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...

[Bêthberry]

That's always the problem with fanfiction of any kind.

For example, I don't think the question of marriage is limited simply to one of hobbit/dwarf or same sex. What about the possibility of half-orcs?

If orcs are simply perverted elves, would it not be possible to imagine a post-WotR world where surviving orcs intermarry with a few of the elves who don't immediately sail west? Think of the themes one could explore as orcs are reclaimed to the light.

Surely this would be one area that could rightly be defended as a legitimate exploration of a process which Tolkien himself began.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Davem

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.

I think this pretty much sums it up.
Ironically, though I might want to enter Middle Earth for a time, doesn't it cease to be Middle Earth if I'm there, with my 21st century American perspective? Isn't anything I might "do" in a RP context, despite any attempt on my part to make it fitting and Tolkienesque, not canonical? It's maybe part of Middle Earth as a living and growing mythology, if such a thing exists, but isn't Tolkien anyway and I wouldn't try to claim it was.
As far as "hot topics" like same-sex marriage, I can only imagine it would end up being decided through a democratic process of sorts, even if it is informal; if the majority of players look down on something and view it as too far from Tolkien's creation, I'm sure they will put a damper on it one way or another; likewise if the majority want it it will happen. It's a fantasy, after all, even if it is a shared one; people will pretty much do what they want.
But perhaps; if it is not only a fiction created by one man, but truly a mythology, it can be legitimately "extended" by anyone by tapping into the collective unconscious? Are myths discovered or written?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by the phantom

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.

But what rules apply here? Are we only at liberty to include within Middle-earth things that are specifically included in Tolkien’s M-e writings? For example, can termites or giraffes exist in M-e, or are they excluded because they are not specifically mentioned? And if we are allowed to include things mentioned in his works, does that mean that we can include golf, football and express trains?

Also, how do you define the “spirit of his work”. Different people will have differing views on this. It might said that tolerance and being true to oneself are upheld as virtues in M-e, in which case it could be argued (convincingly in my view) that same-sex relationships and inter-racial marriages are entirely within its spirit.

Or are you seeking to ban ideas which are not consistent with Tolkien's stated views. I am not sure that we know for certain what his views were on these issues (although I stand to be corrected). You might argue that inference may be made from his religious beliefs, but M-e is not entirely consistent with his religious beliefs. Morevover, as I understand it, his religion does not seek to deny the existence of same-sex relationships, but rather considers them sinful. So does that mean that they could be permitted, provided that they are categorised as a sin? That would hardly be consistent with the qualities that I mentioned earlier, although it would allow dissenting players to "love the sinner but hate the sin".

My own view, for what its worth, is that there is room within M-e (in terms of fan-fic, role-playing games and the like) for anything which is not inconsistent with what we know about it. So that precludes Hobbits flying unassisted and the use of magical powers by any but a select few. But anything which naturally occurs in our world - termites, giraffes, sea-lions and the like – and is not inconsistent with what we know about M-e, should surely be open for inclusion. And that, in my view, includes same-sex relationships and Dwarf-Hobbit marriages (the latter, of course, being subject to there being credible reasons for such a marriage to occur).

I would add that I am far from being a liberal of any description, although I am somewhat of a libertarian.

Originally Posted by davem

... 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'

I could not agree more. What a preposterous job description ...!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Rikae

But perhaps; if it is not only a fiction created by one man, but truly a mythology, it can be legitimately "extended" by anyone by tapping into the collective unconscious? Are myths discovered or written?

This is the issue. Of course we have the oft quoted letter where Tolkien writes of 'other hands' taking up his mythology & contributing. At the same time he didn't consign his works to the public domain & allow a free for all.

The question is, how much freedom should contributors have? I suppose another question is, to what extent does what happens in this 'official' game reflect on Tolkien? I think its clear that tehre are some players who have only joined up because they like the movies & wanted to kill Orcs & fight Balrogs, & who have absolutely no interest in the morality or metaphysics of Tolkien's work.

Of course, one can argue that if something is logically possible within Tolkien's world it should be allowed with the game. It is logically possible for every Elf to marry a human, but that would trivialise the unions. Its possible for every woman in Rohan to go into battle, but that would trivialise Eowyn's act. At some point, simply allowwing everything which is logically possible will completely transform Tolkien's world into a Warcraft clone. At some point, it stops being Tolkien's M-e & becomes something else.

