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

[TesalionLortus]

To make things fun, I was bored and fed this thread to chatGPT, asked it what would be the potential best move of the developers and now I'm having a good laugh before bed:


"One potential next move for the developers of Lord of the Rings Online could be to engage with the community and address their concerns directly. This could involve hosting a Q&A session, writing a blog post, or releasing a statement that explains their decision to introduce beards as an option for female characters and addresses any misconceptions or criticisms that have arisen.


Additionally, the developers could continue to prioritize inclusivity and diversity in the game by introducing more cosmetic options that allow players to customize their avatars in ways that reflect their own identities and experiences. This could include options for characters of different races, body types, and gender expressions, as well as options for clothing, accessories, and hairstyles that reflect a wider range of cultures and time periods.


Finally, the developers could continue to listen to feedback from the community and iterate on their decisions based on what players want and need. This could involve introducing more robust customization options, revisiting existing content to ensure it reflects a wider range of perspectives and experiences, or incorporating player suggestions and feedback into future updates and expansions. By prioritizing community engagement, inclusivity, and diversity, the developers can ensure that Lord of the Rings Online remains a vibrant and engaging game that appeals to a wide range of players"

[Varmintkiller]

To make things fun, I was bored and fed this thread to chatGPT, asked it what would be the potential best move of the developers and now I'm having a good laugh before bed:


"One potential next move for the developers of Lord of the Rings Online could be to engage with the community and address their concerns directly. This could involve hosting a Q&A session, writing a blog post, or releasing a statement that explains their decision to introduce beards as an option for female characters and addresses any misconceptions or criticisms that have arisen.


Additionally, the developers could continue to prioritize inclusivity and diversity in the game by introducing more cosmetic options that allow players to customize their avatars in ways that reflect their own identities and experiences. This could include options for characters of different races, body types, and gender expressions, as well as options for clothing, accessories, and hairstyles that reflect a wider range of cultures and time periods.


Finally, the developers could continue to listen to feedback from the community and iterate on their decisions based on what players want and need. This could involve introducing more robust customization options, revisiting existing content to ensure it reflects a wider range of perspectives and experiences, or incorporating player suggestions and feedback into future updates and expansions. By prioritizing community engagement, inclusivity, and diversity, the developers can ensure that Lord of the Rings Online remains a vibrant and engaging game that appeals to a wide range of players"

How fun. I was similarly bored, and asked Genie’s ChatGPT if it could give me some arguments against including trans characters in a video game, but to make sure those arguments were devoid of bigotry.

It refused, and said that any argument for exclusion was, by definition, in service of bigotry, whether it acknowledged it or no. Isn’t that interesting?

[Radhruin_EU]

It's just not that big a deal, especially since I can take a step back and understand how someone who might look different from the average person to exist in a region might also exist in that region. And there is plenty of historical evidence in real world situations. Gondor is of course the easiest for this due to location and history(as is Dale, major trading hubs have historically been very diverse)

Gondor had been largely isolated from the East and South for a long time (like the thousand years since it had held Umbar) and wasn't on friendly terms with them, and diversity doesn't stay static on long time-frames, tending to average out among the population. And there'd be only so much diversity in Dale (basically just Northmen plus some Easterlings, because that's who they had for neighbours). There's Dorwinion as well but lore-wise we have no idea who lived there - the name is Sindarin, though.

but even Bree-landers are descended from Arnor in large part, which is descended from Numenor, a seafaring nation oft compared to egypt and other Mediterranean empires.

The Bree-landers are the locals, former vassals of the Dunedain. They're descended from some of the Men of the White Mountains who'd migrated up that way, way back when. They shared ancestry with the Dunlendings. So no, they have nothing to do with Numenor. Nearly all the Dunedain in Arnor were killed off by war or plague and the Rangers are all that are left, and they're clearly distinguished from the Bree-landers (they look distinctively different). As the book describes. And you should know how the Dunedain are described: tall, pale, dark hair, sea-grey eyes. The likeness to Egypt is confined to their obsession with death, the preservation of the bodies of the dead, and building huge stone monuments. The Mediterranean thing is in connection to Gondor's general situation (climate, etc.) and what the locals there might look like, as there were various bunches of people there who were their vassals. (Check what the book says about the guys who turned up to help defend Minas Tirith).

Non-whites and trans people have existed as long as humanity has, they existed in medieval europe, they existed in greece and the roman empire, they certainly existed in the Mediterranean areas for as long as modern humans have existed. So 'modern earth' isn't a really valid argument.

