new Beor class excluded to the hobbit

[Radhruin_EU]

Regardless of whether it is credible or not, the design and world ethos of this game is that "magic" in the classic sense was the preserve of the Valar and as such is not accessible to player characters.

This was never the case in any meaningful sense. They half-heartedly went with that at launch and then it was quietly dropped, as first the LM became much more obviously magical and then the RK arrived.

Of course certain famous individuals were able to manipulate it - Feanor and the Silmarils, Celebrimbor the three rings of power. However that's beside the point. LOTRO does not have magic, otherwise Turbine would have turned the taps on full and given us Mages, Warlocks, Illusionists and so forth. There can't be any shades of grey on this matter.

They've given us mages... what do you think RKs are? Why do you think they have specifically elemental powers, when the idea behind it could incorporate all sorts of imagery rather than just obvious stuff like lightning, frost and fire? Of course there can be shades of grey, they can draw the line where they like; you can't insist it's either no magic or all the usual stuff.

So, the question I have concerns scholarly study. Someone earlier in this thread made the point that hobbits, except for two notable exceptions were not learned. Yet in the context of this game my hobbit minstrel is a fully ranked scholar. She can understand and interpret ancient texts and other artefacts. So if this game allows my hobbit to be a master of lore, then the argument that hobbits should not be LMs because they were just a bunch of illiterate farmers and yeomen does not stand up to scrutiny.

So, based on some stuff you've just conveniently assumed and that doesn't bear close scrutiny, you've decided it'd be okay to have a hobbit going around looking and acting like a miniature wizard, complete with robe. staff and (optional) pointy hat? If you can't see what's wrong with that picture, Twinkletoes, then I despair of you.

Ultimately, this is where the inconsistencies within the game make it almost impossible to stand up any argument based on "lore" - there are just so many exceptions to the rule. If the lore were to be applied properly, then my hobbit minstrel should not be a scholar. Such professions should be limited to Elves and Men. Indeed if anything hobbits should be limited to farmers, cooks, tailors and woodworkers as being lore appropriate professions. Of course adhering to the lore would mean that pet huorns and Beornings would also be rolled back, however as those are considered appropriate then are hobbit LMs really such a departure?

Yes, because it wouldn't be even remotely in the spirit of things to have hobbits waving a staff around and doing what looks and sounds exactly like typical FRPG-style magic, regardless of any pretence you choose to make as to whether it's 'really' magic or not. Even if you just call it mystical power over nature they're just not supposed to be into that. The image that would present which would be way 'off' for Middle-earth because these are meant to be Tolkienesque hobbits, not generic FRP halflings.

Be glad they let you have your minstrel. Be glad they didn't put limitations on crafting for hobbits. Don't try to go beyond those reasonable compromises and into the realm of things that'd be blatantly taking the mickey.

[rodin12]

put you in English so that you understand that you now need to degree of these hobbits license to open the library any new data I need the name of a novel human related books I only saw peasants of rohan and gondor everywhere I tell data I want names of human lore in the novel


During the Fourth Age , granting the Hobbits King Elessar the region west of the county (which was renamed West Frontier), many Hobbits moved there, including Elanor , the eldest daughter of Samwise Gamgee with her ??husband and his son Elfstan Belinfante . The place where they lived was renamed Under the Towers (for its proximity to the towers of Emyn Beraid). Since then, the descendants of Elfstan (the Belinfantes of Torres ) lived in this region, guarding many books of ancient lore, including the Red Book of Westmarch , the basis for all accounts collected by Tolkien .

[Brandon_Blackbird]

That happens in the future, though. So we can't base anything off of it because it hasn't happened yet.

[c_the_awesome]

During the Fourth Age , granting the Hobbits King Elessar the region west of the county (which was renamed West Frontier), many Hobbits moved there, including Elanor , the eldest daughter of Samwise Gamgee with her ??husband and his son Elfstan Belinfante . The place where they lived was renamed Under the Towers (for its proximity to the towers of Emyn Beraid). Since then, the descendants of Elfstan (the Belinfantes of Torres ) lived in this region, guarding many books of ancient lore, including the Red Book of Westmarch , the basis for all accounts collected by Tolkien .

