So the up coming new class is Corsair?

[k40rne]

Tit's only got any sort of nautical associations by proxy from adventure novels and movies etc. where a swashbuckling type also happens to be a ship-captain and/or pirate.

I'm well aware this term came from movies with Errol Flynn & the buckler in this sense refers to a shield. And no I don't like the name (but others are appeased by it), but the name is not that relevant as I said. The particular class type is what matters & all evidence has pointed to this melee/support light armour type with light weapons that we are designating a corsair for simplification.

As for the Numenoreans, so what? It happened when they became corrupted, and that same streak of cruelty continued through to latterday Umbar because there were still some people of Black Numenorean ancestry to be found there, i.e. people descended from the King's Men of old. Nobody's blaming the Haradrim for it exclusively but yeah, they're a slaving culture and that's seen as an evil - fostered of course by Sauron as the then exemplar of evil personified. He sets the tone when it comes to cruelty and the brutal use of power to dominate and enslave.

Not exactly, the Numenoreans had a long arc & it wasn't just about corruption. They had many periods & it wasn't this black and white.

Also if we want to get into slaving culture as you did (I think) about the Barbary coast pirates. We must understand that all the great and even lesser European Colonial powers were engaged in it. Portugal, Spain, France, Holland, England, Belgium were some of the worst offenders. I'm pretty sure Tolkien would have been aware of this too, so putting too negative a connotation on corsairs is a bit of a stretch.

I don't think the Corsairs themselves are a society, they're just part of Haradrim society - like the real Barbary Corsairs were part of society in North Africa back in the day. And yes, they'd likely be a rabble who'd squabble among themselves but the unifying thread is what they do for a living.

Well, Umbar is it's own separate region that Harad surrounds on the South, North & East, so it seems more likely they are of the umbarim culture than the haradrim.

[Elmagor]

Well, Umbar is it's own separate region that Harad surrounds on the South, North & East, so it seems more likely they are of the umbarim culture than the haradrim.

More likely Umbar will have mix between gondor, haradrim and numenor cultures

[Oldwiley]

Also if we want to get into slaving culture as you did (I think) about the Barbary coast pirates. We must understand that all the great and even lesser European Colonial powers were engaged in it. Portugal, Spain, France, Holland, England, Belgium were some of the worst offenders. I'm pretty sure Tolkien would have been aware of this too, so putting too negative a connotation on corsairs is a bit of a stretch.

Rad seems quite hung up on the idea of the Barbary trade, with entire Cornish villages vanishing without trace overnight and a kind of influence of it being the North African / Mediterranean history that's worked its way into the books.

In our previous conversation in this thread, I kinda pointed out that historically slavery was pretty ubiquitous: I mean as well as the infamous colonial era of Europe, by extension there are places that came late to moving on like Brasil and the USA, both continuing in this horrific practise after it was dying out in colonial Europe. Not to mention the much less discussed trade of the East African and Indian ocean centred around Zanzibar and China that was both contemporary and pre-dated the triangular Atlantic trade. We could add in the Mongols or Rome for earlier examples.

Its probably a lot harder to name places where slavery was not rampant than the other way around. This is much to shame of humanity. Its a righty sensitive topic and even peoples of the victims own cultures were involved often between warring factions. The moral code of slavery = bad is a fairly new one and it lurks on the surface even to this day to some extent. Its after effects resonate around the world.

So we digress, In the context of middle earth is Gondor morally superior to Umbar, dark lords aside? Probably a more ethical nation? How do the cultures within middle earth view the interlopers settling down a kingdom and claiming all this land. Were the people of Dunland right to have a bone to pick with Rohan?

So, Barbary inspired ? No such thing as a decent, cheeky Pirate of the Umbarrean?

[TesalionLortus]

Not natively it doesn't, as I already pointed out, so that's just more hand-waving. Trying to contrive an internal reason for it like that when we had the exact same nonsense in WoT, RoP and others.

Natively it still has such magic and convocation was involved on more occasions than once, so it's not like it was utterly baseless. Also, no, it's not trying, it's just a fact, excluding the extremeness of Dryads s1-2 of Witcher wasn't nearly as bad as these others.

Not to the same extent, again as I already pointed out.

But... you didn't... you just said general things that were easily disproved once I analyzed and compared to the two more thoroughly which proved they are pretty much the same level of difficulty and inconvenience.

'More Men going to Mordor,' he said in a low voice. `Dark faces. We have
not seen Men like these before, no, Sméagol has not. They are fierce. They
have black eyes, and long black hair, and gold rings in their ears; yes, lots
of beautiful gold. And some have red paint on their cheeks, and red cloaks;
and their flags are red, and the tips of their spears; and they have ro
shields, yellow and black with big spikes. Not nice; very cruel wicked Men
they look. Almost as bad as Orcs, and much bigger.'

It's not just their attire that makes them stand out.

You quoted that passage where the most of "eye sore" things about them that would stand out is attire (cloaks, war paint, armor with spikes, physique but amongst Gondorians you would surely find some more muscular men here and there) and then proceed to tell me it's not their attire that makes them stand out. Oh well... no idea what you're trying to do now. Just to be clear, unless they were fully exposed and got into trouble, were unlucky or suspicious in a place they shouldn't be, then spy arguments and further suspicions based on their attire are very much guaranteed, but otherwise color of their eyes, hairs (if they don't have flashy Southern hairstyle) or regular earing or two wouldn't be as distinctive from a distance, not to mention under hood. As for the skin tone...