Err... not so much with people from sub-Saharan Africa (= Middle-earth's Far Harad) or the far distant East, whereas big cities in the modern world often have lots of people from all over Africa and the Far East. That's where the argument about it looking modern comes in: the range of appearance options implies too broad a range of diversity all in one place for it to be anything but modern. And it also flies in the face of the effect of Sauron's malice on relations between the Free Peoples and everybody else - you can't straightforwardly compare Middle-earth to anything from history because RL didn't feature a demonic power intent on world domination, oddly enough. Sauron's meant to be particularly good at influencing Men to do his bidding; you can't ignore his presence just so you can assume trade and free movement of people between the West of Middle-earth and the East and South. He wanted the Free Peoples isolated, and he'd encouraged the Men under his dominion to hate and fear the Elves and anyone who sided with them. So it's not a normal situation, there's a strong element of fantasy to it, and you really need to allow for that.

[Fadil]

I'm laughing out loud at this. Err, hello: Dwarves? He got the names for them from the Elder Edda, that's Norse mythology. And that's where Dwarves are originally from: Norse or Germanic myth, take your pick and those *are* connected to a certain area and people by way of ancestry: the English were a largely Germanic people, after all, and prior to converting to Christianity they had their own flavour of Germanic mythology. And rather a lot of Norse people set up shop here as well, so at one time it was a firm feature of local culture. He's only harking back to that.

Are you actually not just narrowminded but also incredibly dumb?
Yes dwarves come from norse mythology, but if someone here would claim that dwarves are based upon the actual people from Torvud, Norway, and that since he has never seen a bearded woman
in that little village, they shouldnt be in a game either...that's about how silly you sound.

Dwarves are fantasy being, hobbits are fantasy beings. They dont actually live in the Midlands, no matter how much you like to pretend they do.
Nor are they based upon the people there alone.

When Tolkien set out to write the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, he very much intended to write an English mythology, but during his life he changed his mind,
as his son Chrisopher wrote about extensively.
He more and more made it a general mythology about important values and gave up the idea he was writing an English story.

I'll try it again for you: "Since Tolkien knew the danger of connecting existing Norse mythology to a certain area or people, he'd turn around
in his grave if he would realize how his books are claimed to be English, or English mythology. ".

And while you were laughing the meaning probably escaped you. A "certain area or people" was a reference to the way nazi germany appropriated norse mythology.

If you want to understand what that means you should read up on nazism and norse mythology.

[Fadil]

I was discussing nuance but apparently you're not interested in that.

You're absolutely correct. I am not interested in your nuance, when you try to pretend black people as described by Tolkien are only a little black,
or preferably brown or mediterranean. That's not nuance, that's racism.
But maybe you can pretend that over the years, they became less black, afterall its a long time from the first age to the third, correct?
And all this about an imaginary world, with imaginary characters.

[DavidmeetHal]

For me, I don't like the addition of beards on females in this game because quite simply, it looks plain stupid, moronic, and sophomoric.

I get the adding modern hair styles. I don't like it but I get the reasoning behind it. But adding the beards is just plain dumb.

[TesalionLortus]

I fear I am technically challenged when it comes to adding images to these forum posts! Instead I just wrote my request, and Genie’s response, below:

If that's the case, my apologies then, although it seens impossible to reproduce such response with your prompt, because it still provides a bunch of reasons. As for my reaction, nothing wrong with technically challenged and no screenshot, but I'm sure you can see how this did not exactly invite confidence Not like I'm upset, no problem

You're absolutely correct. I am not interested in your nuance, when you try to pretend black people as described by Tolkien are only a little black,
or preferably brown or mediterranean. That's not nuance, that's racism.
But maybe you can pretend that over the years, they became less black, afterall its a long time from the first age to the third, correct?
And all this about an imaginary world, with imaginary characters.

Too bad we're on lotro forum and many of us Tolkien geeks are versed in nuance. I mean, it's Tolkien.
No, it's not, and there was no pretending, just pointing out there are many skin tones (under the category of African-like black, not Mideaterrenian) and we could argue which climate zone/latitude said subset of people originally originated from and how would that correspond
Not all of them were black, like Tolkien himself said, only some. Yep, a long time, with plenty of turmoil in-between, and I see you don't want to look up how our skin color may change over a lot of generations
Imaginary world of Tolkien, which he strived to portray in a very academic/historical way, mirroring things as they would appear in the real world, evolution of languages, movements of peoples, passage of time etc. But of course that's too much nuance for you

[Arnenna]

For me, I don't like the addition of beards on females in this game because quite simply, it looks plain stupid, moronic, and sophomoric.