So, just cuz you guard something does not make you wise, smart, or be able to call lighting from heaven. If I was the securaty guard at the library, does that make me smart? No because if I was, I would be the Librerian, not the security guard who could not get into collage. But because I am the security guard, I could get the title "Lore Guardian" because thats what I am, but it would not make me smart.

[Bel-Astarte]

What about a honey badger?

All hobbits are honey badgers. Just get between them and the pie.

[Wiedman]

I think it is probably the result of a very poor translation service. It might almost be better if this thread was in the OP's native language.

I agree. I think rodin knows what he's talking about, but doesn't know how to express it properly in English. Merry and Pippen are called Captains in the Scouring of the Shire. So there's basis for hobbit captains. Merry is called out for his herb-lore, and later hobbits wrote and presumably mastered a great deal of lore. So the idea of hobbit lore-masters is consistent with the internal logic of Middle Earth (even if hobbits aren't interested in magic and don't practice it).

The original complaint about Beorns was that hobbits don't have enough classes, and making the new class human only exacerbates that problem. I don't think rodin wanted hobbit Beornings, he wanted a different class, or opening up older classes to hobbits.

We should remember that not everybody speaks English, and we should try to be patient with people who are doing their best to communicate. Instead of nitpicking, try to figure out what they mean, and help them with expressing that in English.

[Nymphonic]

All hobbits are honey badgers. Just get between them and the pie.

You know what, that just seems to be suicidal!

[Nymphonic]

I don't think rodin wanted hobbit Beornings, he wanted a different class, or opening up older classes to hobbits.

If this is the case, I can totally see his point if he just feels that Hobbits need more access to classes.

[BangoTwinkletoes]

This was never the case in any meaningful sense. They half-heartedly went with that at launch and then it was quietly dropped, as first the LM became much more obviously magical and then the RK arrived.


They've given us mages... what do you think RKs are? Why do you think they have specifically elemental powers, when the idea behind it could incorporate all sorts of imagery rather than just obvious stuff like lightning, frost and fire? Of course there can be shades of grey, they can draw the line where they like; you can't insist it's either no magic or all the usual stuff.


So, based on some stuff you've just conveniently assumed and that doesn't bear close scrutiny, you've decided it'd be okay to have a hobbit going around looking and acting like a miniature wizard, complete with robe. staff and (optional) pointy hat? If you can't see what's wrong with that picture, Twinkletoes, then I despair of you.


Yes, because it wouldn't be even remotely in the spirit of things to have hobbits waving a staff around and doing what looks and sounds exactly like typical FRPG-style magic, regardless of any pretence you choose to make as to whether it's 'really' magic or not. Even if you just call it mystical power over nature they're just not supposed to be into that. The image that would present which would be way 'off' for Middle-earth because these are meant to be Tolkienesque hobbits, not generic FRP halflings.

Be glad they let you have your minstrel. Be glad they didn't put limitations on crafting for hobbits. Don't try to go beyond those reasonable compromises and into the realm of things that'd be blatantly taking the mickey.

I don't break up posts into multiple segments. The point you're missing is that when the lore is significantly broken in one area for no reason other than to introduce mass-market MMO concepts - magic, cosmetic pets, film tie-ins etc then that lore cannot be used as an argument for not including another lore-breaking feature. That's the blindingly obvious point that others have missed here on this forum but I would have hoped that you of all people would have understood that.

So, in the scheme of things, a hobbit LM who considers him/herself more along the lines of an Animist who studies nature and lore is less of a lore-break that having hundreds of Beornings (a class that's a race) running around Breeland shapeshifting at will like WoW's druids can.