They'd almost certainly be darker-skinned than anyone you might see in the West because they're fresh out of Harad. And it had been a long time since Gondor had held Umbar (more than a thousand years) so the limited diversity there might have been from intermarriage with people from Harad would have declined (tending to diffuse out into the wider population, eventually becoming all but imperceptible after such a long time).

Out of Far Harad, then I would agree. As for Harad/Near Harad... the game already has darker skin tones available and its interpretation of Gondor's ethnic composition/historical justifications for it is clearly different from yours here. I'm sure we'll find out in more detail in due time in corresponding areas but I suspect their interpretation wouldn't be off if they did it right. After all, it was not just some friendship "until there was no friendship." It goes back to Numenorean conquests, lands changed hands and vice versa, loyalties of certain groups shifted etc. What proof do you have in the game's version of the story there was no substantial darker skinned group that was "Gondorized" over time (associated with larger groups or vassal states out of Harad). None.

And the kingdoms of exile must have been pretty diverse to begin with, since you can't exactly tell me it was all population from Numenor, lucky enough to escape the catastrophe in droves to the point where they populated entire kingdoms and have become a dominant "blood" on the shores of Middle-earth - though clearly it's the royalty that would safeguard their bloodline and when Tolkien wrote about these things he pretty much focused his attention on these noble figures of the court, not your regular Gondorian citizen from the province living under the King's boot, whose skin color/ethnicity could vastly differ, given the place. Gondor isn't like the medieval Kingdom of England or Scandinavia, with native roots. The history is more like a bunch of wise Greeks or Romans sailing up the coasts and rivers and establishing their benevolent (or not so) rule over less industrious and less wise Celts, Persians, Egyptians etc.

As for more recently, again there's no friendship between Gondor and either the Easterlings or the Haradrim so that's a complete red herring - stop talking about this as if it's a normal situation.

I was not talking about friendship between them, evidently, and I even made it extra clear. Seems it's futile, you're back to these "friendship" statements.

He'd look and sound foreign and would have no idea about social customs. That would stand out and attract attention. He wouldn't be able to blend in. You talk about him visiting a tavern - what's he using for money? And again, they're on a war footing. That'd mean more vigilance for people who don't fit in.

An elf attracts attention too, now that you mention it. Or hobbit... even worse, a hobbit cant exactly blend in and they have a weird sense of the world too, Shire being isolationist and all that. I don't even need to go with Stout-axe again but I could. And you keep saying wouldn't be able to blend in, no way, yet your only proof is... what? Because they were lazy and fools so they didn't even try to? If they tried and were dedicated sure they would, to some degree. You say it again, vigilance, but don't say how. Vigilance how? A guard at every tavern and every dirty path, in every province, inspecting everyone? A giant Trump wall across the border?

[Radhruin_EU]

Not exactly, the Numenoreans had a long arc & it wasn't just about corruption. They had many periods & it wasn't this black and white.

It was clear-cut when it came to slavery. They didn't start enslaving people in Middle-earth and using them for forced labour until they'd become corrupted. Yes, it's analogous to colonialism (Tolkien was no fan of the British Empire) but that's as far as it goes. It also has zero relevance to Gondor as that was founded by the Faithful and it was the King's Men who'd turned nasty, That falls squarely on the Black Numenoreans who were their remaining descendants.

You're focusing over-much on that when the examples we have of it in the late Third Age are from Sauron & Co., and the Corsairs are a definitive case of that. Using galley-slaves was a particularly grim business and you don't get to try and pretend that doesn't signify because of colonialism. That's nothing but whataboutism.

Well, Umbar is it's own separate region that Harad surrounds on the South, North & East, so it seems more likely they are of the umbarim culture than the haradrim.

Not so much. The place had been taken back from Gondor by the Haradrim more than a thousand years before. The culture had some legacy Black Numenorean and corrupted Gondorean influence but it had become primarily Haradrim. Gondor had crushed Castamir's heirs and slain them all, so that when Umbar was eventually lost again it was the Haradrim themselves who got their hands on it.

[Vilan]

Cordovan's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, regardless of topic or scope, the probability of Tesalion and Rad ending up in a lore argument approaches 1.

[TesalionLortus]

Cordovan's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, regardless of topic or scope, the probability of Tesalion and Rad ending up in a lore argument approaches 1.

It's more of a game lore + lore speculation for context

Cordovan's Law has a nice ring to it though, maybe not in this context but... make it an official thing somehow, would be neat

[Radhruin_EU]

Natively it still has such magic and convocation was involved on more occasions than once, so it's not like it was utterly baseless.

It's just bad fanfic.

But... you didn't... you just said general things that were easily disproved once I analyzed and compared to the two more thoroughly which proved they are pretty much the same level of difficulty and inconvenience.

And a thousand miles or so less to walk doesn't make a difference? Wow, much thorough, such exacting.

