Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Roleplaying » Totally Tolkien » What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
12
Author Topic:
BerethEdhellen
RPG Moderator & Mistress of the Sea
Posts: 3098
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: September 04, 2006 07:44
Nelenata,

I'm sure you are right that each town/village would have an apothecary/healer type....all those orc slashes and such, don't ya know. But you made our point for us. The 'every single motley bunch' would be unlikely to have convenient healers traipsing about with them. The really rare needs would have to head for Rivendell, as did Frodo, who was beyond the local med guy. Thus, if you were in Edoras, e.g., you would be able to find your everyday kind of healer. But in TT posts, you would not be able to find a healer traveling with those 'motley bunches'.

And to make ourselves one hundred percent clear....*grins*....no half elves in TT unless they are one of the canon ones. All others belong in TR.
Life is good! Live it to the fullest. Love well those near and dear. "You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are ever flowing on ....." Heraclitus I Aear cân ven na mar
nelenata
Council Member
Posts: 213
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: September 04, 2006 08:48
Rightio, I see. Thanking you!
PotbellyHairyfoot
Grandpa Moderator
Posts: 2929
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 26, 2007 10:01
The next few posts have to do with a discussion of the direction that Arnor's Rebirth is taking .The discussion can be relevant to all TT threads so we are moving it to this discussion thread.


moderator's comment;
I hate to mention this but the staff is concerned that you are wandering away from being TT . You've lately become too focused on personal interactions and problems that didn't exist on Middle-earth and seem to have stopped rebuilding the city. (Body building, addictive drugs, and genetic defects didn't play much of a role in Tolkien's world; just acquiring the necesseties of life kept people in shape, the only diseases mentioned are a few plagues and the only 'drug' mentioned was Athelas)

I hope you don't mind, but I'm reinserting Bel and PB back into the story and moving along with the idea of nearby bandits




[Edited on 26/8/2007 by PotbellyHairyfoot]
nelenata
Council Member
Posts: 213
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 26, 2007 10:04
It's good to see you back, PBH!

Now, with all due respect, I disagree about such problems not existing in Middle Earth. As I see it, the people in Tolkien's works (elves and dwarves excepted, of course) are *human*. I simply don't see why it's implausible for them to suffer human ailments just as we do -- Tolkien doesn't say they don't. Athelas, while having 'many virtues', does have pretty specific applications... I can't see it as a universal panacea, or surely its use would have been more widely known. I mean, LOTR had bigger fish to fry than minor ailments; the common cold wasn't mentioned presumably because it didn't exactly have a huge bearing on the story, but I bet it exists! I don't agree that just because Tolkien never gave us a list of all the illnesses and all the medicinal herbs that were ever used, that it's in the least a departure from his works to make educated guesses about the flora and fauna in Middle Earth, and their uses. I'm not talking fairies and unicorns, just innocuous everyday plants that grow in our world, and from the descriptions of the landscape and climate, probably grow in Tolkien's. I don't recall him ever specifically mentioning deer, but it seems reasonable to me in a TT thread to hunt them for food all the same...

As for genetic stuff, there is a *huge* emphasis on lineage, bloodline, inheritance etc in Lord of the Rings. If Aragorn can inherit Isidur's likeness from Eru only knows how many generations ago, why is it 'less Tolkien' to inherit an (admittedly rather less glamourous) blood condition? True, when LOTR was written, there were are great many things in medicine (yes, notably genetics) unknown that we now know about, but that doesn't mean people didn't have such conditions, and by association, I don't see why the people of Middle Earth couldn't -- even if such things weren't recognised or diagnosed. Of course I'm not suggesting that the inhabitants of ME have any knowledge of genetics, or that opium addiction was commonplace, or socially acceptable, or even that it was a common medicine (though in our world there's evidence that even the ancient Egyptians knew about it...). That would clearly be ridiculous. I just find it even more implausible that a civilisation as advanced as Gondor wouldn't discover such things or even notice over thousands of years that some diseases or characteristics seem to run in families...