When looking at the lore in many respects I absolutely agree with you - hobbit lore masters are a silly idea but unfortunately Turbine insists on rolling out into this game many other silly ideas that stretch ever more thin the premise that this game strongly adheres to the lore of Tolkien's literature.

Some aspects of the lore were always going to be at risk - player-character hobbits, elves and dwarves for one, fast travelling between lothlorien and rivendell being another. However when this game introduces pet huorns - a creature so dangerous and mysterious that only creatures even more dangerous and mysterious can "heard" them, yet we get one that follows us around like a little puppy.

Therefore in the grand scheme of things as it is now, for me a hobbit LM is less of an evil than a pet huorn or the introduction of "shapeshifters".

[Radhruin_EU]

I don't break up posts into multiple segments. The point you're missing is that when the lore is significantly broken in one area for no reason other than to introduce mass-market MMO concepts - magic, cosmetic pets, film tie-ins etc then that lore cannot be used as an argument for not including another lore-breaking feature. That's the blindingly obvious point that others have missed here on this forum but I would have hoped that you of all people would have understood that.

That's just you contriving something to suit yourself. Turbine don't break all lore, all the time - because they do quite evidently respect some of it, you can't insist that none of it matters or that some specific bit should be thrown in the bin just because you think it should. Failing to limit crafting for hobbits doesn't mean they therefore have to give you whatever class you want as well. Having one lore-break doesn't make a slam-dunk case for any other lore-break you fancy, because they're not all created equal - especially in this case, where it's something fundamental about hobbits and how they're characterised.

[BangoTwinkletoes]

That's just you contriving something to suit yourself. Turbine don't break all lore, all the time - because they do quite evidently respect some of it, you can't insist that none of it matters or that some specific bit should be thrown in the bin just because you think it should. Failing to limit crafting for hobbits doesn't mean they therefore have to give you whatever class you want as well. Having one lore-break doesn't make a slam-dunk case for any other lore-break you fancy, because they're not all created equal - especially in this case, where it's something fundamental about hobbits and how they're characterised.

So a hobbit cannot be a LM yet a hobbit can ride around Angmar on a hobby horse with a pet Hurorn in tow? Which is the more preposterous?

I'm not contriving any supposition. Take the huorn pets and the "Beorning" class. Neither of these changes was presented in the context of the lore - the concept of having a mini pet huron is just nonsense and was chosen, in my opinion, solely as a leader for more cosmetic pets no doubt to follow where WoW has been with their pet system. The introduction of the Beornings being such an obvious film tie in - no other reason why that "class" should be been selected.

Hence if it was decided that hobbit LMs were going to be a viable commercial proposition then we would be seeing them, because the lore is no longer a significant limiting factor for this game. Once the lore can be disregarded as it has been, then hobbit LMs, captains or champions are no more preposterous than the notion of having hundreds of Beornings running around Breeland swapping in and out of bear form like no tomorrow.

Just so it's clear - I'm not in favour of this game introducing hobbit LMs, hobbit captains or any other permutation. What I'm highlighting is the nonsense where people can facepalm the OP for suggesting this change when in another thread posters are talking about winning one of the three pet Huorns, where on the one hand posters put up the argument against hobbits being knights as they are stereotypical whilst the game allows for hobbits to be learned scholars.

The question that players need to be asking themselves is what next for this game? Let's hope when Peter Jackson puts together then next Hobbit film that he does not have hobbit mages being parachuted into the battle of five armies from airships piloted all the way from Michel Delving in order to save the day....

[Beorthnoth]

Aww. Here in the UK most of us are well aware that it is possible to get Two Whales in a Mini......

Nah, that was elephants, not whales

[Wiedman]

Please, for the love of God, can we all just agree that hobbit captains are not lore breaking? Tolkien himself called Merry, Pippen, and even Frodo captains. If that's not canon, I honestly don't know what is.

Seriously, I am so sick and tired of people pretending that hobbit captains are lore breaking. It's really starting to irritate me.