You quoted that passage where the most of "eye sore" things about them that would stand out is attire (cloaks, war paint, armor with spikes, physique but amongst Gondorians you would surely find some more muscular men here and there) and then proceed to tell me it's not their attire that makes them stand out. Oh well... no idea what you're trying to do now. Just to be clear, unless they were fully exposed and got into trouble, were unlucky or suspicious in a place they shouldn't be, then spy arguments and further suspicions based on their attire are very much guaranteed, but otherwise color of their eyes, hairs (if they don't have flashy Southern hairstyle) or regular earing or two wouldn't be as distinctive from a distance, not to mention under hood. As for the skin tone...

And being notably dark-skinned, black-haired and with dark eyes as well as looking fierce (maybe tending to be rather hawkish looking). Of course that's going to stand out. What the heck did you think I meant? He just wouldn't look like he was from those parts and again, they're on a war footing, they'd ask strangers what their business was and what on earth is he supposed to say that'd sound believable? And that's assuming he could even speak Westron when there's no reason he should be able to.

Out of Far Harad, then I would agree. As for Harad/Near Harad... the game already has darker skin tones available and its interpretation of Gondor's ethnic composition/historical justifications for it is clearly different from yours here. I'm sure we'll find out in more detail in due time in corresponding areas but I suspect their interpretation wouldn't be off if they did it right. After all, it was not just some friendship "until there was no friendship." It goes back to Numenorean conquests, lands changed hands and vice versa, loyalties of certain groups shifted etc. What proof do you have in the game's version of the story there was no substantial darker skinned group that was "Gondorized" over time (associated with larger groups or vassal states out of Harad). None.

The game's take is silly, because as usual they take no account of the passage of time. Gondor doesn't have cultural contacts with the Easterlings or Haradrim, lack of friendship or trade and with a no-man's land around it means no intermarriages. Nor had the Dunedain ever been exactly keen on marrying outside their own, which was why their numbers had declined. One more time, it had been more than a thousand years since they'd last held Umbar, and South Gondor had been contested territory since the time of the Kin-strife (even longer ago). So which vassal states are you talking about, exactly? Sounds like more fanfic to me.

And the kingdoms of exile must have been pretty diverse to begin with, since you can't exactly tell me it was all population from Numenor, lucky enough to escape the catastrophe in droves to the point where they populated entire kingdoms and have become a dominant "blood" on the shores of Middle-earth - though clearly it's the royalty that would safeguard their bloodline and when Tolkien wrote about these things he pretty much focused his attention on these noble figures of the court, not your regular Gondorian citizen from the province living under the King's boot, whose skin color/ethnicity could vastly differ, given the place. Gondor isn't like the medieval Kingdom of England or Scandinavia, with native roots. The history is more like a bunch of wise Greeks or Romans sailing up the coasts and rivers and establishing their benevolent (or not so) rule over less industrious and less wise Celts, Persians, Egyptians etc.'

The locals in Gondor (like the fisher-folk on the coast) were shorter and a bit darker-skinned, likely in a Mediterranean sort of way given where Gondor is. No, their ethnicity didn't differ wildly and we know that because they weren't used to seeing people with dark skin. Yet again, that cultural divide Sauron had fostered kept Gondor from having any sort of normal contact with people to the south or east for many generations. It's not like Gteece, Rome or anywhere else because the Sauron's baleful presence makes it unlike anything real. That's way too subtle for the devs to worry their heads about but I don't see why I should let you off the hook. Even if it had been relatively diverse a thousand years ago, given their relative isolation that'd be more than enough time for differences to average out.

I was not talking about friendship between them, evidently, and I even made it extra clear. Seems it's futile, you're back to these "friendship" statements.

Because you seem to imagine cultural contact even though they're not friendly and there's no apparent trade. I have no idea how you imagine that could work.

An elf attracts attention too, now that you mention it. Or hobbit... even worse, a hobbit cant exactly blend in and they have a weird sense of the world too, Shire being isolationist and all that. I don't even need to go with Stout-axe again but I could. And you keep saying wouldn't be able to blend in, no way, yet your only proof is... what? Because they were lazy and fools so they didn't even try to? If they tried and were dedicated sure they would, to some degree. You say it again, vigilance, but don't say how. Vigilance how? A guard at every tavern and every dirty path, in every province, inspecting everyone? A giant Trump wall across the border?

Oh look, whataboutism. Of course an Elf would attract attention but Elves wouldn't be serving Sauron now, would they? And hobbits look completely non-threatening. All I've been saying is that walking around Gondor looking and sounding like a man who's fresh out of Harad [b]when Gondor is on a war footing[/ib] wouldn't escape notice. Yes, they'd have guards on gates keeping an eye on people coming in. That's perfectly normal and goes double in wartime. And again with this blather about taverns - again, how would your man from Harad pay for anything? And why should the tavern-keeper turn a blind eye to a suspicious stranger when there's a war on? During war, when there's a threat to your homeland it's normal practice to ask your citizenry to be vigilant for suspicious people, spies and potential saboteurs and the like.