People are people are people, in my opinion. They do have relationships, they do get sick, they do have hopes, dreams and fears, and they do die. That's what humans are and what they do. Tolkien's works contain human beings -- whether he specifically mentioned every detail or not, I think it's reasonable, canonical extrapolation for rounded characters in a TT RP to do all these things -- in context of course. I've done my best to keep this within what I see as a comparable historical context in our world, i.e. ancient/mediaeval, with a touch more common sense than the people of our world generally displayed. The healing in Middle Earth strikes me to be quite primitive (with the obvious exception of the Elves) but reasonably effective considering the probable resources. It's not the same type of story as LOTR, which was quest-driven, that's true. But I don't think it follows that a character and relationship-driven story is therefore beyond the bounds of Tolkien's world. We're all still meeting each other at this point in time, after all!

Eh, there endeth the essay. Before people jump on me, I'm not questioning the mods' authority... that's just my take on this particular issue. I do think about what I post and whether it's appropriate, and that's my reasoning.

[Edited on 22/8/2007 by nelenata]
BerethEdhellen
RPG Moderator & Mistress of the Sea
Posts: 3098
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 26, 2007 10:12
Nelenata,

With all due respect, Tolkien doesn't say that such problems do exist, either. And since the Totally Tolkien forum is based on written works that are 'canon' or even 'questionably-canon' (e.g. the Sil) Tolkien, and since he never included anything having to do with women's monthy cycles, PMS, the use of opiates, genetic defects, etc., it is out of place in this forum. For you to make the assumption that these situations could have occurred during the time of Middle-Earth is interesting, but you are in effect re-writing Tolkien's world with your own personal 'canonical extrapolations'. This is not acceptable in a Totally Tolkien thread.

Further, as this is a PG-13 site, some of the above issues could be disturbing to our younger members, something we remain conscious of at all times. Even with your disclaimers, it crosses a line of what is and is not acceptable or appropriate on Council of Elrond.

On the other hand, the development of relationships between characters actually enhances any storyline. Groups of people meeting in taverns/inns, and with no further knowledge of each other agreeing to wander off across Middle-Earth together on hapless adventures, has certainly been overdone.

But PB has made a point...the title of this thread is Arnor's Rebirth, and has as a basic premise a group of people who have traveled north to rebuild a destroyed city. The past several threads have included little about the problems this group would meet in finding the materials required, the necessary craftsmen to do the work, and the day-to-day problems of feeding an assemblage this large, just to name a few of the problems. There needs to be a more well-balanced articulation of both the interpersonal relations that are developing and actual references to the problems involved in the rebuilding of the ruined city.

And most importantly, it must adhere to the language style, the garb, the actual items that were available, and the backgrounds of both characters and locations as written in Tolkien's works. This goes for all people posting in this thread. It is up to Confused Ellesar, the author/owner of this thread, to supervise the content. However, if the thread does not follow the above requirements, it will be moved to Tolkien Related, though even there, the topics raised by Nelenata would still be questionable with regard to the PG-13 status of CoE.
Life is good! Live it to the fullest. Love well those near and dear. "You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are ever flowing on ....." Heraclitus I Aear cân ven na mar
nelenata
Council Member
Posts: 213
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 26, 2007 10:15
Hi BerethEdhellen,

I do understand what you're saying, and truth be told, I was half-expecting that answer. I just have a little difficulty with 'if it's not specifically mentioned, it's not acceptable in TT.' Of course, I realise that there are very good reasons for this rule, and broadly, I couldn't agree more! But... eh, maybe this isn't a good example -- I'm not exactly word-perfect in all Tolkien's works -- but say, drawing water from a well. I don't recall him ever mentioning anyone drawing water from a well. Does that mean that in a TT thread, we can never mention anyone drawing water from a well, because he never mentioned it specifically? I can't imagine how else many communities would have got their water. Or, say, how they tanned leather - must obviously have happened, but since he didn't tell us exactly how, does that mean we can't mention it at all? It's a rich, deep world, a joy to RP in -- but there are minutiae of everyday life that LOTR just didn't zoom in on, as it were. Like I said, it had bigger fish to fry, after all! But when we're writing a thread that's pretty heavy on everyday life while in the throes of rebuilding a city, that sort of detail is what, in my opinion, brings it to life and makes it real. It's pretty hard to do without.

