, maybe others don't, but there are plenty of people who actually do. And yes, as Radh pointed out, regardless of variety of choices offered, in most other games if not all, the default is that you play a character that belongs in the setting, with choices primarily set up in a way that makes this work. But apparently we're stuck with actively vocal players who can't differentiate between what's an expected standard in gaming and what's not, and unfortunately SSG seems to have similar problems sometimes.

I can read, you know. I got the point, and I presented it from a different stand point. This isn't about what they have failed to deliver, it's about accepting what they have delivered. This isn't "any other game", it does not have to follow suit. The new character creation process feels "cheaper" - to you. The fact that it doesn't for others is not an untruth, it's a differing opinion. As for vocal players, ermmmm, I think you're a bit more vocal than most, and that's fine, vocalise as much as you want to. I think SSG got this right, and they don't have any problems differentiating between what's expected in game and what's not.

Oh, and here I'm done because I don't want to get into any "politics" territory. But if what you're suggesting here is that everything should be shoehorned into everything and that's "a good thing," and that portraying history inaccurately and falsely with hypothetical black Julius Ceasar, Asian Cleopatra or people of varied ethnicities in prominent roles where they clearly didn't belong from what we know about certain societies of the past, then all I can say is this is a disgusting premise and collapse of academic reason (the reason Tolkien himself pretty much represented, by the way, and applied in his works).

Yes, I absolutely do think that all groups of people should have equal opportunity to play lead roles in historical settings. People in today's world should have the tolerance and headspace to get past it. But hey, we're not talking lead roles here in LOTRO, we're talking minor characters within the story.

[TesalionLortus]

One last time, because you just honestly dont seem to get it.
Tolkien was a professor in English Language and Literature and a philologist. Apart from writing the books we so enjoy, he constructed many languages.
Etymology, the study of the history/ origin of words, was his speciality.
In fact , he worked for 2 years at the Oxford English Dictionary, where his job was to investigate the etymologies – the roots – of words.
He was especially interested in the Germanic and Anglo-saxon roots of language/ words.

When that brilliant man decided to describe the races of men in Middle Earth, he described them as white, brown and swarthy, black.
If he, as the close minded folks on these mbs are so desperetae to suggest, wanted to describe certain people as brown or mediterranean, he would
have done exactly that.
He would have picked a word which meant brown/ mediterranean, or with an etymology that meant that.

Instead he picked the word swarthy, which through its germanic origin, is the root word for black in almost every european language.

Period. I dont really care that someone on a messageboard is so offended by the idea black people may have inhabited Middle Earth, that I am ready
to take your interpretation over the brilliance and linguistic depth Tolkien gave us.

Nice way to repeat yourself without answering any of my questions or arguments. So...

Where was the word swarthy exclusively used to describe Gondorians, Arnorians, Breelanders, or people of Rohan of Third Age? No one here is closed-minded despite the fact you constantly repeat that argument over and over again, but I'm not even sure what is your line of logic anymore. Yes, that's a no-brainer, he described races of men as white, brown and swarthy (and each of those would entail a wider range of skin tones than just one specific tone), and then he described specific men and kingdoms in far more detail in the period of the Third Age when the action of his novels took place. With Gondorians, Arnorians, Breelanders, or people of Rohan of this period hardly described as swarthy, whereas Haradrim were. Elves and hobbits were never referred to as swarthy either.

[TesalionLortus]

This isn't "any other game", it does not have to follow suit. The new character creation process feels "cheaper" - to you. The fact that it doesn't for others is not an untruth, it's a differing opinion.

It's not a matter of differing opinion. It's a standard of game industry (and rpg-like storytelling no less) that can be observed and measured. You're just trying to say "everyone is right" and "everything is perfectly ok with the game as is because LOTRO ultimately can do everything backward and we should just accept that because it's lotro." Like, can't have your cake and eat it too. If something can be observed to be executed much better and to much better effect (while still providing diverse options) in 99% of products, and here is a product that put 80% less effort and destroyed what it had in the area (a product that prides itself on storytelling no less), then this is objectively a huge quality gap, and it's not subject to any opinions, it just is, basic mathematics (regardless of you or anyone else, as veteran players, paying no heed to it).

I may be vocal and so are you and others here, but we're just a tiny group. Meanwhile, SSG as a business needs to consider a wider picture and consider the game market as a whole. While its true the game was behind with customization options and the sliders bring them closer to more modern possibilities... it really does not help if you obliterate something else by uncareful implementation and now you've created this another huge weakness and quality drop for yourself. The two should go in pair.