[k40rne]

More likely Umbar will have mix between gondor, haradrim and numenor cultures

Of course it will be a mix of Haradrim, Corsairs, Numenorean & possibly South Gondorian in the region, but the Corsairs will likely be ethnically Umbarim, whether that is a subset of Haradrim, we don't really know. SSG will be making most of this stuff up as they go along.

[k40rne]

In our previous conversation in this thread, I kinda pointed out that historically slavery was pretty ubiquitous: I mean as well as the infamous colonial era of Europe, by extension there are places that came late to moving on like Brasil and the USA, both continuing in this horrific practise after it was dying out in colonial Europe. Not to mention the much less discussed trade of the East African and Indian ocean centred around Zanzibar and China that was both contemporary and pre-dated the triangular Atlantic trade. We could add in the Mongols or Rome for earlier examples.

Its probably a lot harder to name places where slavery was not rampant than the other way around. This is much to shame of humanity. Its a righty sensitive topic and even peoples of the victims own cultures were involved often between warring factions. The moral code of slavery = bad is a fairly new one and it lurks on the surface even to this day to some extent. Its after effects resonate around the world.

Yes, it was ubiquitous among dominant cultures, but not all the slave trade should be treated equally either: many Roman & Greek slaves were treated far better (hundreds of years before it) than the slaves during the Atlantic slave trade, which is known to be one of the most brutal times on record. "Destroy all Brutes" probably demonstrates this best.

So we digress, In the context of middle earth is Gondor morally superior to Umbar, dark lords aside? Probably a more ethical nation? How do the cultures within middle earth view the interlopers settling down a kingdom and claiming all this land. Were the people of Dunland right to have a bone to pick with Rohan?

It would seem that depends on how Chris Pierson decides to write it in, it will have complexity, no doubt. But these things are always only a matter of perspective.

Dunlandings certainly have cause to hate Rohan and Gondor, but those clans are also fighting each other for dominance & slaughtering the more harmonious ones as they did in Trum Dreng.

[k40rne]

That's nothing but whataboutism.

This whataboutism claim really is ignoring the parallels between things & regurgitating an (usually) oppressor's viewpoint by attacking any comparison that was made with some lame generic term, while attempting to mitigate any criticism. It is a weak argument. if you want to ignore the analogues between things, that's on you.

You seem to think putting people on galley ships & forcing them to row was worse than stowing them below decks in chains and filth, where 2/3rds died.
I'm not saying it was an easy life for a Barbary pirate slave, but I think they had a little more chance for survival than some poor soul stowed in the hold of a slave ship, crossing the Atlantic from the African sub continent.

Also, do you know who fought the Barbary Pirates? The Americans & French, both were some of the worst slavers known to modern history.

Not so much. The place had been taken back from Gondor by the Haradrim more than a thousand years before. The culture had some legacy Black Numenorean and corrupted Gondorean influence but it had become primarily Haradrim. Gondor had crushed Castamir's heirs and slain them all, so that when Umbar was eventually lost again it was the Haradrim themselves who got their hands on it.

That's the tiny bit we do know, which doesn't tell us a hell of a lot really, because that was (admittedly) over 1000 years ago or more. We have a very vague understanding of what their culture entails, & only on a surface level.

Out of Far Harad, then I would agree. As for Harad/Near Harad... the game already has darker skin tones available and its interpretation of Gondor's ethnic composition/historical justifications for it is clearly different from yours here. I'm sure we'll find out in more detail in due time in corresponding areas but I suspect their interpretation wouldn't be off if they did it right. After all, it was not just some friendship "until there was no friendship." It goes back to Numenorean conquests, lands changed hands and vice versa, loyalties of certain groups shifted etc. What proof do you have in the game's version of the story there was no substantial darker skinned group that was "Gondorized" over time (associated with larger groups or vassal states out of Harad). None.

And the kingdoms of exile must have been pretty diverse to begin with, since you can't exactly tell me it was all population from Numenor, lucky enough to escape the catastrophe in droves to the point where they populated entire kingdoms and have become a dominant "blood" on the shores of Middle-earth - though clearly it's the royalty that would safeguard their bloodline and when Tolkien wrote about these things he pretty much focused his attention on these noble figures of the court, not your regular Gondorian citizen from the province living under the King's boot, whose skin color/ethnicity could vastly differ, given the place. Gondor isn't like the medieval Kingdom of England or Scandinavia, with native roots. The history is more like a bunch of wise Greeks or Romans sailing up the coasts and rivers and establishing their benevolent (or not so) rule over less industrious and less wise Celts, Persians, Egyptians etc.

Seems a very well reasoned argument.

A giant Trump wall across the border?

That fool never built a wall, only thing he did was con gullible bigots.

[Elebraen]

Point is, it's not the main thrust of what they do, it's not their raison d'être and they're not out in the wilds because of that either, it's their calling. And the game has them out in the wilds because Rangers are a great excuse for having people in the middle of nowhere to hand out quests, so you're maybe trying to read meaning into something that's purely that way for gameplay reasons.

As though you're not?

Tom Bombadil explained the origins of Rangers very well over the spans of Chapters 7 and 8. The Barrow-downs used to be a Cardolan capital city that was defended by men of Westernesse, aka Numenorians, who were defeated by the men of Carn Dum and the Witch-King of Angmar. "We were set upon by the men of Carn Dum and we were worsted," Merry said. "I can still feel the spear in my heart."