Why? Why does it look stupid?

[Arnenna]

If that's the case, my apologies then, although it seens impossible to reproduce such response with your prompt, because it still provides a bunch of reasons. As for my reaction, nothing wrong with technically challenged and no screenshot, but I'm sure you can see how this did not exactly invite confidence Not like I'm upset, no problem




Too bad we're on lotro forum and many of us Tolkien geeks are versed in nuance. I mean, it's Tolkien.
No, it's not, and there was no pretending, just pointing out there are many skin tones (under the category of African-like black, not Mideaterrenian) and we could argue which climate zone/latitude said subset of people originally originated from and how would that correspond
Not all of them were black, like Tolkien himself said, only some. Yep, a long time, with plenty of turmoil in-between, and I see you don't want to look up how our skin color may change over a lot of generations
Imaginary world of Tolkien, which he strived to portray in a very academic/historical way, mirroring things as they would appear in the real world, evolution of languages, movements of peoples, passage of time etc. But of course that's too much nuance for you

It's not a lot of generations, it's tens of thousands of years of generations. That equates to a bit more than "lots." Genetics, divergence, climate change, GMT, natural selection, all played a part, but guess what, there are still black people in the world. There were black people in rural England thousands of years ago, slavery, used to be a thing, and black history is dense and varied in regions, such as Dorset and York for example. There are still black people there today, thousands of years later. Natural selection is not a lottery machine where you get to spin the container multiple times until you get the numbers you are looking for.

I live in rural Wales, which is another region that Tolkien drew inspiration from, and guess what? There have been black people here for thousands of years too, regardless of what some googologist thinks out on the internet. If you're going to take a stab at biodiversity, might I suggest that Google isn't really your friend. Read a book on it. I can suggest a few really good ones for you, though, best to start at the basics, with something like Discovering Science, Unity within Diversity, which I read more than a decade ago, and then work your way up to the more meaty ones.

[TesalionLortus]

It's not a lot of generations, it's tens of thousands of years of generations. That equates to a bit more than "lots." Genetics, divergence, climate change, GMT, natural selection, all played a part, but guess what, there are still black people in the world. There were black people in rural England thousands of years ago, slavery, used to be a thing, and black history is dense and varied in regions, such as Dorset and York for example. There are still black people there today, thousands of years later.

Thousands of years is what I meant, so happy we agree. And yes, slavery was a major "exporter" across Europe and Atlantic (under something like Roman Empire, throughout Middle Ages to some extend and due to colonialism later on). Since you've brought it up, you should also recognize there was no such equivalent in Western Middle-earth, except maybe maybe in a very limited manner under the most harsh Numenorean period. (But unlikely for Eriador parts because those slaves from so far away would mainly go to the island itself and distributed across Eastern shores, less so shores around Pelargir which fell more under Faithful influence)

PS: As for your even thousands of years ago, I guess you're referring to Roman legionaries and some other citizen-Romans. Sure, but that's exactly like with the previously discussed House of Beor (some swarthy) and, across so many generations, such differences tend to get lost through intermarriage and such. If you mean like 10 000 years ago across a larger population, then possible yeah, but 10 000 a long time for these changes I mentioned earlier, which is why the whole of native Europe looks like it does (and there is like almost 7000, not just 2000 years, between said mention of some swarthy in House of Beor and our time of Third Age, so these two possibilities are pretty much on point, take your pick)

[Arnenna]

Thousands of years is what I meant, so happy we agree. And yes, slavery was a major "exporter" across Europe and Atlantic (under something like Roman Empire, throughout Middle Ages to some extend and due to colonialism later on). Since you've brought it up, you should also recognize there was no such equivalent in Western Middle-earth, except maybe maybe in a very limited manner under the most harsh Numenorean period. (But unlikely for Eriador parts because those slaves from so far away would mainly go to the island itself and distributed across Eastern shores, less so shores around Pelargir which fell more under Faithful influence)

No, tens of thousands of years, which means, there wouldn't be a massive difference recorded in the relatively small time period you are attempting to draw from for your argument.