Yes, I absolutely do think that all groups of people should have equal opportunity to play lead roles in historical settings. People in today's world should have the tolerance and headspace to get past it. But hey, we're not talking lead roles here in LOTRO, we're talking minor characters within the story.

Giant no to faked history from me. Tolerance got nothing to do with it. That's all on this subject. Btw, do you know what's the first thing they teach you at the historical studies? (Or at least, they used to). How to properly study the sources and come to objective conclusions to try and preserve the truth. Some nice world we're creating if that's no longer relevant and anyone can present anything as a fact to our younger generation.

[Neinda]

Yes, good point.
The message that evil can only be defeated when all races, cultures cooperate
went right over a lot of players' heads.

This actually says it quite well. The lore in this game is about groups of different people coming together to battle a common evil.

People are bringing their real life fears and phobias into a game under the guise of "it's not part of the lore". The lore experts can and probably will correct me, but I don't believe there is anything specific in the lore that says darker skinned people or people with curly hair or women with hair on their chins did not exist or only existed in specific locations reserved for the bad guys. For example, we all accept female hobbits going to war, but where exactly is that stated in the lore that the bulk of female hobbits were fierce warriors? Where in the lore does it state that hobbits in general were first in line to head off to war to fight evil accross the land? Where in the lore does it state that hobbits were able to shoot magic out of their hands? Where in the lore does it state that the world of Middle Earth was overrun by rune keepers, loremasters, beornings, brawlers and you name it? If I recall correctly, there were very few characters with magic powers in the lore.

We have folks in game that think there is no room for non raiders. Now we have folks that want people to conform to a certain look in order to be welcome in game. Think about what will be left if the game gets rid of everyone who does not fit whatever mold some folks here want them to fit. This change has allowed more people to see the hero on their screen that they want to see. This is a change focused on inclusion which is a wonderful concept. The more people that feel welcome and included, the better.

SSG has given people the opportunity to express how they want to be portrayed in their battle against evil in Middle Earth. That is really what the game lore is all about if you get down to basics. Sauron and his minions=evil who need to be defeated before all the free peoples of Middle Earth are enslaved. The basics of the lore is about the free people battling evil. Does it really matter what those free people fighting evil look like? We still have the same beornings, elves, dwarves hobbits and humans coming together to battle the various evil SSG throws our way. Now, thanks to SSG, players have more cosmetic customization options in the combined fight against evil. LOTRO is still the same game with more choices in appearance.

I am fairly certain, everyone one of us could find something that is not "lore perfect" in the game that bothers us a bit more than other things. Please, just give this a chance and see where it goes. Let people express themselves and be the character they want to be in the fight against evil. I think everyone playing the game has the same goal to beat the bad guys and save Middle Earth. Some people do it wearing ball gowns and using giant flowers with cute giant shrews following them around. Other people dress like proper soldiers and warriors. The list of how people present themselves in Middle Earth goes ever on. Now it will be an even bigger list thanks to this change. This change gives more people the opportunity to feel included and be the hero they want to be in Middle Earth. The bad guys are Sauron and their evil minions. The players are the heroes in this game.

If I had to guess, I believe Sauron would use something like this recent change to create rifts between the free peoples in order to divide and conquer them. Don't fall for Sauron's evil plot to divide people based on cosmetic appearances. The game is about battling evil not each other.

[Arnenna]

Meanwhile, SSG as a business needs to consider a wider picture and consider the game market as a whole.

That's exactly what they are doing. The update is about representing the people that play the game, not the characters in it.

Giant no to faked history from me. Tolerance got nothing to do with it. That's all on this subject. Btw, do you know what's the first thing they teach you at the historical studies? (Or at least, they used to). How to properly study the sources and come to objective conclusions to try and preserve the truth. Some nice world we're creating if that's no longer relevant and anyone can present anything as a fact to our younger generation.

The history remains the same. The stories do not change, they stay the same. The characters are portrayed as they are within that history, in all but appearance. Yul Brynner, one such example, but he played The King of Siam perfectly, and no history got harmed in the process. Jesus, in The Passion of the Christ. American white guy, a superb film that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars. Not that long ago either, less than 20 years. Almost all films that portray Jesus, portray him as white. Where does that fit in with that view you have? The Bible is the most successful book ever written - bar none.

When it comes to the younger generation, it's important that they learn history, I totally agree. There is no reason why they cannot learn it, and at the same time, learn about diversity and inclusion. The history, comes from the story.