Seems to me that this is the problem with the whole idea of this game, & Rikae is right - to enter M-e with the attitudes, values & sensibilities of a twentieth century person is to change it. One has to adopt a certain mindset, behave & think in a certain way, or one is going to destroy the world. Homosexuality/same sex unions may be logically possible in M-e, but they do not happen in Tolkien. Same with most kinds of interracial marriage. I'm sure that a game like this has potential, as Bb suggests, to explore different possibilities within Tolkien's creation, but I fear that the more likely result will be a trivialising of the creation due to a lot of petulant foot stamping: 'I paid my dues to be an Elf & I want to marry that Hobbit 'cos he's my boyfriend in RL!'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

At some point, simply allowwing everything which is logically possible will completely transform Tolkien's world into a Warcraft clone.

My point was that anything which is logically possible should be permissible, but subject to it being credible within the bounds of the world that Tolkien presented us with (hence, Dwarf-Hobbit marriages would be possible in theory, but extremely rare in practice). Although I cannot imagine how such a "rule" could be enforced that in a game such as this.

Originally Posted by davem

... to enter M-e with the attitudes, values & sensibilities of a twentieth century person is to change it. One has to adopt a certain mindset, behave & think in a certain way, or one is going to destroy the world.

Then again, values, sensibilities and "moral compasses" may have changed, but that does not mean that things which are acceptable now but which were once frowned upon did not previously exist. And how can someone "change their mindset" with regard to a fundamental aspect of who they are (eg, sexuality)?

[the guy who be short]

To what extent did Hobbits, Elves, Men & Dwarves even have love marriages? Love marriages only became common in the West in the 1700s. It seems sensible that parents had a role - look at Elrond guarding Arwen.

Anyway, I agree with SpM that anything sensible should be included - termites, going to the toilet (sorry, loo!), homosexuality - while anything not sensible should be excluded - inter-racial marriage (except man-elf), flight of hobbits and gay marriage. Homosexuality has always existed; it has rarely been formalised.

Marriage is an odd issue because very little is said about it. Most societies in history seem to have gone for parents arranging marriages which can't be extended to a game world.

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

Most societies in history seem to have gone for parents arranging marriages which can't be extended to a game world.

Why not? I know of few greater novels, after all, than A Suitable Boy. And my current RP is positively teeming with arranged marriages...

[Lalwendë]

I think the primary issue is that it is a game and what's more, a game which allows players to creatively interact rather like The Sims. If you want the 'authentic Tolkien' you need go no further than a good old book, a game is never going to give you that experience, not least as it will impose on you one 'vision' of the world you are reading about and not allow you to create it for yourself.

However, what is to stop the reader from imagining all kinds of scenarios involving the characters? In fact they do, you only have to look at slash to see that people will and do put say Legolas in a clinch with Aragorn Those scenarios spring from readers' minds - yet you get few imagined scenarios involving something else 'not mentioned' - flying Elves. Why should readers of books be allowed to have scenarios they like in their own imaginations yet gamers should not?

Maybe the difference is that other gamers would not like to share the virtual Middle-earth with the imaginings of these fans? Do we then have to deal with the prospect of a schism and two parallel Middle-earths?

[The Might]

Interesting topic there
And personally if I were a player there, which I am not, I would definitely like to live in a world as close to Tolkien's M-e as possible
I wouldn't want to see neither gay Elves nor Hobbits married with Dwarves, no matter if the players want that or not
The game, in my opinion, should have certain rules that keep it within the boundaries set by Tolkien
The problem is, this is just my opinion and after all it doesn't really count a lot
The purpose of the game is to make money and I'm sure if enough people request new rules to enable such things, this will be granted...
In the end, I don't really care, I never really liked MMORPG anyway

[Durelin]

Geez, guys! Cut Turbine some slack... I don't think anyone here knows enough about the company to say that all the people care about is money.... And the issue here is not money - it's essentially politics, and the personal feelings of the people in the company.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Durelin

Geez, guys! Cut Turbine some slack... I don't think anyone here knows enough about the company to say that all the people care about is money.... And the issue here is not money - it's essentially politics, and the personal feelings of the people in the company.

I suspect money is the over-riding issue - they snapped up the rights in order to make money. And the money they're making is off the back of Tolkien's hard work over more than half a century. If this was a generic fantasy world no-one would be that interested in getting involved. This is about getting fans of the books & the movie on line - & shelling out money to Turbine for the privilege. I suspect that 'politics' is only an issue because Turbine realise that whichever way they jump they'll alienate some players, & they're trying to find a way to stay on the fence if they can, & keep as many on board as possible.