Turbine has its own reasons for restricting the Captain class to RoM, and that's their business. But those reasons are not based on anything Tolkien wrote.

[Cartman76]

Please, for the love of God, can we all just agree that hobbit captains are not lore breaking? Tolkien himself called Merry, Pippen, and even Frodo captains. If that's not canon, I honestly don't know what is.

Seriously, I am so sick and tired of people pretending that hobbit captains are lore breaking. It's really starting to irritate me.

Turbine has its own reasons for restricting the Captain class to RoM, and that's their business. But those reasons are not based on anything Tolkien wrote.

I'll go as far as saying any class that can't be a hobbit is lore-breaking since we all know hobbits are awesome!!!
Thin ice I know but it's a game and they are awesome

[Radhruin_EU]

So a hobbit cannot be a LM yet a hobbit can ride around Angmar on a hobby horse with a pet Hurorn in tow? Which is the more preposterous?

Tasteless 'fluff' hardly equates to something as fundamental as who gets to be what class. Such fluff make everyone look silly. but it's not there the whole time. People can ride different mounts, and stop looling silly. People can put away their pets, and stop looking silly. A hobbit LM would be stuck being silly 24/7. And as ever, two (or more) wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not contriving any supposition. Take the huorn pets and the "Beorning" class. Neither of these changes was presented in the context of the lore - the concept of having a mini pet huron is just nonsense and was chosen, in my opinion, solely as a leader for more cosmetic pets no doubt to follow where WoW has been with their pet system. The introduction of the Beornings being such an obvious film tie in - no other reason why that "class" should be been selected.

The "Beornings" are at least a 'real' thing in the context of Middle-earth, and the failing will be them turning up in places they shouldn't be, but that's a fault most player-characters share (and hobbits in particular). You're arguing for having hobbits, something already frequently out of place, going on to be something they simply shouldn't be as well (a flat contradiction of something Tolkien wrote, which even the "Beornings" won't be).

Now when it comes to the pet huorns I'm exasperated with Turbine for coming up with something like that (it's exactly like something out of WoW) but trying to use that as an excuse for breaking even more lore (something fundamental, no less) is pretty weak. Is that really the best you could come up with?

Hence if it was decided that hobbit LMs were going to be a viable commercial proposition then we would be seeing them, because the lore is no longer a significant limiting factor for this game. Once the lore can be disregarded as it has been, then hobbit LMs, captains or champions are no more preposterous than the notion of having hundreds of Beornings running around Breeland swapping in and out of bear form like no tomorrow.

That's a sweeping generalisation, and one you can't substantiate. Turbine have always been reluctant to directly contradict Tolkien - give them an inch and they'll take a mile (as with the RK), but that's not the case here. The reasoning that led them to exclude hobbit LMs to begin with still holds and they've not otherwise gone mad about who can be what class. It's not like Men can suddenly be RKs, or that hobbits can already be every other class.

Just so it's clear - I'm not in favour of this game introducing hobbit LMs, hobbit captains or any other permutation. What I'm highlighting is the nonsense where people can facepalm the OP for suggesting this change when in another thread posters are talking about winning one of the three pet Huorns, where on the one hand posters put up the argument against hobbits being knights as they are stereotypical whilst the game allows for hobbits to be learned scholars.

The OP gets facepalmed because he's one of these people who thinks hobbits should be able to do everything just because halflings can in other games. And sorry, but I simply don't consider crafting to be of anything like the same significance as character classes.

[Iolanthea]

Nah, that was elephants, not whales

Elephants doesn't work if you are trying to do the "how do you get to Wales..." pun though

[Radhruin_EU]

Please, for the love of God, can we all just agree that hobbit captains are not lore breaking? Tolkien himself called Merry, Pippen, and even Frodo captains. If that's not canon, I honestly don't know what is.

Seriously, I am so sick and tired of people pretending that hobbit captains are lore breaking. It's really starting to irritate me.