True there is no equivalent in Middle-earth of pre-colonial movement, but there were black people in Middle-earth. They moved long distances in Sauron's armies, but that doesn't mean that all of them were under his trickery, threat of influence. Just as the people of today, and for thousands of years in history, when faced with evil or threat, migrate to find better lives, it is of course then, feasible, that some settled into other parts of Middle-earth, free of the influence of Sauron, both while the war was raging and afterward.

Here is what is written when Sam witnesses the death of a Southron.

Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of a broken sword.
It was Sam’s first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man’s name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace.

[TesalionLortus]

Well, it occurred to me later that maybe you meant tens of thousand, when people first crossed over to Britain. Already addressed that one. As for the rest and the quote that we all know very well, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I can understand some wiggle room for Gondor, for example, in relatively newer period of its history, plus maybe in its further past too, that there was some exchange or even entire clans of people admitted to Gondor with their linage surviving to present day. But I don't buy this random "Haradrim settled in Eriador just like hobbits did, so hey, we can have dark skin in Eriador canonically" spin you're trying to make (surely Tolkien would have mentioned something like that...) and if you're not trying to make THAT spin, then I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for to begin with.

[Arnenna]

Well, it occurred to me later that maybe you meant tens of thousand, when people first crossed over to Britain. Already addressed that one. As for the rest and the quote that we all know very well, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I can understand some wiggle room for Gondor, for example, in relatively newer period of its history, plus maybe in its further past too, that there was some exchange or even entire clans of people admitted to Gondor with their linage surviving to present day. But I don't buy this random "Haradrim settled in Eriador just like hobbits did, so hey, we can have dark skin in Eriador canonically" spin you're trying to make (surely Tolkien would have mentioned something like that...) and if you're not trying to make THAT spin, then I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for to begin with.

Why can you not accept that? People all over the world in real life, flee their origins in times of war to seek better lives in new places, far from their land of origin. They have done so for a very, very long time. They are doing it, even today, as we type in here. Why is it so difficult to understand that it could pose a feasible story in a game? Tolkien didn't mention a lot of things, but they make for feasible adaptation. He did mention some things, like hobbits don't do magic or are not war loving people, but hey, their both in game. Sure, this take on people of colour would be easier to take if they'd rolled out some origins, but they didn't, and when that's the case, player bios come into play. Its their tool for making the spin work.

They don't need your idea of wiggle room. They can create their own which will be far more tolerant and accepting. And that takes us full circle to what this update was about. Player representation! You don't have to like it, you can seethe about it if you wish, but it doesn't change anything. SSG can't turn tail on this, even if they wanted to, which I very much doubt. It would look really bad. They have my support for a move well made, and for having the guts to go with it, even though they probably predicted flack.

[TesalionLortus]

Why can you not accept that? People all over the world in real life, flee their origins in times of war to seek better lives in new places, far from their land of origin. They have done so for a very, very long time. They are doing it, even today, as we type in here. Why is it so difficult to understand that it could pose a feasible story in a game? Tolkien didn't mention a lot of things, but they make for feasible adaptation. He did mention some things, like hobbits don't do magic or are not war loving people, but hey, their both in game. Sure, this take on people of colour would be easier to take if they'd rolled out some origins, but they didn't, and when that's the case, player bios come into play. Its their tool for making the spin work.

They don't need your idea of wiggle room. They can create their own. And that takes us full circle to what this update was about. Player representation! You don't have to like it, you can seethe about it if you wish, but it doesn't change anything.

Such a migration worked with hobbits because they were said to be these hiding small folk, living in holes. Doesn't work like that for men. Historically, such migrations create tensions (unless within one unified entity). There was enmity, weapons were drawn. They come and take over, or they come and are driven off. Or they come and they come to some sort of mutual understanding (become a vassal, for example, and receive land). I simply like stories that make some sense, thank you. Creating whatever backstory as you see fit against all common sense and laws of the universe (absent of historical nuances) is a poor offering. People are free to write whatever they want in their bios, but for this game's quality some decent origins and pointers would have been far better.

SSG can't turn tail on this, even if they wanted to, which I very much doubt. It would look really bad. They have my support for a move well made, and for having the guts to go with it, even though they probably predicted flack.

