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

[Arnenna]

Even were we not discussing a mediaevally-inspired world written by a very traditionally-minded Catholic, inserting ideology that didn't even exist at the time LotR was written is just out of place. That you hyperbolically compare to Neanderthals a definition of biological sex that was the universally-accepted norm throughout all of history - including when Tolkien lived - until about ten years ago, the altering of which is still rejected by most of the world, isn't a good start to a convincing argument for including it in his world.

"Representation" of something the author never imagined for RL reasons is just out of place in-universe. This isn't WoW where they can reimagine the game world at will to insert references to celebrities and popular culture. If that's what the devs want, they should start their own IP. Short of that, there are plenty of ways to represent marginalized groups that actually belong in Middle Earth and their battle for acceptance by the Free Peoples, such as refugees from Harad and Rhûn.

Despite what we critics of this patch are being accused of, I feel confident speaking for most of us in saying it's not about females having facial hair - bearded dwarves are fine, and had they added facial hair options to female Beornings it would likely have bothered no one because it makes sense within the established lore. It's about an addition that doesn't fit in-universe to promote an obvious RL ideology (whether we agree with the ideology or not is irrelevant) without giving the slightest thought to how to fit it into Middle Earth using established lore. This is why things like the Rune Keeper aren't nearly as problematic - for all its faults, at least they took the idea from something Tolkien wrote, built upon it, and then made the effort to explain it and make it work.

Please don't feel confident that you're talking for "most of us." You're not, and you're definitely not talking for me.

The recent changes in game that some are opposing, were not unheard of in Tolkien's time, not at all. They were just not as out in the open as now. Law changed that, and thank goodness for it. Gender-fluid goes right back as far as the Roman empire.

I'm not as versed as some here in Lore, but, I don't recall Tolkien ever writing that a female (meaning a person with a chosen female identity), with facial hair, didn't exist. He wrote that male and female dwarves looked alike, but in later writings, specified - on beards - that all male dwarves had them.

[AegisRegnat]

But the beards on human females are a symbolic change that makes it clear the devs no longer want to stay true to Tolkien's lore, and that they want to follow the same direction all games follow these days. It started with bearded women, but soon nudity and gore will follow - we already got big muscle males and Tomb Raider females, and from there bare chest is only a matter of time. We'll also get tons of cosmetic toys like modern World of Warcraft, and the game will become like any other MMORPG, with the same toxic playerbase, real world politics on world chat, insane gearscore requirements for dungeons, insults and kicks when someone's not doing enough DPS, and so on.

Lotro was never faithful to the Tolkien tradition. What changed now was what was hidden before and expressed hesitantly through emotes etc. It's just that now the masks have fallen off and that's all. The only thing they should pay attention to from now on is cyberbullying, because it is likely to ruin Lotro. Tolkien's works contain a deep symbolism that creates a substrate of moral values and coded behaviors, which makes them more than just fairy tales for children. It would be absurd to assume that this could be compatible with Lotro's commercial purposes.

So if a woman wants to have a beard, fine. But I don't see the reason for that to be demonstrated through the game, because it has nothing to do with the structure of the whole philosophy that the game is based on.

As a fan of Tolken's works, I fundamentally disagree with the commercial purposes that invade the game and which have no barriers, as they tend to flatten everything. I prefer the game in its pure form without commercial interference of any kind.

[TesalionLortus]

Hobbits are frequently described with brown skin, so going darker is not unreasonable. (And there is literally nothing in the books that says there couldn't be black hobbits)

Elves originally came from the far east, not all sailed west, many turned back or away early. They could have ended up in hidden cities in the east and the south, separated by the ages from their kin. I can even provide a name for the southerners that I've used in fanfic and the like, Cúrondhrim (SSG you can totally steal it) the people/host of the crescent moon

Also, one could reasonably argue that Noldor (high elves) come in darker coloring based on various text and descriptions. Certainly they could stand to have ruddier skin tones (since some of them are even NAMED for being ruddy/redtoned, Caranthir among others). I cannot get a dark/reddish enough skin tone for my high elves, for example. They're all ... fairly pale and not even tanned, which is ridiculous.

Regarding some of these matters, it's been already mentioned in this thread browner or swarthier don't necessarily mean African black and that's not something that you would typically think of either. I don't understand people's obsession with the word black or browner. There are a lot more skin tones in the world than a certain very black skin tone. There are different varieties of tan and so on. So this sure as hell didn't apply to the hobbits here in this African manner. And the devs disagree with you on landscape, I wonder why, surely there must be a reason... and it's not bigotry.

