I now pronounce you Dwarf & Hobbit...oops!

[davem]

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?op...=5400&Itemid=2

Now, this is not about the 'morality' of inter-racial marriage, same sex marriage or anything else.

Its about to what extent writers of fanfic & players of role-playing games ought to change an existing creation. No gay marriage in Middle-earth, no Dwarves marrying Hobbits - because those things don't happen in Tolkien's writings.

For the time being, that is ...

There still is a chance to allow for same-sex marriage in LOTRO in the future, according to executive producer Jeffrey Steefel. “I think we're waiting to see how the players react,” he said.

Now, should players have any say in the matter at all? If Tolkien didn't include it shouldn't it be verboten? Whatever it is - Elves can't fly in Tolkien's work. Hobbits can't become wizards. There are some things that simply can't happen. There are other things that simply don't.

Yet, what if the majority of players decide they do want to play a wizard hobbit, or a flying Elf - do the rules of Middle-earth get changed to suit them? And at what point does Middle-earth on-line stop having anything to do with Tolkien's creation & become just another on-line fantasy game?

And yet, and yet... one comes down to the question of discrimination - if same sex marriages are banned in this manifestation of M-e is this acceptable?

It seems to me that this incident has opened up a whole can of worms about Tolkien's creation - while the books (& movies based on them) set the boundaries of Middle-earth the question never even arose. Now one manifestation of M-e is suddenly opened up to thousands of co-creators, whose values & fantasies may conflict with Tolkien's own.

So, another 'canonicity' discussion in part, but also a simpler question - if players get to change the rules of M-e in this game, is it really M-e?

[Nogrod]

It looks like you've picked yet another hot-topic... I mean it's easy to see the implications of your questions to other mythologies / traditions / orthodoxies as well... Is christianity the same if it allows female priests? Is the Lutheran or Anglican church a Christian church in the first place if it allows same-sex marriages?

Originally Posted by Davem

Yet, what if the majority of players decide they do want to play a wizard hobbit, or a flying Elf - do the rules of Middle-earth get changed to suit them? And at what point does Middle-earth on-line stop having anything to do with Tolkien's creation & become just another on-line fantasy game?

I can quarantee that if the majority of the players wish to play that way they will be given the right to it. That's bussiness after all to those who run the games. And when it's bussiness it rarely is guided by any value-considerations that might challenge the economical result.

I think the problem with the ME is that to so many it's so central a feature in their lives (like religion might be, or the love of certain kind of music, or ideology, a life-long hobby...) that the question starts pressing with different force than with some easier situations. I mean think of any anonymous online game or any sequel in the movies you are not attached to with your soul. At those instances it's pretty much the same how it's fortunes turn out and what becomes of it.

But when you love something you care about it and thence don't wish to see it changed. And don't get me wrong. Even if I might be characterised as an east-coast liberal (I'm afraid I'm much more "liberal" than those people are) I wouldn't like to see dwarves and hobbits mating in ME... or those flying Elves.

[the phantom]

If there are flying Elves, hobbit wizards, and inter-species/same-gender weddings, then it isn't Middle Earth, plain and simple. Whether or not you want these things to be allowed has nothing to do with the issue.

Tolkien created Middle Earth, and we are not at liberty to thrust things into that world that are not allowed by his rules, or are at direct variance with the spirit of his work. If we do, we have no right to call it Middle Earth or Lord of the Rings.

[Durelin]

It's a fantasy world, and I mean, you could easily say Orcs, as they are sometimes known as a "race" rather than a creature (though in LOTRO they cleverly refer to them only as "creatures" or "monsters"), are discriminated against. And then there is the race issue of the Southrons and Easterlings serving Sauron....

But...it's a fantasy world. And it's not an allegory for hating people of a Southeast Asian origin or something.

As for specifically the same-sex marriage issue - relationships, specifically marriages, were not that important in The Lord of the Rings - far from as important as the movies made them seem. So, you have Aragorn and Arwen, and Eowyn with her brief Aragorn love and then Eowyn with Faramir...and, the most innocent of all because they're Hobbits for the Lord's sake: Sam and Rosie. But about the only "commentary" there is a teensy bit with the relationship of Elves and Humans (which is largely an issue of mortality and immortality), and "yay, they got married and made pretty babies!"

Avoiding the issue of same-sex marriages is the best thing for Turbine to do. The story and the ideals of the world that Tolkien really dwelt on do not support or stand against that issue, regardless of Tolkien's own personal beliefs.

Plus...just because the characters can't be of the same gender doesn't mean the players can't be.

As a little side note - Actually, I think Turbine has done as good a job as it can staying relatively true to Middle-earth, and certainly (from what I know and have seen) have not gone the route of making major changes for the sake of money. I am far (far?) from a purist, though, so perhaps my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt?

Very interesting article, davem!!