I suspect where politics is an issue is for some of those objecting to the ban on same sex marriages in the game - who seem to have little or no interest at all in Tolkien's creation, & the ethics & philosophy underlying it - & who are more interested in political correctness than in Tolkien's work.

Surely there comes a point when this M-e becomes simply another on-line fantasy world.

But, would that be a great loss? I wonder - if players were bound by the 'hard' rules Tolkien gave, would that not produce a much more interesting experience for the players?

[The 1,000 Reader]

In my opinion, fanfiction and ME should never mix.

[The Saucepan Man]

It's not a crime to make money, you know ...

Originally Posted by davem

I suspect money is the over-riding issue - they snapped up the rights in order to make money.

Yes, and I suspect that they paid hansomely for those rights. Incidentally, who granted them the rights? The Estate? Saentz?

In any event, the rights originally lay with Tolkien himself. Once they were sold, he (and, by succession, the Estate) gave up any right to complain about what was done with them (subject to the terms of the contract by which they were granted).

Originally Posted by davem

I suspect where politics is an issue is for some of those objecting to the ban on same sex marriages in the game - who seem to have little or no interest at all in Tolkien's creation, & the ethics & philosophy underlying it - & who are more interested in political correctness than in Tolkien's work.

Its not an issue of political correctness. Homesexuality is a fact of life, not a cause. Is it right that this game should either exclude gay people or else force them to play a role with which they do not feel comfortable?

Originally Posted by davem

But, would that be a great loss? I wonder - if players were bound by the 'hard' rules Tolkien gave ...

I may be wrong, but I am not aware of any instance of Tolkien explicitly stating that same sex relationships did not exist in Middle-earth. Not am I aware of any "rule" in M-e preventing Dwarves and Hobbits falling in love.

Btw, do Balrogs have wings in this game? Can they fly?

[Durelin]

You know, after a bit more thought, I really can't see how the marriage system will have any real effect on the dynamics of the game, anyway, except on the personal level, so...why not allow it?

Originally Posted by SPM

Its not an issue of political correctness. Homesexuality is a fact of life, not a cause. Is it right that this game should either exclude gay people or else force them to play a role with which they do not feel comfortable?

It shouldn't be an issue of political correctness, but ultimately the company's decision-making is likely going to be affected considerably by politics. Not just because of losing some players (they could lose players with either decision I expect), but because of what kind of media-coverage the company and the game will get.

As for the "evils" of Turbine making money - I tend to doubt the higher-ups in any company, but I expect most of those working on the project are people who have wanted to live in ME at one point in their life, and running around as a virtual person in a virtual rendition of it is probably of personal interest to them. I can't see anyone working on one game for so long without some interest.

The fantasy RPGs of all sorts all have their roots in Tolkien, and yes, the movies did open up the possibility of such a largescale video game, but...is that really so bad? Everquesters and WoWers need to be introduced to where all their elves and orcs/orks were taken (stolen? ) from!

Edit: When I was talking about the company "fearing the media," so to speak, I don't think of that as showing that the company is somehow "moraless." I mean, it's a company, and particularly with how the media will jump on anything today, they have every reason to be careful for that...well, reason.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Durelin

I tend to doubt the higher-ups in any company ...

You know, just like "normal" people, some can be good, some can be bad and some can be indifferent. Trust me on this.

[Durelin]

"I know" (how many times have you heard that out of a 17 year-old!)...I call that my admission that I am biased as...a naive 'middle-class' teenager? Borderline self-righteous and/or emo?

*rages* Evil government...anarchy...heartless consumer murderers...eat more tofu...

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Yes, and I suspect that they paid hansomely for those rights. Incidentally, who granted them the rights? The Estate? Saentz?

Well, originally Vivendi Universal Games negotiated the rights from (and I could very well be mistaken) the Saul Zaentz company, and then Turbine bought the license from Vivendi after some protracted time of development.

Originally Posted by Durelin

You know, after a bit more thought, I really can't see how the marriage system will have any real effect on the dynamics of the game, anyway, except on the personal level, so...why not allow it?

Or, since marriage is only an aesthetic, why have it all? If people are so adamant about 'roleplaying' in the game, they can certainly roleplay marriage as well without having Turbine provide some sort of system.