More specifically, I think it's true that there's a difference between 'canon' and 'reasonable extrapolation'. But there's also a difference between 'specific disease' and 'basic human functions'. Apologies if I'm embarrassing any men in this thread, but Tolkien's world has women in it, and women menstruate. That's a plain fact -- not pretty or romantic perhaps, but still a fact. It's practically the definition of a woman -- the women of ME are fertile and have children, so they must have menstrual cycles. In that particular instance, I personally think it's more appropriate to assume 'unless Tolkien says they didn't, they did' rather than the reverse which is usually (and correctly) applied. Otherwise it's like saying 'Tolkien didn't say human toenails grow unless you cut them, so they don't', which, to my mind, is just nonsensical. It's not as if they're an invented species like the Elves, about whom we can't reasonably make any prior assumptions, because they were purely Tolkien's creation. In fact, part of the reason I brought it up is precisely because it's not romantic - it's real. Ah, maybe it's just me who gets sick of RPs in which the grubby realities of everyday hardships get completely ignored... all the unaccustomed walking so many of these high-born noble characters do in threads, but I've never seen one complaining about blisters, and it niggles me a bit. Humans is humans, innit.

Clearly it's not for me to declare where the PG-13 line falls, and I apologise if you think I've crossed it. I can see your point about opium, since these days it's illegal, and it is a (somewhat) unfounded assumption of mine that the people of Gondor would have traded with the East for it - am happy to edit that to be nonspecific, though I'd like to make it clear that I use 'drug' as a synonym for 'medicine', which has far less negative connotations. But personally I can't see mention of menstruation as being at all inappropriate to the PG-13 agegroup. I don't know about America, but in the UK I got this stuff in sex ed when I was only nine or ten, and most of us knew about it by then anyway! I mean, graphic things I can see could be inappropriate, but... it's not graphic, at least, I don't think it is. I've read fight scenes on here that were more graphic.

Is it just me who thinks this is quite an interesting debate? Apologies if I'm boring on. Sentences like "No blemish or sickness or deformity could be seen in anything ... On the land of Lórien there was no stain" (FOTR p. 341) are, to me, pretty much tantamount to saying that elsewhere, there *are* such things. After all, what's the point of there being no sickness or deformity in the Blessed Realm, if nobody suffers such things elsewhere? There's plenty of evidence that there were more known healing herbs than just athelas (why on earth have a herbmaster in Minas Tirith if there's only one herb, and that one little-credited before Aragorn came along?). I can understand if you prefer us to be nonspecific about remedies in the interests of keeping it 'pure canon'... it just seems rather silly not to be able to cite something like willow bark as a remedial drug, especially when we *know* that willow trees existed in ME. (Yeah, I admit, I have a vested interest -- I *like* researching this traditional medicine stuff, saddo that I am...)

Again, not trying to be deliberately awkward or pick fights, just finding parameters...


Edited for typo

[Edited on 23/8/2007 by nelenata]
PotbellyHairyfoot
Grandpa Moderator
Posts: 2929
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 26, 2007 04:35
This does have some interesting attributes, especially as to what is canon.

I don't mind some personal interactions in an RP, but I think that too much of that makes a story seem like an episode of Friends, only with the coffee shop replaced. There were some interaction scenes in Tolkien's work but only to continue the story. Frodo talking with Bilbo in Rivendel, The Hobbits with Tom Bombadil, or Merry and Piippin chatting with Treebeard are examples.

As to the 'female' problems, it is possible that they weren't mentioned because they simply weren't mentioned much in literature back then. Come to think of it they really aren't mentioned much in any literature I've read, from any time period. I am worried though, as to where we would draw the line once we start allowing these topics in the threads.

Genetic disorders are another matter, and I can recall no mention of any such problems anywhere in Tolkien's works. I have to assume that in the 7000 or so years since men were introduced to Middle-earth, they never developed such problems.

