"...so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart."
- J.R.R. Tolkein!
"This is accurate. It is why if you look at our Dwarf character select it does not say MALE, it simply omits gender. You can choose to play your dwarf however you wish. Now that that is cleared up, we're done." - Sapience, Harbinger of Soon!
Done and Done!
I wonder what female dwarves wear when they are not afield, and just hanging around barefoot and pregnant by the oven.
The fun never ceases 'round 'ere!
wow... 3 page reply to a 3 month old thread...
They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart.He certainly wrote about it, and while Turbine cannot use non-licensed materials (Sil, HoME, etc) in detail, they can certainly turn to them for inspiration and interepretation. They've done so.Either way is conjecture as he never 'published' a statement one way or the other.
Two reasons:Why be so 'hard core' about 'all dwarves look male and have beards' and then say it's fine for Hobbits to be common place outside of the Shire.
Female dwarves are a different story. It says they rarely left the safety of their homes, that they looked and sounded like male dwarves, etc. There was only one female dwarf mentioned at all in the books (except as a group, when describing why they were so seldom encountered by others). She got a one-sentence mention in an Appendix. And as Floon explained some years back, female dwarves are usually the least chosen avatar in fantasy games even when they don't look and sound male.
- The books actually do state explicitly that there were adventurous (Tookish) hobbits. They definitely exist, and while you can argue about numbers, there are a number of examples of this in their history.
- It's unreasonable to have an adventure-based game with playable hobbits in it while preventing most of them from ever leaving the Shire. (And what sort of Middle-earth game would not have playable hobbits?)
Actually, he said that they put spells on their buried stuff to help keep it safe in The Hobbit, and there were toys of "real dwarf-make" which were "obviously magical" at Bilbo's party in LotR, so no... I wouldn't say that.few comments about dwarves and magic to the point that dwarves never use magic and couldn't.
The amish grow their beards. Dwarves are born with them. You are comparing apples and grapees.
*- Basically like a captain's banner; you place the field and targets within its range is affected.
why do you keep comparing a RELIGIOUS practice to a fictional race?
i have NEVER heard anywhere except from you that all Amish have beards.
where do you get off making such a anti-religious statement?
in trying to be comedic by using a non-sequitur you are just being demeaning towards a group of folks.
There's a whole lot of anthropomorphizing going on, not just in the game. Ie, you see a cartoon and you can instantly tell the female animals from the male animals, because they're given human features. Even cartoon fish will have long eyelashes or lipstick if they're female. It's just plain stupid.
In game terms, hobbits are just an offshoot of humans, very very closely related. But dwarves and elves are completely different species, with zero common ancestors. Dwarves are not even primates (possibly not mammals).
Last edited by Lohi; Aug 26 2010 at 09:30 PM.
I think Pratchett got it right with his dwarves; very similar to Tolkien but with a humorous bent. Ie, part of dwarven courtship is the delicate matter of trying to figure out the sex of the other person before you get married instead of after. And his dwarves were shocked and angry when one of them decided to just start publicly proclaiming to be a female and wearing a dress like a human.
Ie, Finnish does not commonly use an equivalent of he versus she, and I have encountered a few Finns who have mistakenly called a woman "he".
WHY is this here?!
Why is there yet another discussion on this confounded topic!? Sapience has already made HIS comment on the matter, but how about a quick summary of an answer to the question "Why no female dwarves??" (per topic title).
"Why no female dwarves??"
There is much contention over whether or not Tolkien described and created dwarves as being considerably different or not regarding gender. On the one hand, it is mentioned that to other races, males and females are indistinguishable in features and sound. That is, one would have to tell you directly "I am a male/female" for you to know for sure. On the OTHER hand, there is contention over whether or not the published works on the matter 'count' as it is not the official writings of Tolkien, just a composition of his writings on the matter (presumably drafts and the like, I do not know).
So, in lieu of a definitive answer - Turbine had to make a decision within the restrictions they have over "How they can present LoTR" to us. They have SOME official 'lore' on the matter (published, by the company that calls the shots) and went with that - making a system whereby gender for dwarves isn't important for TECHNICAL purposes (how NPCs address you etc) and for lore/roleplaying purposes, as is always the case, is up to the person creating the character.