What are we getting this year? A Carn Dum update? Wasn't that a GIANT HINT in the producer's letter? The Rangers are descended from the survivors of that Cardolan Angmarim war that was held in what is now the Barrow-downs, sons of forgotten kings, guarding from evil things that unwary hobbits would stray into. The class of Ranger has new skill and play style potential to make it worth developing a separate class for, given a nature loving bent because of Tolkien's Bree-folk description of their characteristics. The young rangers in the Angle of Mitheithil must be existing for a reason that flows with the game to incorporate them and their region, not because they look pretty in a new landscape biome that connects Trollshaws to Enedwaith. The Dunedain have a lore history that has not been fully explored yet in the same areas that I hope they develop a lot more of. I absolutely love the Sarn Ford development. I would love to see a Carn Dum/Cardolan war re-enactment as well because I think it's a really interesting bit of lore and backstory that hasn't been delved into, but could easily be fleshed out given the current game world design and stated upcoming developments.

To top it off, given Elessar's current forces, Rangers are the ones that can be shipped out to a foreign land to deal with the Corsairs. They are reconnaissance and skirmish forces, similar to the way they were already used, and defeated again, in Angmar. What other forces is Elessar going to use? The Army of the Dead is dead. And shipping the army of Gondor or Rohan off to Umbar to deal with troublesome Corsairs is not sensible at this point in time, nor is developing a brand new Navy of sailors for the ships that the devs aren't going to develop for this game world.

And if all you think a Ranger is, is a great gameplay excuse for handing out quests in the middle of nowhere, then you are definitely in need of a Tolkien lore education. The storyline development potential is huge there.

[Oldwiley]

Yes, it was ubiquitous among dominant cultures, but not all the slave trade should be treated equally either: many Roman & Greek slaves were treated far better (hundreds of years before it) than the slaves during the Atlantic slave trade, which is known to be one of the most brutal times on record. "Destroy all Brutes" probably demonstrates this best.

Brutal indeed it was and casts a shadow across the history of mankind, your destroy all brutes reference is an excellent example to reference.

That said, the life of a a roman slave could hardly be considered idyllic, far from it. So deeply entwined into an empire that at the time was effectively the entire known western world, the entire Roman economic system was as reliant on the subjugation of peoples that it could not function without those people in chattels.

While Roman slaves could be routinely shackled, tortured, (interestingly only rarely used as galley slaves), sexually abused and had no rights. It was so hardwired into the roman economy that instances of revolt would lead to thousands being put to death, famously an estimate 6,000 along the Appian Way. Ignoring the tens of thousands slaughtered, put to death and enslaved during conquests.

There is also a historic context detail here. 6,000 was the population of a major city (expecting Rome itself and a handful worldwide) at that time. Industrialisation and an imbalance in technology would without doubt lead to a scale of numbers that could not be envisaged in the more ancient world when it came to the Atlantic trade. The scale of the Zanzibar trade was immense, spanning continents.

In the same way, the genocides and atrocities that followed on in later years like those orchestrated by major powers in Europe, North America, Australasia, the middle east and far east had not seen the like since the days of the ancient world and middle ages, when whole cities, even countries and peoples were wiped off the face of the earth.

Lets face it, the displacement of peoples, their enslavement and mass murder in whatever cause was behind them is humanity at its worst.

It would seem that depends on how Chris Pierson decides to write it in, it will have complexity, no doubt. But these things are always only a matter of perspective.

Dunlandings certainly have cause to hate Rohan and Gondor, but those clans are also fighting each other for dominance & slaughtering the more harmonious ones as they did in Trum Dreng.

Being Welsh myself (Talking of Dunland) a displaced people, disunited or not, have reason for a historical enmity towards those that displaced them, in fighting within cultures is not really that unusual, be it tribal or full blown civil wars or some form of "kin strife". Luckily the historical displacement of my own ancestors does not have the contemporary meaning it has for many other cultures around the world.

The Welsh people were rarely united, there have been instances, but had a common heritage and were certainly displaced. Again with reference to the romans it was the disunity of the tribes they subjugated that often led to them becoming dominant.. this would extend far beyond the romans to the middle ages and into the modern world I think.

Which brings us to perspective - yes I agree that it may will be down to Chris Pierson and Lotro's developers to try and make the compromises necessary to extend the longevity of a story beyond its current state. Will it be a panacea for everyone's concerns? That I doubt.

Will we get another 100 threads arguing about the irreverence or justification of content? Will these familiar posters continue to tear apart every step as we go along? Well I hope so as it means the game is rolling on.

Some folks will go full on Monty Python, I remember Rad arguing that dwarves cannot be considered to be great engineers, eventually resorting to etymology to argue the case where all else had failed. We only stopped when we had got as far as pointing out Tolkien's use of the word "Road" was a bad fit in an etymological sense.

I rarely engage in these debates anymore, I'm the Joker on the side-line popping in a you tube clip that seems relevant.

That said some kind of sea faring character class is not really a great enhancement to the lore, if this is what it boils down to. A better question would be if you were going to implement a new class (because the game has to broaden over time) what would you choose?