Turbine has its own reasons for restricting the Captain class to RoM, and that's their business. But those reasons are not based on anything Tolkien wrote.

Be irritated, then. Even Merry and Pippin (who'd drunk Ent-draughts and grown to unprecedented size for hobbits) only got to lead other hobbits. They're a special case, one that doesn't lend itself to being generalised for player-characters, Captains are Men because of it being the time for Men to lead, with the Elves taking a back seat, the Dwarves being outsiders as they'd always been, and hobbits having never led anyone other than themselves and that very rarely. Like it ot not, it does reflect something from the books.

Holding up Merry and Pippin as examples is also feeble justification because as far as the plot of the game goes, they haven't even got to 'captain' anyone themselves yet. That was in the Scouring of the Shire, remember?

[Wiedman]

Holding up Merry and Pippin as examples is also feeble justification because as far as the plot of the game goes, they haven't even got to 'captain' anyone themselves yet. That was in the Scouring of the Shire, remember?

Right, and Scouring of the Shire was in Lord of the Rings, and the game is called Lord of the Rings Online. If it's in the book, it's lore appropriate. Otherwise lore appropriate has no meaning.

Furthermore Frodo is called a Captain while the hobbits are partying in Crickhollow. Are you going to pretend like that didn't happen, or that it hasn't happened yet?

[Radhruin_EU]

Right, and Scouring of the Shire was in Lord of the Rings, and the game is called Lord of the Rings Online. If it's in the book, it's lore appropriate. Otherwise lore appropriate has no meaning.

Oh hell no. Not when it hasn't even happened to them yet, and when Merry and Pippin were exceptional in a way player-character hobbits don't even get to be. And not when there's never an occasion when other people recognise hobbits as 'captains'.

Furthermore Frodo is called a Captain while the hobbits are partying in Crickhollow. Are you going to pretend like that didn't happen, or that it hasn't happened yet?

And you expect me to take that seriously? It's said in a casual, joking sense:

‘Good! That’s settled. Three cheers for Captain Frodo and company!’ they shouted; and they danced round him. Merry and Pippin began a song, which they had apparently got ready for the occasion.

- FOTR, 'A Conspiracy Unmasked'

Don't try to latch onto the least mention of the word like it means anything; Pippin called Frodo 'Lord of the Ring' later on as well, and needless to say he wasn't that either.

[BangoTwinkletoes]

Tasteless 'fluff' hardly equates to something as fundamental as who gets to be what class. Such fluff make everyone look silly. but it's not there the whole time. People can ride different mounts, and stop looling silly. People can put away their pets, and stop looking silly. A hobbit LM would be stuck being silly 24/7. And as ever, two (or more) wrongs don't make a right.


The "Beornings" are at least a 'real' thing in the context of Middle-earth, and the failing will be them turning up in places they shouldn't be, but that's a fault most player-characters share (and hobbits in particular). You're arguing for having hobbits, something already frequently out of place, going on to be something they simply shouldn't be as well (a flat contradiction of something Tolkien wrote, which even the "Beornings" won't be).

Now when it comes to the pet huorns I'm exasperated with Turbine for coming up with something like that (it's exactly like something out of WoW) but trying to use that as an excuse for breaking even more lore (something fundamental, no less) is pretty weak. Is that really the best you could come up with?


That's a sweeping generalisation, and one you can't substantiate. Turbine have always been reluctant to directly contradict Tolkien - give them an inch and they'll take a mile (as with the RK), but that's not the case here. The reasoning that led them to exclude hobbit LMs to begin with still holds and they've not otherwise gone mad about who can be what class. It's not like Men can suddenly be RKs, or that hobbits can already be every other class.


The OP gets facepalmed because he's one of these people who thinks hobbits should be able to do everything just because halflings can in other games. And sorry, but I simply don't consider crafting to be of anything like the same significance as character classes.