Edit:

I guess what I was trying to get at, but didn't quite get to in my talking about "relationships" in LotR (I'm talking about only LotR because Turbine only has the rights to LotR and The Hobbit) is that it is much much more about friendship, and general camaraderie than romantic love. Obviously - you just look at Sam and Frodo. It's about platonic love or Lewis' philia.

Taking the fact that there are only heterosexual romantic couples on LotR and then concluding that the book is "against" and "condemns" same-sex 'marriage' is like taking Till We Have Faces and saying it supports homosexual and specifically lesbian romantic relationships. But obviously, saying that about Lewis' book is missing the point so entirely. It's the same with LotR.

Regardless of the author's beliefs, a work can and does have its own platform, particularly because any person can twist a work's meaning to whatever they'd like and miss the point completely, even if the way they twist it happens to likely match up with the author's own personal beliefs.

Oh, another issue - a video game isn't going to differentiate between "marriage" and "civil union." One of the biggest problems with the "same sex marriage" issue in America, at least, is that the legal union and the religious union is both called "marriage." "Civil union" attempts to differentiate, but if the press and politicians can't even remember that, then a video game certainly isn't going to even touch on that (and shouldn't be expected to).

Anyway...just random thoughts.....

[davem]

I suppose that the issue is complicated in that Tolkien never stated that same sex marriages did not happen in M-e, so players who wanted such things could argue that for all any of us know same sex unions were commonplace - so commonplace in fact that they didn't even merit a mention - any more than Tolkien needed to mention that water in M-e is wet.

Another argument would be that, if M-e is really our world in the ancient past, then humans would have been much the same then as they are now, & so same sex relationships would naturally have occurred - unless they were specifically banned by society.

Hence, this aspect of thee 'problem' opens up a much wider question, of how tolerant, or how judgemental, societies in M-e were.

The other issue - Dwarf-Hobbit marriages (or Dwarf -Elf, Elf-Goblin, or even Goblin-Ent ) relationships. Is it actually impossible for a Dwarf guy & a Hobbit gal to meet & fall in love & live happily ever after, producing lots of little Dwobbits, or is it just something that 'didn't happen'?

But isn't that the point of a game like this - to explore, to invent, to come up with new things - if you only want 'what happened' then stick to the books.

After all, how many Eowyn's are we going to see in M-e on-line? Yet Eowyn is the exception that proves the rule that in M-e women were not warriors. In this M-e women warriors are, I assume, going to become so commonplace that an Eowyn figure will not be a shock to anyone - rather than anyone expressing surprise that a woman should come to fight with the Rohirrim it'll more likely be the case that they'll be surprised not to find a whole female cavalry regiment - & who's betting there won't be?

And how long before the demand by players to be 'Elven Wizards', or for their characters to be able to fly or teleport, leads to changes in the game? As Noggy implies, probably not too long - this is a commercial enterprise.

CT's statements about the movies come to mind - that LotR is unsuitable for such treatment. I'd say this is doubly the case with a multi=player game like this one. This comment from the article:

But sex-in-games expert and author Brenda Brathwaite argued that videogames inherently branch away from their source content and should allow gamers to make their own decisions about relationships.

(leaving aside one's natural inclination to want to hunt down & throw big sharp rocks at anyone who presents themselves to the world as a 'sex-in-games expert' ) One can see the issue laid out here - the 'game' is not M-e - or not for very long anyway. It will 'inherently' (sic) branch away from its source.

So, its being sold as your chance to enter into M-e. Yet, it actually isn't, & never could be. Can't help thinking of our recent discussion on whether CoH should be made into a movie, & of how the more 'difficult' parts of the story would be dealt with - would we really ever see a big budget Hollywood flick with such a proud, flawed & often extremely unpleasant 'hero', ending in a double suicide of the central characters? And the conclusion we came to was 'probably not'. Because the average movie goer don't want that kind of thing - its too depressing. This 'game' will be dominated by players who, while they may love M-e (the movie version in most cases), don't see why they should not be allowed to do as they want, if they're paying for the privilege.

I wonder if this issue could destroy the whole project? There are players - who want to wander in M-e & have the freedom to do prety much what they want, & there are fans, who want an authentic M-e experience. Whether a clash can be avoided, & who will win if there is one, is the question...

[Volo]

Just on a side note:

Don't they have thousands of different servers in those games? I bet it'd be easy to have different servers for different types of fans...

[Lord Halsar]

Originally Posted by the phantom

If there are flying Elves, hobbit wizards, and inter-species/same-gender weddings, then it isn't Middle Earth, plain and simple. Whether or not you want these things to be allowed has nothing to do with the issue.

Tolkien created Middle Earth, and we are not at liberty to thrust things into that world that are not allowed by his rules, or are at direct variance with the spirit of his work. If we do, we have no right to call it Middle Earth or Lord of the Rings.

I agree. After all, can you imagine Saruman or Radaghast(correct me if I spelled it wrong. I can never remember how his name is spelled) marrying a dwarf or hobbit? or an orc fostering an infant human. It's just not ME, LOTR, the Silmarillion, or anything else, no matter how humorous it may seem to some people.