They can have both elves and hobbits come from the East (or South-east) but that alone doesn't solve the problem because it depends on where and if we're doing it then I need specifics, not laziness. Rhun is not a black place, it sits at the early precipices of Middle-earth's version of Asia, from the looks of it. It's not the right climate zone then. They would need to make some sense of the map and not entirely sure where their Abnuzhu are supposed to come from and how far South their Orocarnii goes. As I said, it's for the devs to figure out, not us, because they know more context of what they want to do with the world on the edges of the map, and if you want black elves, then they shouldn't hide in the caves but be exposed to tropical sun over many ages.

We originally weren't going to be allowed blonde/silver hair for elves, my wife and I fought for that on the beta forums, it was an epic battle over lore lol

I will wage that same fight for darker skinned elves.

The devs may read the room but how about not making any decisions on a whim based on minority (=the whole of vocal player base) and take care each decision reflects some quality behind their product, to ensure that even if they make a more "relaxed" decision for reasons (that perhaps SSG's lore monkeys aren't entirely fond of) it still comes with some quality behind it that you would expect from SSG and this game (which is SSG's lore monkeys and storytellers' job). PS: not an attempt to offend anyone with a term monkey. For some reason I just found it compelling to use, has a friendly cartoon-like connotations in my mind.

But they're likely to not add new origins simply so players can change their existing characters more easily, which is fine.

They can change their existing characters more easily. Origins got nothing to do with it, I didn't say lock everything behind origins as before.

Maybe "fine" with you and some others who couldn't care less (sometimes for obvious reasons which I don't necessarily invalidate, some players already know the game so "who cares" they say). But matters a great deal for how the game may appear and first impression/rpg-like immersion shouldn't be dismissed. Like I said earlier, directed at SSG, I can say the same to you and any other who says it's "fine" how it is currently: play some other decent games in the genre with their fantasy worlds and character creations, you won't find that level of lousiness and confusion. (Unless maybe dumped down version of WoW of today, and ESO perhaps, if it's anything like Skyrim, for example, because Elder Scrolls has always been a little bit... too random and every race/nation/ruin/mob to be found wherever, so this is kind of baked into the title from the start).

[Radhruin_EU]

You can't exactly rationalize that one any more than you could a brawler, but some internal consistency though the game text/skill names etc would be still a desirable result. It's just a hallmark of a well-curated product, that's all. That's why I think that even if they do such things - it gotta be done with some "order" behind that, not just slapped onto what was there and not even trying, acting like the game's UI, tooltips and other such things, like some internal consistency in other areas, are somehow separate from the game and its worldbuilding, "this is ok, our players don't need that, it's just some silly stuff, if no one reports it as a bug then that's not needed at all" (seriously, where did they get THAT idea from? I seriously wonder, almost as if they never played any other game).

Yeah, okay, but you were talking as if some scrap of text would make it all okay. If what you meant was that they could at least have made some minimal effort to fit it in rather than just "and now there are magic hobbits, and hobbits who revel in fervent slaughter, have fun" then okay, but it'd still just be tokenism. And that's not really much better than just throwing stuff in with no explanation at all; it's still the same cynical, offhand "whatever" attitude. Point is, they should do better and we should expect them to do better, or else simply not do things like that. Not just let them off by saying some scrap of text would make it all better. And if they can't rationalise something at all then it plainly doesn't belong in the game.

That's why - hopefully a well-done, so not just very trivial and generic - bit of character bio/lore flavor through text boxes could have sufficed here. A well-done version might as well include or hint somewhat at some of these things you're talking about. They can make it richer and provide a little bit more than just generic 3 sentences, why not, this is LOTRO. Costs nothing - some text work, a little bit of time, and maybe minimal UI work (or have it somewhat cluttered there without any adjustments to the UI but at least have it there, and then make sure that whoever makes the UI rework down the road will remember to organize it somewhat better in neat paragraphs or under additional panels that can be opened).

Okay, but that wasn't what it seemed like what you were saying: yes, on the assumption that a proper starting area to set the scene would be too much then a proper written story (something more of a character bio or back-story, not just "you're from here") would be the sensible minimum. And again, if they can't rationalise it and are reduced to presenting it as an inexplicable fait accompli, then it plainly doesn't belong. Same as for any character in any RPG (or anything else with an internally consistent story and setting, ever).

[Radhruin_EU]

OK but you have to consider the message this sends today! The fact is, SSG is making a game in the year 2023, not 1923, and making light skinned creatures good and virtuous and black skinned creatures nasty and malicious is gross.

The thing about darkness and those beings living underground is symbolism associated with death. Like the skin of corpses blackens as they decay and no living person is that colour. It was the sort of colour they made the Uruk-hai in the movies, to make them look 'other' - someone had obviously done their homework. Like if you see someone who's that deathly colour walking around, it looks wrong and unsettling - like with zombies, it's the Uncanny Valley thing.