Call your dwarf "Barry" and he is most likely a male.
Call your dwarf "Jane" and she is most like a female.
And finally: For the true answer of the question "Why no female dwarves??" for a game that has been designed over 3 years ago, the coding was created so that when one made a dwarf, you could not decide a gender.
It has been 3 years since it was designed that way - it works - there is no need nor no point to changing it. It is not a bug, nor flaw, nor an issue in any regard thus does not warrant changing.
AHHHHHH! END OF STORY AHHHHHHH!!!
Puny metal sticks not stop Dargnahk!
Kinship: Neled Gwaith - Guardian/Burglar/Captain/Minstrel/Hunter 75. Champion, Lore-master 65 or above. Rune-Keeper (47), Warden (31).
He is a specific Balrog with specific importance to the story surrounding the Fellowship. His circumstances have no bearing on what Tolkien intended when it comes to how Balrogs were represented while they served Morgoth before the breaking of Thangorodrim.
"Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory."
In appendix A of return of the king..
Here's the exact full paragraph on page 411..
It was said by Gimli that there are few dwarf women, probably no more than a third of the whole people. They seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the Dwarf men that in eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart. This has given rise to the foolish opinion among men that there are no dwarf women, and that the Dwarves 'grow out of stone.'
The exact paragraph word for word.
To the person who commented about Amish people..
Amish people aren't a species. Amish people are humans. You're human. I'm human. Koreans are human. Africans are human. You get the picture.
A dwarf is not human. A young dwarf is called a beardling. Why? Dwarves in middle earth are born with beards. It's part of their species. They are not a diminutive race of man. They are not "human" at all. If a female dwarf had no beard, I'll give you this argument just because, they'd most likely look like a beardless male dwarf. The passage above makes it very clear. If you ran into a female dwarf you'd have absolutely no idea. It makes it clear. Outsiders are those who aren't Dwarves. Those who aren't dwarves would perceive them both in looks and sound as males. If you saw a female dwarf you'd have no idea it was female. This means there won't be a single effeminate trait. The way they talk, look, and even dress is exactly the same as a male.
For those who claim hobbits do not leave the Shire realize that there has been hobbits that have fought outside the Shire itself in many years in the past. Sure this was many many years ago to the point where it's been forgotten by history but in the hobbit it makes it very clear, as in the fellowship of the rings, that the Tooks and Brandybucks are the most WELL KNOWN for adventure. If they are the most well known then this means that there are members here and there of other families that aren't. Realize also when Frodo went to the prancing pony under the guise of underhill, he met other underhills who were from the shire and mistook him as a long lost cousin.
There were also hobbits living in bree. This means that there are hobbits living up to bree. So you might then go "But what are player hobbits doing leaving? You only covered up to bree!" it's also hinted that here and there are other hobbits living abroad and even then adventurous hobbits only need the right push. Realize that in this time of middle earth some rather strange things began happening in the shire. I think those who are being held back by family, friends, neighbors, and the like might be overcome with curiosity and seek what's going on. From Bree might lead them further abroad.
Now you might be going.. "But wait! What about the other people who don't know of them?" We arrive in places after the fellowship has already been there. Many times it's admitted "Strange times indeed to see Hobbits about." and other similar things. We're no longer as unexpected and realize that your perception on player hobbits is off. There's probably several thousand player hobbits per server. In a world with a population of millions potentially billions (the game scale can't show that much) several thousand is extremely rare. For there to be only several thousand max hobbits outside the shire running about.. that's very small numbers.
Note that at any given time there is likely NOT several thousand hobbit players alone but even if there are this is still a miniscule number. Do not count players across all servers, count them on one server, because each server is it's own world. Which leads up to my next point.. female dwarves. They're designated as extremely rare. How many rp as a female dwarf? I'm betting not many. I think the numbers even if it's a few hundred or a thousand (very generous here) still fits the bill of extremely rare.
Imagine if you will if there's only one thousand americans that have ever visited outside of america. I guarantee you most people would go their entire lives without meeting those very few. It's a small drop in the bucket compared to the entire world. (I'm aware there is much much MUCH more than 1000 americans out in the world, being american myself and traveling abroad).
Last edited by Rhyltran; Aug 27 2010 at 04:51 AM.
This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.Reload