[Radhruin_EU]

As though you're not?

No, I'm not. The need to have NPCs in odd places to hand out quests is the sort of artificiality you get in a game like this and the game has frequently used Rangers in that exact role.

And if all you think a Ranger is, is a great gameplay excuse for handing out quests in the middle of nowhere, then you are definitely in need of a Tolkien lore education. The storyline development potential is huge there.

Oh please, I said nothing of the sort. You were simply assuming that guys like Candaith were nature-lovers because you could find them camped out in the middle of nowhere. I simply pointed out that he's there because he's got a job to do, it's not as if he's there for the fresh air and the scenery, and from a game perspective Rangers simply make handy NPCs to plonk down out in the wilds in places like that. Way to take what I said out of context.

[Radhruin_EU]

I remember Rad arguing that dwarves cannot be considered to be great engineers, eventually resorting to etymology to argue the case where all else had failed. We only stopped when we had got as far as pointing out Tolkien's use of the word "Road" was a bad fit in an etymological sense.

???

That doesn't ring any bells with me at all...

[Kreegan]

???

That doesn't ring any bells with me at all...

IT'S A GAME, FOLKS!
Yeah, it may not fit lore as you see it, but neither does out presence in the game; does it?
Just play the game and enjoy it.

[Elebraen]

No, I'm not. The need to have NPCs in odd places to hand out quests is the sort of artificiality you get in a game like this and the game has frequently used Rangers in that exact role.


Oh please, I said nothing of the sort. You were simply assuming that guys like Candaith were nature-lovers because you could find them camped out in the middle of nowhere. I simply pointed out that he's there because he's got a job to do, it's not as if he's there for the fresh air and the scenery, and from a game perspective Rangers simply make handy NPCs to plonk down out in the wilds in places like that. Way to take what I said out of context.

No, that wasn't why I was assuming that Candaith was a nature-lover. It had a lot more to do with Tolkien's Bree-folk description of Rangers that I posted later, wanderers that talk to birds and beasts, forming the basis for rangers having nature-based spellcasting, along with their herb-lore like finding athelas to heal wounds. Talking to birds, beasts and knowing about plants is all about nature. Is it the word 'lover' that bothers you so much? Or because I didn't post every Tolkien reference I could find to support my own choice of words the first time I used it?

As for Rangers standing around handing out quests, everybody stands around in this game, and if they have a name, they will most likely hand out a quest, too. The NPC artificiality is not specific to Rangers.

More artificial would be a swashbuckler class that would be created for the fleet of naval ships that doesn't exist and has no particular basis in the Tolkien lore to have a "raison d'etre". And looking at a pirate in front of a shipwreck in the game setting makes me even less inclined to want to be one. It's like riding stable elks in Lone-lands and Trollshaws. A complete turn-off.

[k40rne]

Brutal indeed it was and casts a shadow across the history of mankind, your destroy all brutes reference is an excellent example to reference.

That said, the life of a a roman slave could hardly be considered idyllic, far from it. So deeply entwined into an empire that at the time was effectively the entire known western world, the entire Roman economic system was as reliant on the subjugation of peoples that it could not function without those people in chattels.

While Roman slaves could be routinely shackled, tortured, (interestingly only rarely used as galley slaves), sexually abused and had no rights. It was so hardwired into the roman economy that instances of revolt would lead to thousands being put to death, famously an estimate 6,000 along the Appian Way. Ignoring the tens of thousands slaughtered, put to death and enslaved during conquests.

There is also a historic context detail here. 6,000 was the population of a major city (expecting Rome itself and a handful worldwide) at that time. Industrialisation and an imbalance in technology would without doubt lead to a scale of numbers that could not be envisaged in the more ancient world when it came to the Atlantic trade. The scale of the Zanzibar trade was immense, spanning continents.

Yeah, I certainly never said anything about idyllic. I'm simply arguing the typical Roman slave fared better than the typical slave in 14th -19th century Americas. And that says a lot. I think a really good portrayal of how harsh Roman life was would be from the Series "Rome", definitely worth watching.

In the same way, the genocides and atrocities that followed on in later years like those orchestrated by major powers in Europe, North America, Australasia, the middle east and far east had not seen the like since the days of the ancient world and middle ages, when whole cities, even countries and peoples were wiped off the face of the earth.

Lets face it, the displacement of peoples, their enslavement and mass murder in whatever cause was behind them is humanity at its worst.

I'm not sure we've learned enough lessons from those days. many seem to be all too keen to go back to earlier times too & let's not get into the industrial slaughter of livestock & aquatic life.

Being Welsh myself (Talking of Dunland) a displaced people, disunited or not, have reason for a historical enmity towards those that displaced them, in fighting within cultures is not really that unusual, be it tribal or full blown civil wars or some form of "kin strife". Luckily the historical displacement of my own ancestors does not have the contemporary meaning it has for many other cultures around the world.

The Welsh people were rarely united, there have been instances, but had a common heritage and were certainly displaced. Again with reference to the romans it was the disunity of the tribes they subjugated that often led to them becoming dominant.. this would extend far beyond the romans to the middle ages and into the modern world I think.