As for '1923' - err, no, it's more like "SSG is making a game in the year 2023, not 2003" since this wasn't super problematic back when the LOTR movies were made and really, it isn't problematic now either. If it was so damn problematic then you'd have to change more than just that: remember what Galadriel looks like, and the image she presents - are you saying that's now gross too just because similar imagery has been abused elsewhere? What matters is the context in which it's presented.

[Celebrawn]

I guess the info I heard that you would get perma-banned for opposing this stuff , even outside of the game and forums, was false, obviously. So I'll just say I'm impressed by the mental gymnastics being used here by the supporters to justify human women with beards. But as the notes say thisis only the beginning, so eventually we'll be able to make a high elf that looks like lizzo (in physique as well) with raibow colored hair and a beard. Let's see how people justify those changes.

[Radhruin_EU]

Hobbits are frequently described with brown skin, so going darker is not unreasonable. (And there is literally nothing in the books that says there couldn't be black hobbits)

Hobbits were inspired by English country folk from around the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee (that's Tolkien's own word on that - it reflects his own childhood memories of living in an English village in the Midlands; in what was then part of Warwickshire, to be precise, mere miles away from where I was born as it happens). Now, guess what English country folk look like. (Pretty much now as then, even: urban areas are vastly more diverse than the countryside in the UK and the makeup of the rural population hasn't changed even remotely as much as the cities, according to census info). Some English people have always been a bit browner than others, on account of varying ancestry: some of us are really pale and get sunburned if we're not careful, some people just tan like anything (so if they spend a lot of time outside, like Sam does because he's a gardener, they'll be tanned). But it's all relative; Tolkien was consciously writing for an English audience (he had no idea that LOTR was going to take off the way it did). So, in actuality it's the complete contrary of what you said and the LOTR movies pretty much nailed it. (Apart from making the hobbits more 'British' than specifically 'English' by giving Pippin a Scots accent, and giving Sam more of an oo-arr sort of West Country accent, but that was just playing around the overall theme).

Origins for easterling and southron elves is easy.

Yes, we know that writing dodgy fanfic is easy. This is now news. It's not easy to write fanfic if you take the trouble to read up on the actual lore, care about what it says and try to do right by it.

[Chaltier]

Please don't feel confident that you're talking for "most of us." You're not, and you're definitely not talking for me.

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

There are people who could disagree with that confidence, but as you're not one of the people with whose stated values I deem that statement to be in line, you're not one of them, and I stand by the statement: Had they added beards where they actually belong, such as to dwarven females, or allowed Beorning females access to the existing Beorning facial hair options, no one would care because it makes enough sense in-universe.

The recent changes in game that some are opposing, were not unheard of in Tolkien's time, not at all. They were just not as out in the open as now. Law changed that, and thank goodness for it. Gender-fluid goes right back as far as the Roman empire.

The ever-expanding lexicon of gender terminology as it's used today only began in the late 1950s and even pro-gender-theory historians can't agree on how to classify historical figures. Simply applying modern definitions to them rather than understanding them in the context of their own culture is a clear case of appropriation and should be avoided.

Regardless, we should always be mindful to avoid modern reinterpretations of history and/or literature based on new ideologies that didn't exist at the time.

I'm not as versed as some here in Lore, but, I don't recall Tolkien ever writing that a female (meaning a person with a chosen female identity), with facial hair, didn't exist. He wrote that male and female dwarves looked alike, but in later writings, specified - on beards - that all male dwarves had them.

I don't recall Tolkien ever writing that green men from Mars didn't exist, either. Or that dwarves didn't ride around on Wolpertingers. Or that things fall down rather than up. It was just so far from any conceivable reality that there was no reason to mention it, as was the notion that sex is something "chosen" by an individual rather than accepted as a fact of life. There's also a massive difference between being able to have some visible facial hair and growing a long, thick beard.

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

[wispsong]

For the sake of everyone still playing who would rather let Middle Earth stay Middle Earth without the age and mindset of the Neanderthal shoehorned into it, let's hope it stays this way, with all possible character options that are given now.

ME is not Hollywood. What you are basically saying is that everything must be rewritten and changed according to modern worldview. History belongs to that and part of that is already changed and soon some will be removed. With that mindset we never will really know how people lived before our time. This is very dangerous because we can't learn from it.

[wispsong]

My post again for comparison.
Now the first quote is a direct answer to me it seems since it stands right under. And another provocative one i found.