Do people no longer trust their imaginations?

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Its not an issue of political correctness. Homesexuality is a fact of life, not a cause. Is it right that this game should either exclude gay people or else force them to play a role with which they do not feel comfortable?

But no-one's being forced to play the game at all. I didn't say homosexuality was a 'cause' in itself - but I think getting it into this game is a 'cause' for certain individuals involved in this -

An editor with GayGamer.net called Davidson’s explanation “a giant cop-out”: “Now that such a feature's been banned, I worry that the decision will help foster homophobic comments and behavior within the game's universe,” he wrote.

Now this strikes me as a perfect example - 'If gay marriage is not allowed in the game it will result in homophobic behaviour & comments'. That doesn't follow at all.

The point is, whether we approve or not, gay marriage is not soemthing that happens in M-e. Tolkien was a bit of a fan of family trees & there are no family trees which show same sex marriages, nor any mentions of same sex unions - or unions across racial divides - apart from Elves & Humans (yes, I know there's also the Melian-Thingol thing, but that's another exception that proves a rule). Now, Tolkien wasn't ignorant - he was obviously aware of the fact of homosexuality. But he chose not to include it in his creation. Maybe that was for artistic reasons, maybe it was for religious reasons - or maybe some long lost text will turn up giving the reason for the absence of homosexuality/same sex relationships in M-e terms.

The whole point is, this would be to introduce something into the world that doesn't exist in Tolkien's creation. To permit same sex unions into the world changes it - you're attempting to move it towards a 21st century liberal (or libertarian) utopia, & impose 21st century values. The 'if its logically possible' argument doesn't work - its logically possible that the Romans could have invented firearms - the raw materials to construct them & the necessary chemicals to make gunpowder were around. But the fact is that the Romans didn't have guns, & introducing guns into a role playing game set in ancient Rome would wreck any historical 'truth' the game had.

If anyone has a real problem with 'X' being banned (ie never having existed in the first place) from M-e I'll happily write them a note excusing them from playing...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

But no-one's being forced to play the game at all.

No, but then they are being excluded from something which they might have been keen to participate in.

Originally Posted by davem

Now this strikes me as a perfect example - 'If gay marriage is not allowed in the game it will result in homophobic behaviour & comments'. That doesn't follow at all.

Sorry, I get your point now. I agree with you on that.

Originally Posted by davem

Now, Tolkien wasn't ignorant - he was obviously aware of the fact of homosexuality. But he chose not to include it in his creation.

He was also aware of the existence of ostriches, but chose not to include them in his creation. Does that mean that they don't exist in M-e? Can we not infer from the fact that something occurs naturally in our world that it also occurs in M-e (or that it is at least capable of occuring in M-e), provided that it is not inconsisitent with anything that he did write about? Tolkien did not specifically refer to same sex relationships, but their existence is not inconsistent with anything that he wrote.

Originally Posted by davem

To permit same sex unions into the world changes it - you're attempting to move it towards a 21st century liberal (or libertarian) utopia, & impose 21st century values.

I do not dispute that same sex marriages (ie formalised unions) do not exist in M-e. But that does not preclude same sex relationships (which have occured throughout our history).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I do not dispute that same sex marriages (ie formalised unions) do not exist in M-e. But that does not preclude same sex relationships (which have occured throughout our history).

Sauce's comment here is historically perceptive, as it has been argued that homosexuality is a cultural construct, while the expression of human sexuality is not. It might be interesting to examine the Northern Sagas, as well as Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythologies, for the representations of same sex relationships, although the existing texts are all very much influenced by the large-scale conversion to Christianity. For instance, in early western societies, rape was used as a military weapon to enforce the humiliation of defeat--rape of both males and females, as was castration and other forms of bodily mutilation.

In agrarian cultures, the creation of families had an economic function and everyone, regardless of personal inclination or preferences, was expected to contribute to the economic well being of the society. Extra hands--children--were needed to work the fields while younger hands--children--were needed to provide for adults in their declining years.

But another way to consider this question is related to the dwarven culture. Male dwarves out-numbered female dwarves. This is consistent with some of the historical records of Scandinavian countries, where women were also "in short supply." (And has been argued is a reason for the relatively more empowered status of women in some Scandinavian cultures.) What happens to male sexual "expression" when this happens? Tolkien has left us with this culture that apparently disappears because of its low fertility rate. So what's a dwarven guy to do who carries his shield in his right hand and his axe in his left? There's either going to be the prevalance of same sex experiences or of "inter racial" experiences 'cause sooner or later those weapons are going to be put down, at least temporarily. Idle hands?