Herbs are another interesting topic and I do agree that there had to be more than just Athelas available to Middle-earth Healers. It is clear that many species of plant found on Middle-earth are not found on our earth, so I'm not sure that we can assume that the herbs we use here would have ben available there. I also have many issues with poppy derivatives as they tend to be addictive and even if they did exist there, I doubt that healers would use an addictive substance as a medicine.




[Edited on 27/8/2007 by PotbellyHairyfoot]
nelenata
Council Member
Posts: 213
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 27, 2007 04:23
Now here's an interesting question: what's more bound up in the nature of humanity -- genetic disorders, or 'normal' diseases? With exceptions, most 'normal' diseases are caused by outside organisms, and I suppose there's no guarantee (though considering some text references, and if food spoils and goes mouldy, I consider it exceptionally likely) that such organisms exist in Middle Earth. Genes, on the other hand... I think one can assume that given all the stuff about 'inheriting Isildur's likeness' and other such references, that Tolkien's humans inherit characteristics in the same manner as we do -- through DNA replicating itself. (Incidentally, the solid confirmation of DNA's role in heredity was confirmed prior to LOTR's publication. Eru bless Wikipedia. ) DNA replication is how humans develop, and sometimes it makes mistakes in copying itself. It's the same as the argument for menstruation. Now, I'm not a scientist, and I don't know the ins-and-outs of DNA replication. But I think there's a case for saying that the argument for genetic disorders is actually stronger than the one for 'normal' diseases. Of course, PBH does have a point in that 7000-odd years might not be long enough for such 'mistakes' to be made. Arda isn't exactly on an evolutionary timescale! But... equally, it might. As I understand it, such mutations are pretty random to begin with.

Any geneticists in the house? Would the mods just prefer us to be nonspecific about such things, if we use them? I just like to be specific to show that yes, I've researched it and yes, it could happen that way -- that I'm not just inflicting random symptoms on my unsuspecting characters, which personally I think is shoddy storytelling. There ought to be a *reason*, I always think, even if it's not stated... maybe I'm just fussy though. As I said before, I happen to be interested in such things.



Herbs, herbs. True, there are invented plants in Arda that don't exist here. But there are also plenty of mentions of plants from our world that also exist in Arda (willow, grass, corn, tobacco, ivy, potatoes, cabbages, sunflowers, nasturtians, snap-dragons... and apart from willow, that's just the ones I noticed in the very first chapter.) I do take your meaning about poppy derivatives, PBH, though I'm not so sure that had they existed, they wouldn't have been used... it certainly never stopped people in our world, and it doesn't stop us now (morphine, anyone?). I think it would certainly have been tightly controlled and used only as a last resort... but that's a moot point.

As for drawing lines... to be honest, I suspect that as a topic, 'women's problems' are sufficiently embarrassing and (rightly or wrongly) taboo for most people not to want to get gory with it. Besides, I think that like violence and romance, it's mostly common sense -- stop before it gets anatomical is my personal guideline. I usually try to work out whether I would *see* what I'm describing onscreen in a PG-13 film, in detail. If I wouldn't, I try to make it oblique and sort of indirectly let people know what's happening, without describing it in detail -- or at all. It isn't easy and I have no idea whether you think that's a decent rule of thumb, but it's the one I've always used.

On too much interaction... I realise that, as Berethedhellen pointed out, this thread started out as having 'building the city' as its main focus, at least in the early stages, and the focus may be straying from that. But as a general guideline -- do TT threads have to be the same *type* of story as LOTR and the rest of Tolkien's works? I'm not sure I agree that in order to be canon, we need to tell stories like Tolkien as well as abide by the rules of his world. Of course I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have to stick to appropriate dialogue, detailed storytelling, an appropriate level of diction etc (it annoys me when supposed denizens of Middle Earth talk like modern teenagers...) -- but I don't see why the themes of the stories we tell, and the way we tell them, couldn't be different. In fiction set in our world, there are all kinds of genres that are still entirely appropriate to the same culture or setting -- very different stories, focusing on very different things, but still the same setting and still 'fitting in with the rules' as it were.