These people are the problem here, also a big part of miscommunication of our current era. Literally i dont even know what to say towards this disrespectful and provocative defamation - it's incredible.
Actually just read what i wrote and compare precicely to what they make up. I claim every person with some sense of intelligence can understand that with no word i can be seen as transphobic, homophobic or racist out of what i wrote.
As a side note that should not matter i am infact not since i have alot of sympathy for people i know within these groups and count them towards my friends. But still getting confronted with defamation because someone decided to read my post as they wish since it fuels their perception of reality better.
Bringing politics in it when i was talking about Tolkiens fantasy idea and the connected legacy and still - attacking me (or people who would argue like me) directly where i was talking about the preservation of the legacy. Without Tolkien there is no Lord of the Rings, therefor no Lotro. Printing your beliefs into Lotro disconnects the game from the Lord of the Rings true origin. I already said this in the given quote of me - but of course this gets overseen disrespecting my post as a whole.
Even asking me to leave the game - all this aggression purely made up on the false judgement of a person based on personal perception of reality and communication. Wanting people to leave because you think you get finally represented within a world where you never existed?
What about representation of other things lookwise like glasses or sunglasses, glasses that would help with bad eye conditions or color problems. What about religions since alot people have firm beliefs. What about people who like tattoos or even see them as their most representativ part. What about people with physical handicaps - only one leg or only one arm - still could become a hero of middle earth. While phsical handicaps would at least fit into the LOTR world, especially different religions would not - still some people surely would like an added representation of those. And to be fair why should SSG refuse these suggestions after the step they just took? That's by the way the directions this thread was ment to be about. This is not a full equality update, though one could conclude political correctness and acceptence as its origin. Still: It disconnects LOTRO from LOTR more and more therefor i mentioned the rightful association of calling this game LOTRO is everyday a bit less given. It is not a free fantasy game and it is not good for THIS game to adapt political mainstream. People are not here for bearded woman - they are here for Gollum, for the story, for the recreation of LOTR.

The point is: I - in fact - am talking about the game itself since is based on someones ideas all written down. It's why i started this game - like many did. Telling me directly i should no longer belong into this game world because i dont like the new changes it feels it is harming its own roots makes things politic and is an unnecessarly aggressive tone.
Even missing my main point of complaint: They took away the facial look of my characters i had a 10+ years connection with - i do alot of screenshots with landscape background and face of my characters - they are different now - ugly and not themselves anymore.
The saddest part is that some argue the new update is for more equality, better player representation and even better chances for precise role play models... NO! This is not true for people that had a connection to their characters that got cut off in the name of giving everyone more freedom - this is cynical... or one could even call it standard political operations.

"LOTRO is celebrating the uniqueness of every player!" is the OFFICIAL quote. I dont see this after literally killing the uniqueness of ALL my human characters. If i decide leave after 10+years and 1000+ in $ ... it will be because of decicions like this, direction changes like this and not because of some defamation of myself through toxic/unreflected people within political and clearly non-LOTR context!

"It's still Lotro - just everyday a bit less."

I've considered this point, and while I think it has merit, I'm of the opinion that keeping the distinctions among regions would still have been better. In 2011 I created a dark skinned Woman from Gondor. When this new update came out I was able to give her new hair better suited to the back story i had for her. Up until now, if anyone wanted to create a dark-skinned human character, you could do it, you just had limited facial options and could only choose straight hair. People with these characters, created in the past, can still add on the new cosmetic options with no need to change their origin background, just like I did. Limiting dark skin to Gondor (and maybe Dale somewhat) would not have taken away from anyone who had already created a character and wanted the new options - because they would have already had to have chosen Gondor to begin with. No origin change required. (Not sure how dark you could get with Dale and unfortunately there's no way to check now.)

I wish I could upvote your comments. We are not even talking politics or religion, but about Lotr. Sadly, even history is being rewritten. We really need to get hard copies of Tolkien's works because on the internet things can be inserted or removed.

[Fadil]

I guess the info I heard that you would get perma-banned for opposing this stuff , even outside of the game and forums, was false, obviously. So I'll just say I'm impressed by the mental gymnastics being used here by the supporters to justify human women with beards. But as the notes say thisis only the beginning, so eventually we'll be able to make a high elf that looks like lizzo (in physique as well) with raibow colored hair and a beard. Let's see how people justify those changes.

Seeing how outspoken Tolkien was against eugenics, racism and apartheid, I'm sure
he would prefer to see a game world where we can see someone like Lizzo, over some "slegs vir blankes" game world.

"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

[Fadil]

Hobbits were inspired by English country folk from around the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee (that's Tolkien's own word on that - it reflects his own childhood memories of living in an English village in the Midlands; in what was then part of Warwickshire, to be precise, mere miles away from where I was born as it happens). Now, guess what English country folk look like.

Entirely, 100% wrong.
The Shire, as area, was inspired by the Midlands.
The Hobbits were inspired by the "snergs" from the children's book The Marvellous Land of Snergs, by Edward Augustine Wyke-Smith.
A book Tolkien would read to his children when they were little and after seeing how much they loved this book, he started writing The Hobbbit.
His grandson Michael recently wrote another story about the snergs.