All they had to do was include origins and preferably put in some effort, not just 2-3 most generic ones you could think of. The choice not to was an oversight or - if by design - a silly silly needless move. So I have no idea why you so fervently defend them on this one. Furthermore, nothing has changed and inclusion of said origins will cost them very little, so some kind of stubbornness not to do this "because our image!" sounds silly as well, given it's about delivering better quality behind the game months and years into the future, in the creation panel.

[Radhruin_EU]

Dwarves are fantasy being, hobbits are fantasy beings. They dont actually live in the Midlands, no matter how much you like to pretend they do.
Nor are they based upon the people there alone.

Nobody said they did. I've said repeatedly that it's obviously not literal (and that should be so obvious given the context that I shouldn't even need to say it) but you keep going on and on as if I'd somehow said it was. Regardless, the semblance is there, put there consciously by Tolkien himself: he pictured them as curious little fantasy versions of the sort of late Victorian English country folk he remembered, idealised so it's just the nice things about rural life. And they weren't originally part of his legendarium at all, they're there because of The Hobbit, a fairy-tale written for English children (his own, originally) and so hobbits are the sort of 'English' characters you'd put in such a tale.

I already said that he knew he couldn't write an actual mythology for England because modern people don't take to mythology like that; we don't believe in it any more. What he said about what he imagined doing reminds me of how back in the 18th century James Macpherson published epic poems supposedly by an ancient Gaelic poet, Ossian, and those caught people's imaginations big-time and really did inspire other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama as the line goes. But that was one of those cultural phenomena that happen only rarely, and it would indeed have been overweening for anyone to imagine they could write something themselves that would have the same effect. So no, of course he didn't frame his own work as a founding myth-cycle for England or whatever, but the core idea of a story-cycle with its localised cultural nature and 'air' remained. What went away was the idea that anyone would take it seriously.

He more and more made it a general mythology about important values and gave up the idea he was writing an English story.

But it remains culturally North-Western European, since he had to give it a cultural context (mythology always has one) and he was sticking with what he knew best and loved most. And it features fantasy versions of the sort of European peoples and borrowings from the myths and legends of actual European peoples that you might expect in such a tale. So no, it's not wholly generalised, it's framed in a particular way because it had to be framed somehow. Things from it read across to other cultures because they're broadly or universally applicable, but that doesn't mean it's divorced from the context in which it was written, or that it would retain its character if you were to try to do that rather than just becoming a blandly generic mess.

Your problem seems to be that you're simply not happy with and won't accept that Tolkien's work has a natively European character to it and peoples to match, and so you simply pretend that's not there. The vast majority of people seemingly have no problem with it (since there are things within it that transcend that context, and speak to everyone) and are happy to accept it for what it is. It's similar to what you get with traditional epics like the Mahabharata - that's got a specific cultural context, that of ancient India, it naturally features characters who belong in ancient India (so not everyone's represented, naturally) but likewise it has things in it which are universal and so speak to everyone. So you can have an epic that speaks to everyone without it having to directly represent everyone. Your forced reading of Tolkien's work seems to be the opposite of that, that you appear to think it couldn't speak to everyone unless it somehow represents everyone, therefore everyone must be represented already; hence your earlier complaint that Peter Jackson had 'whitewashed' LOTR, because you'd convinced yourself that it had actually been written to include the sort of diversity you'd imagined. Well no, I'm afraid not, you're simply projecting.

[Fadil]

Too bad we're on lotro forum and many of us Tolkien geeks are versed in nuance. I mean, it's Tolkien.

Ah Tolkien...the words and values that make sense are tolerance, solidarity, love, comradeship, anti-racism.
The veiled and not so veiled intolerance, bigotry and racism some here display, are somehow not what I think about when I think about Tolkien.
I dont think of people who mock everything Tolkien stood for as Tolkien geeks, more like people who abuse Tolkien for their political agenda
and never really understood what his work is all about.

Not all of them were black, like Tolkien himself said, only some.

Yes that is exactly what I argued. To all who are upset about the possibility to see a black person in lets say Bree, I argued
that maybe black people werent as alien to Middle earth as they think.
When Tolkien described the origins of the world, and the races of men, he did use the word swarthy, dark skinned to describe one of the houses.
In other words: to all those with positive intentions, you could make an argument that black people in Lotro arent as strange as people think, let alone the end of the world.

Since that idea apparently greatly upsets you, you have spent an entire thread arguing, that those people werent black, but brown, mediterrenean maybe, that you
know better than Tolkien how and why he used the word swarthy or what it means or..that over time people become less black.
That's not nuance, that's racism, pure and simple.
To somehow connect that manner of thinking with Tolkien is not just wrong, its even the antithesis of everything he stood for.