Yeah, I think only really under Owain Glyndower. And yes, divide & conquer is usually the tactic, even still used today in Brexit Britain.

Will it be a panacea for everyone's concerns? That I doubt.

Pretty sure those only exist in Final fantasy =p.

Will we get another 100 threads arguing about the irreverence or justification of content? Will these familiar posters continue to tear apart every step as we go along? Well I hope so as it means the game is rolling on.

Some folks will go full on Monty Python, I remember Rad arguing that dwarves cannot be considered to be great engineers, eventually resorting to etymology to argue the case where all else had failed. We only stopped when we had got as far as pointing out Tolkien's use of the word "Road" was a bad fit in an etymological sense.

I rarely engage in these debates anymore, I'm the Joker on the side-line popping in a you tube clip that seems relevant.

That said some kind of sea faring character class is not really a great enhancement to the lore, if this is what it boils down to. A better question would be if you were going to implement a new class (because the game has to broaden over time) what would you choose?

There certainly are a lot who read one or two lines of text & think it must be that way damnit, or their entire world will crumble....

I tend to think a Ranger class might be better, but I'm only about anticipating what the devs are working on & it can only be the naval light class from what they've hinted at, unfortunately. Any class they make will be geared towards that expansion & I'm sure many who are complaining will still enjoy it.

[DavidmeetHal]

Must Check if Inigo Montoya is a taken name ^.^

Are there any six fingered men around?

[LagunaD2]

How would that fit in with the rationale of the game? Really not seeing it.

Light years better than LOLBrawlers.

[LagunaD2]

And hobbits look completely non-threatening.

Not if you're a pie, or a nice shank of mutton!

[Radhruin_EU]

No, that wasn't why I was assuming that Candaith was a nature-lover. It had a lot more to do with Tolkien's Bree-folk description of Rangers that I posted later, wanderers that talk to birds and beasts, forming the basis for rangers having nature-based spellcasting, along with their herb-lore like finding athelas to heal wounds. Talking to birds, beasts and knowing about plants is all about nature. Is it the word 'lover' that bothers you so much? Or because I didn't post every Tolkien reference I could find to support my own choice of words the first time I used it?

What bothers me is that you appear to want an utterly stereotypical ranger class, straight out of D&D complete with nature-based spellcasting, and that you're making every excuse to shoehorn that in.

As for Rangers standing around handing out quests, everybody stands around in this game, and if they have a name, they will most likely hand out a quest, too. The NPC artificiality is not specific to Rangers.

I didn't say that, I said they've been frequently used for that. And that they're very firmly characterised as NPCs in the game's story, with it being extremely obvious that player-characters aren't and can't be Rangers. And that above all Rangers aren't adventurers and don't suit the role of adventurers that the game has for player-characters at all: the game's whole shtick wouldn't work for them. So there's a bit more to it than just sitting by campfires in the middle of nowhere.

More artificial would be a swashbuckler class that would be created for the fleet of naval ships that doesn't exist and has no particular basis in the Tolkien lore to have a "raison d'etre". And looking at a pirate in front of a shipwreck in the game setting makes me even less inclined to want to be one. It's like riding stable elks in Lone-lands and Trollshaws. A complete turn-off.

No, because making Rangers playable would be so hugely artificial all by itself that it would dwarf any cheesiness that a 'swashbuckler' might have. And personally I'd prefer it if a swashbuckler was just a dashing swordsman, because that could be made to work in a no-nonsense way and would fit in just fine as an adventurer with no problem whatsoever. (Now if the devs make it jokey and tongue-in-cheek like we're basically Dread Pirate Roberts and worst of all, they let hobbits in on the act for the lulz then you'd certainly have a point there, but that still wouldn't make PC Rangers work).

[Radhruin_EU]

Yeah, I certainly never said anything about idyllic. I'm simply arguing the typical Roman slave fared better than the typical slave in 14th -19th century Americas. And that says a lot.

Really not if they were used as farm labourers, as miners, or for other literally backbreaking work where they'd be worked to death. Every bit as cruel.

[Oldwiley]

Are there any six fingered men around?

Am hoping there is at least one pirate known as six fingers macgraw. Its a film that deserves to be referenced and lotro should play its part in that

Pretty sure those only exist in Final fantasy =p.

Never played it >.>

???

That doesn't ring any bells with me at all...

https://forums.lotro.com/forums/show...light=oldwiley

No, I'll just raise my middle finger

As you'll note from what you posted the modern definition of an engineer in this context is someone who applies scientific knowledge - not something that was a thing in olden times. You didn't trouble yourself to address the point I just made about that, or apparently consider for even a second that a lack of a theory of structures means you can't engineer them, as such, just build them according to what you've learned about what works without really knowing why it does.

It was nice little renoir thread, makes me almost miss bothering to engage in these debates... almost.