[Neinda]

Many people here are using Tolkien lore to justify their dislike of all things or people that might not be the same. Do these changes affect anyone in a negative way? The only thing I see with these changes is the potential for positive things and more people being welcomed and recognized as part of the LOTRO community. Everyone that creates a character and plays this game is sharing their own vision or interpretation of Middle Earth. There is no one right answer in a fantasy game. We are all role playing in a way.

I have yet to hear from anyone here how allowing people to present themselves in the way they prefer will have a negative effect on the game or game play.

Tolkien lore will still exist no matter what direction this game takes in our adventures in Middle Earth. Lore went out the window the day this became a game because there was no LOTRO game in Tolkien's world. This game brings a story to life. This game is a continuation of the original story. Yes, there are boundaries and certain rules for the game universe, but they are all subject to interpretation. It will never be perfect and match everyone's vision of Middle Earth because we all formed our own vision of Middle Earth when we first read the books or watched the movies, etc. Many of the newer players never even read the books or watched the movies. To those people, this is just a fantasy game. In my vision of Middle Earth and the battle against evil, no one would be fighting monsters wearing ball gowns and using flowers as weapons. Everyone would have proper armor and weapons during battle. When characters died in the book during the battles, they stayed dead. There was no function to retreat or resurrect someone. Just like the movie could not be a perfect match to the original books, the game will never be a perfect match to the books or the movie or any one person's vision of Middle Earth.

The solution here is very simple. If one does not like specific cosmetics, one has the choice to not use them. Having straight or curly hair or a beard or not a beard or a different skin tone has no affect at all on players stats, gear, performance, etc. While I agree that some of the cosmetics lost should be returned, I have no issues with more options. SSG makes so many changes that affect game play and how one is allowed to function in game. Take this as a gift. We have been given choices. Are they perfect for everyone? Probably not but they are choices.

This is our chance to show people just how wonderful the LOTRO player community can be and that we welcome all players that will help our corner of Middle Earth to grow.

[Fadil]

Regarding some of these matters, it's been already mentioned in this thread browner or swarthier don't necessarily mean African black and that's not something that you would typically think of either.

Just for the record, you are assuming here that Tolkien, who was a professor in English Language and Literature and a philologist, was not aware of the etymology of the word swarthy.
It might ofc be true that Tolkien, who was more than average interested in the history/ conditions of South Africa (as among others described in letters to his son Christopher)
wanted to describe men and its different races, as exactly that. White, brown and black.

Had he intended for the house of Beor to be brown or mediterranean, he would have used a word that actually meant exactly that.
Although I’m sure a random poster on the Lotro message board is much more educated than Tolkien ever was in the etymology of old English words….
/chuckle

“Old English sweart "black, dark," of night, clouds, also figurative, "wicked, infamous," from Proto-Germanic *swarta- (source also of Old Frisian, Old Saxon, and Middle Dutch swart, Dutch zwart,
Old Norse svartr, German schwarz, Gothic swarts "dark-colored, black"), from PIE root *swordo- "dirty, dark, black" (source of sordid). The true Germanic word, surviving in the
Continental languages but displaced in English by black. Of skin color of persons from late 14c.”

[Neinda]

I wish I could upvote your comments. We are not even talking politics or religion, but about Lotr. Sadly, even history is being rewritten. We really need to get hard copies of Tolkien's works because on the internet things can be inserted or removed.

Everything we do in game is our own interpretation of the lore. It is not rewriting history, it is taking the books and extending the story they started into a game. The books had a start and an ending. The game fills in all the gaps in the story and it is filled with the interpretations of individuals playing the game, the interpretations of the game developers and so on.

If we truly wanted to stick to the lore, 100%, then the characters would be standardized, no cosmetic options, only characters in the story allowed. The characters would only be allowed to do what the characters in the story did, etc.

[Radhruin_EU]

Entirely, 100% wrong.
The Shire, as area, was inspired by the Midlands.
The Hobbits were inspired by the "snergs" from the children's book The Marvellous Land of Snergs, by Edward Augustine Wyke-Smith.
A book Tolkien would read to his children when they were little and after seeing how much they loved this book, he started writing The Hobbbit.
His grandson Michael recently wrote another story about the snergs.

"The Hobbits are just rustic English people, made small in size because it reflects the generally small reach of their imagination."

- Tolkien

I'll just leave that there...

[Fadil]

"The Hobbits are just rustic English people, made small in size because it reflects the generally small reach of their imagination."

- Tolkien

I'll just leave that there...

I take it you dont know much about how and why Tolkien wrote The Hobbit or what he
in his own words used as inspiration.