"I have the hatred of apartheid in my bones; and most of all I detest the segregation or separation of Language and Literature. I do not care which of them you think White." - JRR Tolkien

It doesnt really matter, your little 'whites only' world is coming to an end, both in game as on tv, and people who
love Tolkien understand why the Tolkien estate embraces that.

[Fadil]

Nobody said they did. I've said repeatedly that it's obviously not literal (and that should be so obvious given the context that I shouldn't even need to say it) but you keep going on and on as if I'd somehow said it was. Regardless, the semblance is there, put there consciously by Tolkien himself: he pictured them as curious little fantasy versions of the sort of late Victorian English country folk he remembered, idealised so it's just the nice things about rural life. And they weren't originally part of his legendarium at all, they're there because of The Hobbit, a fairy-tale written for English children (his own, originally) and so hobbits are the sort of 'English' characters you'd put in such a tale.

I already said that he knew he couldn't write an actual mythology for England because modern people don't take to mythology like that

You are completely ignoring the problems Tolkien faced when he had to deal with the fact that the nazis so abused Norse mythology
in their gruesome propaganda, that after WOII even saying that Norse mythology was a source, was somehow difficult.
He had to rethink a lot of his original intentions. He turned himself into a pretzel denying that somehow Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen had been a source when writing Lord of the Rings.
And yes, he let go of the idea he wanted to write a mythology for England or even northern Europe.

"I have spent most of my life, since I was your age, studying Germanic matters (in the general sense that includes England and Scandinavia).
There is a great deal more force (and truth) than ignorant people imagine in the ‘Germanic’ ideal. I was much attracted by it as an undergraduate (when Hitler was,
I suppose, dabbling in paint, and had not heard of it), in reaction against the ‘Classics’. You have to understand the good in things, to detect the real evil.
But no one ever calls on me to ‘broadcast’, or do a postscript! Yet I suppose I know better than most what is the truth about this ‘Nordic’ nonsense.
Anyway, I have in this War a burning private grudge – which would probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy little ignoramus Adolf Hitler
(for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it chiefly affects the mere will).
Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved,
and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere, incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized." (Letter No. 45, dated 9 June 1941)

"Middle-earth …. corresponds spiritually to Nordic Europe.
Not Nordic, please! A word I personally dislike; it is associated, though of French origin, with racialist theories.
Geographically Northern is usually better. But examination will show that even this is inapplicable (geographically or spiritually) to ‘Middle-earth’. "

So, if you claim, rightfully so, that dwarves were taken from Norse mythology, there's nothing wrong with that statement. (although its interesting that once Tolkien compared his
dwarves to...Jews, but lets not open that can of worms.:P)
Were you to use said statement to connect them to actual people, specific places or worse: racist purity, there's everything wrong with it.

Your problem seems to be that you're simply not happy with and won't accept that Tolkien's work has a natively European character to it and peoples to match, and so you simply pretend that's not there.

I am perfectly happy with what Tolkien wrote and what he stood for. I am however not blind to
the fact that norse mythology is a tainted, difficult subject and that even while we speak sordid right extremists abuse Tolkien for their little sordid agenda.

Tolkien isnt the problem, the way in which some abuse Tolkien or his words, however is.

[TesalionLortus]

Ah Tolkien...the words and values that make sense are tolerance, solidarity, love, comradeship, anti-racism.
The veiled and not so veiled intolerance, bigotry and racism some here display, are somehow not what I think about when I think about Tolkien.
I dont think of people who mock everything Tolkien stood for as Tolkien geeks, more like people who abuse Tolkien for their political agenda
and never really understood what his work is all about.



Yes that is exactly what I argued. To all who are upset about the possibility to see a black person in lets say Bree, I argued
that maybe black people werent as alien to Middle earth as they think.
When Tolkien described the origins of the world, and the races of men, he did use the word swarthy, dark skinned to describe one of the houses.
In other words: to all those with positive intentions, you could make an argument that black people in Lotro arent as strange as people think, let alone the end of the world.

Since that idea apparently greatly upsets you, you have spent an entire thread arguing, that those people werent black, but brown, mediterrenean maybe, that you
know better than Tolkien how and why he used the word swarthy or what it means or..that over time people become less black.
That's not nuance, that's racism, pure and simple.
To somehow connect that manner of thinking with Tolkien is not just wrong, its even the antithesis of everything he stood for.