On the other hand, sexuality is pretty much absent from Tolkien's work, except in iconic expressions. Of this absence, a veritable silence, much can in fact be said. Whether gamers are truly interested in exploring this as it relates seriously and legitimately (or even comically) to Tolkien, is another question. Their interest lies largely I would suspect in exploring potentials for gaming. Those--the historical impetus and the gaming urge--are not necessarily similar.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by CoD

Or, since marriage is only an aesthetic, why have it all? If people are so adamant about 'roleplaying' in the game, they can certainly roleplay marriage as well without having Turbine provide some sort of system.

Do people no longer trust their imaginations?

At least somebody's making sense. This whole thing looks like a tempest in a teapot to me, honestly. It isn't as if anyone is rewriting Tolkien, after all.
A game, people, a game. If it banned gay marriages, this would not amount to forcing anyone to play a role they feel uncomfortable with; after all, presumably, the characters could simply not marry at all - and have their relationships out of the context of some sort of official marriage in the game; conversely, if it is allowed, those who feel it's out of the spirit of Tolkien (with whom I would pretty much agree) can choose to ignore said couples or the game in its entirety...
The question of "the spirit of Tolkien" is not as cut-and-dried as some of you seem to like to pretend, in any event. Ultimately it is quite subjective; and we're all guilty of bending the rules, as surely as I am not a maia...

And, actually, there aren't any rules. "There is no spoon..."
This whole controversy smacks of organized religion, and that just isn't my cup of tea.

(Hmm, nicely bookended that post with the same beverage...)

[davem]

Except….we're dealing here with an invented world. For all Tolkien presented it as being 'our world in the ancient past' it is nothing of the sort. M-e & all its inhabitants & the rules/conditions by which they live are his invention. Anything he hasn't put in there doesn't actually exist – whether its logically possible or not.

Extending this to questions of sexuality – the Dwarf question is not so simple. First, Dwarves are not human. They are mortal, but they are not of the Children. Hence, we can't assume that they would feel sexual desire in the same way – or even at all. Or it may be that they have ways of sublimating their sexual desires & channelling their libidinous tendencies into their work. Elves are virtually asexual once they have had children according to Tolkien.

Now, one assumes that in a world created by a conservative Catholic born in the Edwardian period certain things wouldn't exist – not simply wouldn't be mentioned, but would not be put into the world at all. And this is not a question of morality or organised religion, but simply of what a man like Tolkien would choose to include, to give existence to.

The point is that M-e was the product of a particular man's mind. Thus, while 'X' may exist 'Y' may not – even though 'Y' is not logically impossible: it may not exist because the creator of the world created said world without it. Homosexuality in M-e is not an option because in M-e (as opposed to the Primary World) sexuality does not operate in that way. Maybe the inhabitants brains worked differently, maybe they didn't have the 'gay' gene, maybe they were brought up differently – its not really relevant. What is relevant is that Tolkien created a world in which Homosexuality did not exist. It isn't 'covered up', or blotted out of the records, or the result of pogroms against the gay community – it simply never existed in Tolkien's created world. Its not logically impossible for it to exist – it just didn't exist. Its not logically impossible for Dwarves to ride Llamas, Hobbits to ride bicycles, or Elves to bounce around on Space-hoppers made from Oliphaunt bladders – they just didn't . Tolkien, in short, would not have introduced same sex relationships, let alone marriages, into his invented world, not because he didn't approve of such things, but simply because a man of his time & background wouldn't think of including them. Hence they aren't there.

Now, of course, it’s a game, & if some things are introduced which 'purists' don't want to see, the purists can leave – or those things could be left outside the game & the ones who want them could leave. But the point, it seems to me, is that whatever one does to any manifestation of M-e reflects back in some way on Tolkien himself. Tolkien created a world where certain things did not exist, & we have no evidence that he wished them to exist – hence I see no reason why they should – anyone who wants to read about, or play in, a world where such things do exist can easily do so. To demand that a world in which they don't exist should be forced to include them seems just plain wrong. I can't help thinking that if Tolkien's works themselves were out of copyright they'd be demanding a re-write.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Anything he hasn't put in there doesn't actually exist – whether its logically possible or not.