"I should like to record my own love and my children's love of E. A. Wyke-Smith's Marvellous Land of Snergs,
at any rate of the snerg-element of that tale, and of Gorbo the gem of dunderheads, jewel of a companion in an escapade."
-Tolkien

"The Marvellous Land of Snergs "Seeing the date, I should say that this was probably un unconscious source book for the Hobbit.".
-Tolkien, in a letter to Auden 7 June 1955.

[TesalionLortus]

Had he intended for the house of Beor to be brown or mediterranean, he would have used a word that actually meant exactly that.
Although I’m sure a random poster on the Lotro message board is much more educated than Tolkien ever was in the etymology of old English words….
/chuckle

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

I take it you dont know much about how and why Tolkien wrote The Hobbit or what he
in his own words used as inspiration.

Hobbit, at first a little bit separated, which he later heavily revised in some ways, so it could belong more to his larger canon and meticulously crafted pseudo-historical mythology. But sure, ignore all that or act like Tolkien did not care about such things at all

I have yet to hear from anyone here how allowing people to present themselves in the way they prefer will have a negative effect on the game or game play.

You must have missed my comments then. Perhaps not the mere fact of allowing but the lousy way it is done at this very moment drops this game's entry level quality to almost zero, compared with many others. But I know, it takes some objectivity to acknowledge that allowing people to present themselves in the way they prefer can be done in many different ways when it comes down to execution. Plenty of posters wish for better execution and some amount of quality/thought put into this. But you guys are here, acting as if this was the usual standard of LOTRO devs and everyone should just cheer, "how dare they demand some more thought put into this? how come?"

[Phantion]

I take it you dont know much about how and why Tolkien wrote The Hobbit or what he
in his own words used as inspiration.

"I should like to record my own love and my children's love of E. A. Wyke-Smith's Marvellous Land of Snergs,
at any rate of the snerg-element of that tale, and of Gorbo the gem of dunderheads, jewel of a companion in an escapade."
-Tolkien

This is where I can chime in. You're both right, actually. And you're both talking about very different stories.

You see, the genre a writer writes in matters - quite a lot. You would not see a Snerg getting all melancholy, wounded, and broken as Frodo is in LOTR. But you could see the Bilbo Baggins of "The Hobbit" as a lot closer to Gorbo and the Snergs - for the reasons you've cited above.

How can I put it . . . Hobbits changed since Tolkien first "discovered" them in the 1930s and when they ultimately entered LOTR. And actually, very early in the drafting process, the LOTR Hobbits become something very different. "Trotter" was a traumatized Hobbit who had apparently survived the torments of the Black Riders, who at that point were still just regular human thugs in black outfits riding out of a William Morris novel. Trotter ultimately became Aragorn. The trauma went to Frodo throughout his journey.

Now, yeah, Frodo's not a typical Hobbit in that way. Nor are Sam, Merry, or Pippin. And the Bilbo Baggins we encounter in the LOTR is this learned, older Hobbit who is basically copying-down what becomes "The Silmarillion"; he writes the two versions of "The Hobbit" within the frame of the tale.

And it's those two versions that show us the concept the most. Again, you're very right that Tolkien borrowed some of their appearances and love of food, and perhaps some of their adventurous hijinks, from the Snergs. But - - - that's in the early version of "The Hobbit" that's very separate from LOTR, where the Ring is just a magic ring that makes someone invisible without any malevolence, where Gollum is a friendly creature who doesn't try to eat Bilbo, and so on and so forth.

Tolkien actually tried to rewrite "The Hobbit" after he wrote LOTR. His publisher wouldn't let him. All they would allow for was a new edition that would have a newly written account of the Ring and Bilbo's finding of it. That was pretty much it. It's very clear to me, at least, that the more Tolkien wrote, and the more the LOTR became part of his legendarium and far less "a sequel to 'The Hobbit,'" and the more it became a more mature book for older readers - - - which Tolkien actively intended to do - - - the less his Hobbits resemble the Snergs and the more they resemble "rustic English folk."

When I read the lines of Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, they really don't strike me as otherwordly fairy tale creatures. They strike me as people - and as the most human, the most down-to-earth (*especially Sam) characters throughout the LOTR.

---
Tl;DR: in short - - -> Hobbits evolved and changed in Tolkien's mind as he wrote them throughout the years. The more particular they became to Middle-earth, the more they departed from their early influences.

So again, you're right: Wyke-Smith's tale has a strong influence on the original "Hobbit" and what Hobbits look like in it and how Bilbo's portrayed. Some of those elements stay appearance-wise. By the time we get to Frodo's departure into the Uttermost West, however, "we're not in Kansas anymore" - like how "Concerning Hobbits" at the start of LOTR really grounds them as a people, and of course, by the time we reach the ending of the LOTR, it's a different tale entirely


Cheers!