"I have the hatred of apartheid in my bones; and most of all I detest the segregation or separation of Language and Literature. I do not care which of them you think White." - JRR Tolkien

It doesnt really matter, your little 'whites only' world is coming to an end, both in game as on tv, and people who
love Tolkien understand why the Tolkien estate embraces that.

You're twisting my words and repeating yourself and accuse me of something I'm not (that's offensive) and, clearly, you're the one with the agenda all over your post here, the way you frame things, belittle other posters from the thread (not true Tolkien fans, that they mock Tolkien, that they're racist, that they have political agenda, do you even listen to yourself?). I didn't say Tolkien meant one specific thing either, I just said what's the context of the real world across generations, what science tells us, and what Tolkien said in other places too, and that we need to think of such things in more nuanced manner than just yours "whatever goes." (Which does not equal only white world because Middle-earth is not just white and never was and I very much look forward to exploring its different cultures and ethnicities, so again, can you please stop with your offensive conspiracy theories about many of us here?) There is nothing new to add anyway but it was nice discussing nuances, science, history and stuff, even if you just outright ignore it. Cheers.

[Fadil]

You're twisting my words and repeating yourself and accuse me of something I'm not (that's offensive) and, clearly, you're the one with the agenda all over your post here, the way you frame things, belittle other posters from the thread (not true Tolkien fans, that they mock Tolkien, that they're racist, that they have political agenda, do you even listen to yourself?).

To be specific, I said YOU are racist.
Not Tolkien fans in general, not any other poster in this thread.
Even though I vehemently disagree with him, I havent seen Radhruin write anything that strikes me as racist.

But look at the bright side: maybe there's hope for the good people of Africa, if they wait a couple of centuries, maybe they turn white too.

[Arnenna]

Such a migration worked with hobbits because they were said to be these hiding small folk, living in holes. Doesn't work like that for men. Historically, such migrations create tensions (unless within one unified entity). There was enmity, weapons were drawn. They come and take over, or they come and are driven off. Or they come and they come to some sort of mutual understanding (become a vassal, for example, and receive land). I simply like stories that make some sense, thank you. Creating whatever backstory as you see fit against all common sense and laws of the universe (absent of historical nuances) is a poor offering. People are free to write whatever they want in their bios, but for this game's quality some decent origins and pointers would have been far better.

I like stories that make sense too, but this is a RPG, role playing stories is a big part of it.

All they had to do was include origins and preferably put in some effort, not just 2-3 most generic ones you could think of. The choice not to was an oversight or - if by design - a silly silly needless move. So I have no idea why you so fervently defend them on this one. Furthermore, nothing has changed and inclusion of said origins will cost them very little, so some kind of stubbornness not to do this "because our image!" sounds silly as well, given it's about delivering better quality behind the game months and years into the future, in the creation panel.

As I said earlier - more than once, this isn't about what they didn't include, it's about what they delivered. Perhaps origins will come later (I hope they do), and then things may make a a little more sense to you. Until then though, we have what we have, and if you want to see some insight into any characters you come across, check out the bio, as there may be some good reading there for you - or not, in which case, make up your own.

[TesalionLortus]

To be specific, I said YOU are racist.
Not Tolkien fans in general, not any other poster in this thread.
Even though I vehemently disagree with him, I havent seen Radhruin write anything that strikes me as racist.

But look at the bright side: maybe there's hope for the good people of Africa, if they wait a couple of centuries, maybe they turn white too.

Thank you for clarifying this was a personal attack on me and me alone, in that case. Still doesn't make any of your accusations true and to your information people of Africa live in Africa, near the equator, which is some nuance for you to consider. But sure, if the planet's climate changes drastically and assuming our kind survives that long, then who knows what awaits down the road in what constitutes today's Africa after another thousands of years.

[Arnenna]

You're twisting my words and repeating yourself and accuse me of something I'm not (that's offensive) and, clearly, you're the one with the agenda all over your post here, the way you frame things, belittle other posters from the thread (not true Tolkien fans, that they mock Tolkien, that they're racist, that they have political agenda, do you even listen to yourself?). I didn't say Tolkien meant one specific thing either, I just said what's the context of the real world across generations, what science tells us, and what Tolkien said in other places too, and that we need to think of such things in more nuanced manner than just yours "whatever goes." (Which does not equal only white world because Middle-earth is not just white and never was and I very much look forward to exploring its different cultures and ethnicities, so again, can you please stop with your offensive conspiracy theories about many of us here?) There is nothing new to add anyway but it was nice discussing nuances, science, history and stuff, even if you just outright ignore it. Cheers.