[TesalionLortus]

About the Barbary vs Colonial slavers debate - I guess there is no point "measuring" cruelty because in the end it all boils down to cultural difference. Other than the obvious - like geographical location/biome, which points towards Berbers - the difference here is that IRL colonial cruelty would be more of a "hidden behind mask of decency/gentleman" and not as wildly witnessed by some of the general citizens of these countries. For Berbers it was more like a cruelty on which their life were practically built and not like they would try to hide it at home putting on a mask of decent respected person. Would need to be confirmed through appropriate history books and research whether such an underlying difference was there - but it's my hunch that it was. And something like this or worse should very much apply to the Corsairs which is why we're saying it should be a cultural thing, with some serious morally black connotations. I think there is nothing European/colonial about the Corsairs. (The devs could even draw a parrarel between Ottoman Empire the Barbary pirates supplied with slaves and the ruling Harad state).

And a thousand miles or so less to walk doesn't make a difference? Wow, much thorough, such exacting.

Already pointed out the journey doesn't sound THAT long as you tried to say it was, based on the actual scale of Middle-earth vs real world. Maybe I'll make a more exact comparison someday because makes me curious, but not today.

And being notably dark-skinned, black-haired and with dark eyes as well as looking fierce (maybe tending to be rather hawkish looking). Of course that's going to stand out.

Which isn't as out-of-place no way! as you try to say it is (as long as they're not very significantly dark out of Far Harad, that is). That's based on the game depictions, no less.

The game's take is silly, because as usual they take no account of the passage of time.

We shall see once they delve more into that history, they have a lot of creative freedom to make it work and match with their current depiction of things. Also, yeah, typical - so you start the debacle with this preconception in mind that it's silly and then try to counter what I say about the game with things that don't take into account the game at all. No idea how is that supposed to work exactly, seems like an exercise in futility.

One more time, it had been more than a thousand years since they'd last held Umbar, and South Gondor had been contested territory since the time of the Kin-strife (even longer ago). So which vassal states are you talking about, exactly? Sounds like more fanfic to me.

But not more than a thousand years from last conflict, contact and political maneuvers in the region. Tolkien gave us some dates for these massive invasions the size of Alexander's endeavor but smaller scale "real politics" or military encounters would happen all the time, with one side trying to meddle in nearby affairs of the other and take advantage. They were not just sitting there at the border, between contested zone, static and unmovable, for thousands of years. Yes, shocking I now, but a fact a territory was contested means it changed hands, not that it was static and never-ending neutral zone. You could easily have different darker skinned factions out of nearby Harad settled in Harondor or close by and siding with Gondor at different points of history and even be granted a safe place in Gondor itself when things got out of hand (Not to mention earlier in Gondor's history, when it covered much of Middle-earth and made all of Harad its vassals, pretty much, so yes, it's exactly like Rome and Greeks).

because the Sauron's baleful presence makes it unlike anything real. That's way too subtle for the devs to worry their heads about but I don't see why I should let you off the hook. Even if it had been relatively diverse a thousand years ago, given their relative isolation that'd be more than enough time for differences to average out.

That's just you. That Sauron exists doesn't mean some of the most basic rules of political hostility and maneuvers don't apply. Sauron is a propaganda, sure, and the culture was influenced by him, but that doesn't mean it would be cmplete isolation. It's just more like fanatics Christian kingdoms clashing with a nasty Caliphate, it's tense all the time and it could get even tenser with Sauron's influence involved, but it doesn't mean they're just perfectly isolated. In hostility, even the most tense of sides, often use rebel types and dissatisfied groups in the opposing factions to their advantage, loyalties shift and so on. Harondor and its borders/adjacent regions would be a boiling pot just like the Middle-east and the Levant specifically during the Crusades. (Although much smaller scale).

Because you seem to imagine cultural contact even though they're not friendly and there's no apparent trade. I have no idea how you imagine that could work.

Like it worked in history, pretty much... spikes of contact and interactions (though hostility or political maneuvers, and all sorts of local stuff happening) and otherwise just a bit of contact and flow, here or there, since such perfect isolation you talk about is, frankly, unrealistic. In any case, I don't mean trading caravans or ships coming and going as they please, but travel itself wouldn't be impossible, even if somewhat risky, depending on where you want to go (through certainly more risky from West to East/South... than vice versa, and vice versa is what we were talking about, but it's not like you don't have someone like Aragorn journeying through Harad in lore so I don't get this "travel is literally impossible, you'll instantly get arrow in the back and no, no way to keep your head down, you'll be noticed all the time" coming from you)

Yes, they'd have guards on gates keeping an eye on people coming in. That's perfectly normal and goes double in wartime. And again with this blather about taverns - again, how would your man from Harad pay for anything? And why should the tavern-keeper turn a blind eye to a suspicious stranger when there's a war on? During war, when there's a threat to your homeland it's normal practice to ask your citizenry to be vigilant for suspicious people, spies and potential saboteurs and the like.

You really believe too much in this "every single citizen is a perfect vigilant spy of the state so every guard is immediately informed" Saboteurs of what? A tavern fence? Again, you're blowing it way out of proportions. And of course you're not taking into account some Gondor people can be dark-skinned (which is already the case in game) so you live in your own bubble where a guard is immediately able to tell based on color of their skin and then act like it's bigotry out of Witcher... sure. Also, you can basically take a less travelled route and avoid some of the settlements where it may be more risky. Well, I'm not sure how money works in all places in Tolkien, we were never told, but I guess they could find a way to exchange if they needed (for gold, silver etc).