[Fadil]

This is where I can chime in. You're both right, actually. And you're both talking about very different stories.

You see, the genre a writer writes in matters - quite a lot. You would not see a Snerg getting all melancholy, wounded, and broken as Frodo is in LOTR. But you could see the Bilbo Baggins of "The Hobbit" as a lot closer to Gorbo and the Snergs - for the reasons you've cited above.

How can I put it . . . Hobbits changed since Tolkien first "discovered" them in the 1930s and when they ultimately entered LOTR. And actually, very early in the drafting process, the LOTR Hobbits become something very different. "Trotter" was a traumatized Hobbit who had apparently survived the torments of the Black Riders, who at that point were still just regular human thugs in black outfits riding out of a William Morris novel. Trotter ultimately became Aragorn. The trauma went to Frodo throughout his journey.

Now, yeah, Frodo's not a typical Hobbit in that way. Nor are Sam, Merry, or Pippin. And the Bilbo Baggins we encounter in the LOTR is this learned, older Hobbit who is basically copying-down what becomes "The Silmarillion"; he writes the two versions of "The Hobbit" within the frame of the tale.

And it's those two versions that show us the concept the most. Again, you're very right that Tolkien borrowed some of their appearances and love of food, and perhaps some of their adventurous hijinks, from the Snergs. But - - - that's in the early version of "The Hobbit" that's very separate from LOTR, where the Ring is just a magic ring that makes someone invisible without any malevolence, where Gollum is a friendly creature who doesn't try to eat Bilbo, and so on and so forth.

Tolkien actually tried to rewrite "The Hobbit" after he wrote LOTR. His publisher wouldn't let him. All they would allow for was a new edition that would have a newly written account of the Ring and Bilbo's finding of it. That was pretty much it. It's very clear to me, at least, that the more Tolkien wrote, and the more the LOTR became part of his legendarium and far less "a sequel to 'The Hobbit,'" and the more it became a more mature book for older readers - - - which Tolkien actively intended to do - - - the less his Hobbits resemble the Snergs and the more they resemble "rustic English folk."

When I read the lines of Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, they really don't strike me as otherwordly fairy tale creatures. They strike me as people - and as the most human, the most down-to-earth (*especially Sam) characters throughout the LOTR.

---
Tl;DR: in short - - -> Hobbits evolved and changed in Tolkien's mind as he wrote them throughout the years. The more particular they became to Middle-earth, the more they departed from their early influences. Tolkien was very strong-minded about wanting to avoid conscious influences on his writing; it was simply his way. He strove for originality - and that's where I think he really wanted to iron things out the more time went on. What I do love about that quote you gave is that we catch him there admitting to an "unconscious influence" on his earlier work in "The Hobbit." Eureka!

So again, you're right: Wyke-Smith's tale has a strong influence on the original "Hobbit" and what Hobbits look like in it and how Bilbo's portrayed. Some of those elements stay appearance-wise. By the time we get to Frodo's departure into the Uttermost West, however, "we're not in Kansas anymore" - like how "Concerning Hobbits" at the start of LOTR really grounds them as a people, and of course, by the time we reach the ending of the LOTR, it's a different tale entirely

Cheers!

I agree with your entire post.

[Phantion]

I agree with your entire post.

It's fun to discuss this stuff!

Cheers!

[Neinda]

You must have missed my comments then. Perhaps not the mere fact of allowing but the lousy way it is done at this very moment drops this game's entry level quality to almost zero, compared with many others. But I know, it takes some objectivity to acknowledge that allowing people to present themselves in the way they prefer can be done in many different ways when it comes down to execution.

Just to clarify my point:

While I agree the execution of the changes left a lot to be desired, the idea was good and well intentioned. Hopefully SSG has learned that testing changes is a good idea and rewards positive results. I wonder how many of the bugs which were fairly obvious and glaring even made it to the beta server where the bug comments were it appears put aside for a later date. I believe this change would have been better presented if they had corrected issues and implemented a complete and final product. This policy of three betas and the changes are implemented no matter the bugs reflects poorly on SSG and the quality of their product. This change was not an immediate need that had to be rushed into existence because there would be problems if it were delayed. In my opinion, there should have been much better quality control prior to release of the new looks and a complete and finished product implemented rather than a obviously not quality checked product put on live.

My question is how does someone who looks different from my character or your character or any other character affect gameplay in a negative way? To be honest, even with the bugs and odd graphics problems, gameplay has never been affected by the way a character looks or what they wear in game. Do looks and cosmetics change stats? Do the bad guys run away in fear if they see someone who looks different? Will invalidating people because of how they look make LOTRO a more welcoming community?

We all have our own preferences and opinions. If everyone was required to look and dress the same way in game I would have an issue with the game. We all have the option to customize our character and dress them in the cosmetics of choice.