So no one in M-e ever ever had need to answer the call of nature?

[Lalwendë]

I'm just laughing a bit about what the game designer says:

"Tolkien was a conservative Catholic," said Davidson. "He went out drinking with C.S. Lewis every night, and the two of them had a worldview that was -- well, let's just say it clashes a little bit with the sensibilities of East Coast liberals who make up the largest population of Turbine.”

This conjours up the image of Tolkien as a redneck who drove round in a pick-up truck looking for people to beat up. Errr, no, he was a Professor at Oxford University, a place riddled with homosexuality (if such a thing can indeed 'riddle'). One of Oxford's most famous 'circles' included Betjeman, Auden, Spender, Macneice and Isherwood. Now Lewis may not have seen eye to eye with Betjeman and his aesthetic (but note, not gay) ways, but the same dislike did not prevent Tolkien and Auden being great friends - and Auden was not only gay but also a Marxist.

It does make me laugh how people will cast their own beliefs onto Tolkien - they may indeed be particular sorts of conservatives, and may interpret conservative in a particular way, but whatever they think, this did not preclude Tolkien from being great friends with someone who was both extremely left wing and gay.

Anyway, at root, this is a game not the books. If you don't like the idea of gay characters being conjoured up by gamers then stick to the books. Like it or not, online worlds are co-created by those who game in them and the game creators are fooling themselves if they want to maintain some spurious semblance of 'authenticity' as what's that anyway?

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by davem

Anything he hasn't put in there doesn't actually exist – whether its logically possible or not.

Ah. In this case, I suppose the silly thread in Mirth a while back about no one in M-E going to the bathroom (or should I say toilet?) is actually true; despite the fact that we're dealing with human beings and it would seem obvious they would be, biologically, the same as real humans; because Tolkien didn't mention it? Or are we to assume M-E people, like us, kept such things private?
Of course nothing Tolkien left out exists. Technically, neither does anything he included...

Originally Posted by Davem

Now, one assumes that in a world created by a conservative Catholic born in the Edwardian period certain things wouldn't exist – not simply wouldn't be mentioned, but would not be put into the world at all. And this is not a question of morality or organised religion, but simply of what a man like Tolkien would choose to include, to give existence to.

Why? Because he would have considered it immoral and/or unnatural? Because I seem to recall that he did include evil in his world; I didn't get the impression he was constructing a utopia...rather, he brought a great deal of insight into the flawed nature of humanity (if you want to call it that), to his writing; so I doubt he would have us assume that his humans were somehow (from a christian point of view) "more perfect" than modern ones.
Certainly actual gay marriage wouldn't fit into M-E; nor would it fit the style and plot for Tolkien to have paid undue attention to the sex lives of his characters for him to dwell on, say, a sadomasochistic interlude between Saruman and Grima . He doesn't give us graphic descriptions of the bedroom antics of Sam and Rosie, either; Occam's razor would suggest this is because he didn't consider it fitting or relevant to include this, not because he wishes us to believe that hobbits reproduce asexually.

Originally Posted by Davem

Homosexuality in M-e is not an option because in M-e (as opposed to the Primary World) sexuality does not operate in that way.

You might be able to make this argument for other races...but there are humans in M-E, and it's illogical to assume they differ from real humans unless the professor actually specified as much.

[davem]

No, the question is, when Tolkien concieved of his characters, human or otherwise, did he concieve of any of them being gay - ie, did he actually concieve of that aspect of human sexuality applying? Was it in his mind? Perhaps, if pushed, he would have acknowledged the possibility, but this is different from looking at what he actually concieved of existing in that world. I don't see that Tolkien would have even thought about Homosexuality being present in his creation (& if one looks at the detail into which he went in 'exploring' that world, it seems to me that such a significant aspect of the primary world human condition would have merited some comment.

In other words, you can't argue, on the one hand, that homosexuality is an essential aspect of the human race & therefore must exist in M-e, & then on the other argue that its no more significant than going to the lavatory, & that that's why Tolkien failed to mention it. Its logically possible, but its too significant an aspect for it to exist without comment.

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Lal

but the same dislike did not prevent Tolkien and Auden being great friends - and Auden was not only gay but also a Marxist.