It's not what science tells us though, that's just your limited take on it. Science tells us all about natural selection and much of it is via divergence. The moving around of people within geographic locations. It is science that tells us, that there could indeed be black people, all over Middle-earth. It is one of the main reasons biodiversity exits at all.

[Arnenna]

and to your information people of Africa live in Africa, near the equator, which is some nuance for you to consider.

And here enter my "wuuut?" moment to you.

You're having a laugh now right? Gotta be.

Have you ever been there? I have. I have a profound love for Africa, and its people, and yeah, it's where the Great Apes are (except for orangutans). You clearly don't know much about the place, or it's people.

[TesalionLortus]

It's not what science tells us though, that's just your limited take on it. Science tells us all about natural selection and much of it is via divergence. The moving around of people within geographic locations. It is science that tells us, that there could indeed be black people, all over Middle-earth. It is one of the main reasons biodiversity exits at all.

Combine what we know of science (and history) with what Tolkien wrote regarding Third Age and Westerners specifically (and how peoples like Haradrim differed from them, for example), and there is your answer.

And here enter my "wuuut?" moment to you.

You're having a laugh now right? Gotta be.

Have you ever been there? I have. I have a profound love for Africa, and its people, and yeah, it's where the Great Apes are (except for orangutans). You clearly don't know much about the place, or it's people.

That does not tell me anything. You mean the place is diverse and not just the highest level of black? Which is something I pointed out myself posts above. That there are whites too? Clearly, and what does it have to do with anything said

[Radhruin_EU]

Why can you not accept that? People all over the world in real life, flee their origins in times of war to seek better lives in new places, far from their land of origin. They have done so for a very, very long time. They are doing it, even today, as we type in here. Why is it so difficult to understand that it could pose a feasible story in a game? Tolkien didn't mention a lot of things, but they make for feasible adaptation.

Because the world is very different nowadays, and you really need to turn the clock back. If you're having to trek around on foot, distance and natural barriers are a huge deal. Deserts, big rivers, mountains, seas. Availability of food and water. Knowing what's safe to eat and what isn't, once you're away from familiar surroundings. The climate of places you have to trek through (we all know about people dying of dehydration in deserts, or freezing to death while trying to cross mountains, or being swept to their deaths by flash floods, etc.). Other natural hazards, such as avalanches. The local wildlife, which may want to eat you, or may just attack you if it feels threatened, or may be just plain aggressive. Poisonous critters (snakes, scorpions, spiders). Disease (like the classic "You have died of dysentery"). And potentially worst of all, other people. Now they may be kind to strangers, but what if they aren't? Are there local customs or laws to deal with? What if the people and/or local regime are cruel? Will they let you pass, or turn you away, or do something awful to you - enslave you, kill you? Are there bandits? And all of this isn't going on in the real world either but one that features Sauron, and the rather unpleasant regimes run by the guys who follow him.

Now obviously this would be far, far easier for some than others. Near Harad is quite nearby. So are parts of Rhun, although the nearer you got to the West the more vigilant and hostile Sauron's lot would be. However, once you start talking Far Harad or the far distant corners of the East then that'd be an epic trek (from months all the way up to years). From a storytelling perspective, that's only feasible if you can tell a good tale without contrivance. For comparison with RL: say it's meant to be 600 CE or so and you want to get a character in a story from either (a) China or (b) equatorial Africa all the way to the kingdom of Mercia, that's going to take a bit of doing. Heck, you could probably get a whole trilogy out of just that bit. And if they've managed to get through all that (or the equivalent in a fantasy world), from a gaming perspective it'd be tough to explain why they're still a n00b.

So, a bit of push-back on what you said: why is it so difficult to understand that there are limits to what's feasible or sensible, and having everyone from everywhere turning up in Bree all at once is a bit much (or really, a lot much)?

He did mention some things, like hobbits don't do magic or are not war loving people, but hey, their both in game.

Yes, now, quite recently, and it's the exact same issue of SSG being offhand and casual in a way Turbine weren't. That's not really a rationale, it's effectively just saying "SSG can't be bothered to make sense any more so I shouldn't have to".