[TesalionLortus]

Just to clarify my point:

While I agree the execution of the changes left a lot to be desired, the idea was good and well intentioned. Hopefully SSG has learned that testing changes is a good idea and rewards positive results. I wonder how many of the bugs which were fairly obvious and glaring even made it to the beta server where the bug comments were it appears put aside for a later date. I believe this change would have been better presented if they had corrected issues and implemented a complete and final product. This policy of three betas and the changes are implemented no matter the bugs reflects poorly on SSG and the quality of their product.

Happy to hear that! So why can't people just agree on that? I wouldn't put much of it on the beta policies though, but that can be viewed as its own separate issue of course. Rather, I would say they just need foresight - players don't need to react and tell them something looks lousy implemented, or that randomization with 80% chance that something ridiculous female bearded will pop up feels strange, and so on. And if SSG can't see such obvious things, well... they've got some serious work to do or hire someone who can for such extra direction. Good-nurtured and well-intentioned aren't any help in business nor for creating a good-looking product - the actual results and impressions live in the game are what matters.

My question is how does someone who looks different from my character or your character or any other character affect gameplay in a negative way? To be honest, even with the bugs and odd graphics problems, gameplay has never been affected by the way a character looks or what they wear in game. Do looks and cosmetics change stats? Do the bad guys run away in fear if they see someone who looks different? Will invalidating people because of how they look make LOTRO a more welcoming community?

Oh, but you do know the answer to that, you just don't want to give it any legitimacy (for some reason). Some people feel strongly about roleplaying and what they see in the world. And even then like the half or more of them would be fine with the idea if it was framed somehow lore-friendly rpg-friendly. Rather than random outlandish African Breelanders, in their bio said to originate from Bree. And even if some of these things didn't happen in such "whatever goes" manner (the beards for example), this would not be "invalidating people" or barring them from the community. It would be just a lore/flavor decision to keep some uniqueness, the same kind we had for 16 years, you know, and somehow I did not hear this community was unwelcoming or that devs were invalidating people back then.

Anyway, that's going back to the past which is in the past now, but the bottom line is: some ARE affected by this, their sense of immersion, enjoyment of the world, or whatever, and SSG did not offer anything to alleviate that, nada, so this is the end result. Nevermind the resulting lackluster lore impression in the creation panel. I bet there are people who will be dissatisfied no matter what (or fully satisfied no matter what), true of every vocal community, but from what people say it's really like most just want some sense and lore hooks, that's all (plus the missing options). Why not focus on THAT? Why constantly try and hammer the point that everyone is just being silly for feeling less immersed or requiring better execution?

[Radhruin_EU]

I take it you dont know much

I take it that you're posting like this just for the sake of having a go. Look back at the point I was making: hobbits were imagined as being essentially 'English' country folk. Does anything about what you've said change that? No.

Also, as per that quote he says Wyke-Smith was probably an unconscious influence, whereas making reference to England in particular was a conscious one (something he mentioned himself, repeatedly) and like I said, he was writing for an English audience. He'd also had that 'mythology for England' idea, long before so this was a consistent theme. So when it comes to who and what the hobbits and the Shire are meant to be resemble and the context they thereby exist in (and which anyone who's English could recognise instantly if they read The Hobbit too, I might add). it's a similarly English atmosphere to the one you can find in The Wind in the Willows where (for example) there's a suspicious similarity between Mole's house and the (much later) idea of Bag End, and that's also a book we know Tolkien had read because he mentions it.

[Fadil]

I take it that you're posting like this just for the sake of having a go. Look back at the point I was making: hobbits were imagined as being essentially 'English' country folk. Does anything about what you've said change that? No.

Yes it absolutely does.
The hobbit was a fairy tale, based upon another fairy tale, describing imaginery fairy folk, as Tolkien
argued in his essay "On Fairy-Stories".
All your posts, from when the Rings of Power was first started, are
attempts to white wash anything Tolkien wrote into cuddly white english bs.
In that light it absolutely matters.

Lets rephrase that, there is nothing wrong with talking about
Tolkien's works as English or Northern, or even Norse mythology,
unless that is done with clearly racist intentions.

Or, as a known Tolkien expert wrote (about the misuse of norse mythology)

"The Catholic professor […] had no doubt about what threat Nazism posed.
Just as a Germanist philologist and fairy tale lover, he knew how much of the responsibility
philologists and rediscoverers of folklore had in the nineteenth century in preparing the ground for nationalism. [...]
Hitler and his propaganda apparatus had been able to technicalize the Germanic myth of the origins,
that is, to turn it to the service of a system of power, appropriating those stories that the philologists of the previous century had pulled out of the past."

https://www.cercatoridiatlantide.it/...blasta######s/

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