'Tis a good point, but I know a number of people who feel that "gay marriage" or same-sex civil unions should not be permitted, while they are great friends with and have no problems with homosexual people. The issue really isn't about homosexuality and whether or not it's right - well, that becomes part of it, though not if you look at it somewhat objectively? - but whether or not the "marriage" of these partners should be allowed. That makes it sound all real-worldy, but...well, really that's the case in the real world legal debate, too, because most people in the "western world," I guess, feel like the government shouldn't legislate on morality, so to speak...well, a lot of people do....

But...people can RP anything they want! I mean, they can use the flirt emote (which is hilarious, I might add) on anyone. All an in-game marriage system does is...well, it's kinda like a real world legal marriage, in that is just gives them some benefits as a pair. At least, typically that's how it works in games. Like, they get experience points from each others kills and such.

And I'm guess there will be RP elements to it that make people feel more like their characters are married, but, that's pretty basic...I mean, you could call it a "blood-brother/sisterhood-ness" or something....

Really, I guess I'm coming to the same conclusion as CoD...there doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough of a point to the marriage system to spark any sort of debate!

[Lalwendë]

I think rather that Tolkien did not include any outwardly gay characters simply because he didn't. Even in the 50s he was operating in a different world - if a writer did include a gay character then he or she would invariably be included to serve a purpose, e.g. to make a point about sexuality (like DH Lawrence) or to point the work up as a 'gay' novel (like Radclyffe Hall). Tolkien's work though was not really 'about' sex or relationships so he had no reason to make sure he included such characters. In contrast today you may find a critic clamouring for such characters just in the interests (irrelevant or otherwise) of 'balance' - in much the way that you find modern critics bemoaning the supposed lack of women in Tolkien's work. Plenty of fiction exists without mentioning any gay characters, any women, any black people, any children etc - it does not mean that they did not exist.

He was not trying to make any kind of point by not including any outwardly gay characters, they simply were not relevant to the story he wrote in the period he was writing. The possibility remains for some characters to have been in the closet (or not in the closet, rather that the issue did not come up as it was not part of the narrative) or for unseen folk in Middle-earth to have been gay.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Lal

Tolkien's work though was not really 'about' sex or relationships so he had no reason to make sure he included such characters.

Precisely.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Extending this to questions of sexuality – the Dwarf question is not so simple. First, Dwarves are not human. They are mortal, but they are not of the Children. Hence, we can't assume that they would feel sexual desire in the same way – or even at all. Or it may be that they have ways of sublimating their sexual desires & channelling their libidinous tendencies into their work. Elves are virtually asexual once they have had children according to Tolkien.

Right. Aule must clearly have had less of the sub-creative urge/energy than Illuvatar.

Or maybe dwarven children were brought by the eagles, but instead of being little cabbages they were really little stones and somewhere along the way someone forgot the spell that brought them to life. Or maybe it was the loss of the dwarven rings which doomed the little blessing stones to pebbledom.

And I think Monty Python has a skit about post-partuition sexuality, except it referred to CoE types. Prolly Tolkien's elves were a model for it.

[davem]

What I don't see anywhere in Tolkien's writings is any relationship which could be interpreted as having a homosexual aspect. To be honest the closest I can find is the episode in the Tower of Cirith Ungol, where Sam rescues the naked Frodo & sits holding holding him. It states something like 'Sam could have sat there forever, but he knew it wan't allowed'. Now, one could push that & interpret it as speaking to Sam's feelings for Frodo, but if one did, one would then have to draw the conclusion that such feelings 'weren't allowed'. If so, then far from supporting the possibility of same sex relationships, it would have to be taken as a statement on Tolkien's part that even if such feelings existed they were against the rules - which opens a whole can of worms in terms of the morality of M-e.

I'm inclined not to push the incident, though.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

In other words, you can't argue, on the one hand, that homosexuality is an essential aspect of the human race & therefore must exist in M-e, & then on the other argue that its no more significant than going to the lavatory, & that that's why Tolkien failed to mention it.

Well, I am sure that I could if I put my mind to it.

But let me correct your statement of the point.

Homosexuality naturally occurs within the human race and therefore must exist in M-e, but is no more relevant to the story than going to the lavatory, and that that is why Tolkien had no need to mention it.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by SPaM

I am saying that homosexuality naturally occurs within the human race and therefore must exist in M-e, but that it is no more relevant to the story than going to the lavatory, and that that is why Tolkien had no need to mention it.

Hmm...I may be wrong...I often am, after all...but I think I was actually the one arguing that.