Well it was fun trying to argue for a hobbit LM. Not that I fundamentally agree with it mind though, as you know I would have liked to have seen an "Animist" as the new class rather than the "Beorning" for reasons given before. With both recent and planned additions to the game the overall adherence to the lore has been compromised and, in my very humble opinion it's now just a slippery slope where decisions are based on wider commercial concerns and interests - namely WB's wider Tolkien licensed products. Let's cross our fingers that Ranger Wraiths with laser eyes never make it into the game

[Wiedman]

Oh hell no. Not when it hasn't even happened to them yet, and when Merry and Pippin were exceptional in a way player-character hobbits don't even get to be. And not when there's never an occasion when other people recognise hobbits as 'captains'.

The only other person who needs to recognize hobbits as captains is Tolkien. And he did. When you say hobbits can't be captains, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with him.

And you expect me to take that seriously? It's said in a casual, joking sense:

‘Good! That’s settled. Three cheers for Captain Frodo and company!’ they shouted; and they danced round him. Merry and Pippin began a song, which they had apparently got ready for the occasion.

- FOTR, 'A Conspiracy Unmasked'

So casually, and so jokingly that Sam, Pippin, and Merry followed Frodo through countless dangers on a quest into the unknown. Sounds to me like their loyalty speaks louder than your pathetic denials.

[Radhruin_EU]

The only other person who needs to recognize hobbits as captains is Tolkien. And he did. When you say hobbits can't be captains, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with him.

Nope, I'm arguing entirely with you for entirely ignoring the context of what he wrote. I'm saying that it was only a couple of notably special and magically transformed extra-tall hobbits who got to be 'captains' at all and even that was only as far as other hobbits were concerned, and not even in the war proper but just an afterthought, a skirmish with some thugs. That doesn't even come close to comparing with the Men who appear as captains in the books, in real full-scale battles against a real and terrible enemy.

So casually, and so jokingly that Sam, Pippin, and Merry followed Frodo through countless dangers on a quest into the unknown. Sounds to me like their loyalty speaks louder than your pathetic denials.

Did you miss the bit where they went on to dance around and sing a song after calling him 'Captain Frodo'? Nobody in their right mind would take that seriously.

[c_the_awesome]

Please, for the love of God, can we all just agree that hobbit captains are not lore breaking? Tolkien himself called Merry, Pippen, and even Frodo captains. If that's not canon, I honestly don't know what is.

Seriously, I am so sick and tired of people pretending that hobbit captains are lore breaking. It's really starting to irritate me.

Turbine has its own reasons for restricting the Captain class to RoM, and that's their business. But those reasons are not based on anything Tolkien wrote.

Captains are supposed to be the free peoples' leaders. not just the race of man but everyone. The Eldar are leaving, the dwarves digging, and hobbits eating. Not really captain material anywhere except the race of men. and The Scourging of the shire hasn't happened yet so we cannot use any material coming from there.

And if you manage to convince any of us you still have to convince the SZC.

[Comstrike]

I call big dogs puppies often enough. They aren't, but it is a term of affection. There seems ample grounding to restrict the class by race. And even if LOTRO isn't as young as it once was we can't start giving-in to every single little "yeah but yeah but yeah but I reallys wants its and here is a 750 word essay presented out of context to support that."

Tolkien said what he said but that should be taken in context. Rare and exceptional Hobbits did make themselves worthy of a title otherwise held for men. That is not grounding for an entire legion of them. Everything of course has to be balanced in considerations, but just because we have tons of hobbits around the game isn't a gateway to others.

[cdq1958]

Captains are supposed to be the free peoples' leaders. not just the race of man but everyone. The Eldar are leaving, the dwarves digging, and hobbits eating. Not really captain material anywhere except the race of men. and The Scourging of the shire hasn't happened yet so we cannot use any material coming from there.

And if you manage to convince any of us you still have to convince the SZC.

That's not quite true, at least for the use of Scouring of the Shire material. The Trouble in Tuckborough skirmish is set in that time.