...I think I may have too much time on my hands.

[Edited on 27/8/2007 by nelenata]
gwendeth
Accounts Admin, Sindarin Mod & Head Stargazer of Varda
Posts: 5808
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 28, 2007 06:26
Hello - I'm weighing in on this discussion.
do TT threads have to be the same *type* of story as LOTR and the rest of Tolkien's works? I'm not sure I agree that in order to be canon, we need to tell stories like Tolkien as well as abide by the rules of his world. Of course I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have to stick to appropriate dialogue, detailed storytelling, an appropriate level of diction etc (it annoys me when supposed denizens of Middle Earth talk like modern teenagers...) -- but I don't see why the themes of the stories we tell, and the way we tell them, couldn't be different. In fiction set in our world, there are all kinds of genres that are still entirely appropriate to the same culture or setting -- very different stories, focusing on very different things, but still the same setting and still 'fitting in with the rules' as it were.

To me, nelenata, you're missing the point and/or confused what it means to have a Totally Tolkien RPG.

Quite simply, it is to come up with an idea/plot/storyline that is plausible and set it into one of the worlds Tolkien wrote about.

What it means to be canon, is that you can not change what Tolkien wrote about his world. For example: you (i.e. anyone) can't kill off Aragorn and set someone else as King of Gondor; you can't give Legolas a wife/girlfriend; you can't (as you and the mods have mentioned here and elsewhere) have your characters using 'chatspeak' or 'modern slang/language/words'; you can't have your female characters dressed up in halter-tops and their hair tied back in 'scrunchies'.

Can you have an RPG about Thranduil and his wife? I'd think possibly - even though Tolkien never mentioned her, Legolas had to have had a mother.

To some of your earlier comments:
I don't recall him ever mentioning anyone drawing water from a well. Does that mean that in a TT thread, we can never mention anyone drawing water from a well, because he never mentioned it specifically? I can't imagine how else many communities would have got their water. Or, say, how they tanned leather - must obviously have happened, but since he didn't tell us exactly how, does that mean we can't mention it at all?

Somehow, I think you’re being ‘nitpicky’. Tolkien *did* mention ‘smiths’, and there was certainly a blacksmith forge in Imladris. People wore boots; horses in Rohan had saddles and bridles, so of course there were tanning smiths. People wore clothes - so obviously they had weavers and seamstresses, etc. They 'existed' in Tolkien's world, even if he didn't specifically mention them.

I think the point is, what is necessary to enhance/further a plot? Your wish to keep mentioning 'women's cycles' (just 'because' there were women and pregnancies and they had babies!) doesn't have any point in any plotline that I can see. In fact, I could swear that at one time there was an RPG rule against mentioning ‘bodily functions’ in any of the forums, TT, TR, or when it was here, NT. A good rule (IMHO), because 1) it serves no ‘point’ for any reason. 2) it can denigrate into breaking the PG-13 rating on this website. A character can be ‘feeling bad’ or ‘feeling out of sorts’ without ‘details’. Does it 'further' any storyline to have characters popping behind bushes every few hours for a few moments of privacy? I sincerely doubt it. 'Nuff said, I think - it's unnecessary, so leave it out.
Sentences like "No blemish or sickness or deformity could be seen in anything ... On the land of Lórien there was no stain" (FOTR p. 341) are, to me, pretty much tantamount to saying that elsewhere, there *are* such things.

Once again, you can't change what Tolkien wrote since a TT RPG must remain canon to his creation.
all the unaccustomed walking so many of these high-born noble characters do in threads, but I've never seen one complaining about blisters

Um, according to the ‘time’ Tolkien wrote for Middle Earth, I doubt such long walks were ‘unusual’ to the people living there. For Frodo and Sam, yes, it would have been, but then Tolkien specifically comments on the nature of Hobbit Feet. He also mentioned them being tired, so (again) I think you are being a bit ‘nitpicky’.

I think the basic thrust of my comments is (for *any* RP'er) - think about the plotline of the RPG and what you're wanting to write for any particular post, and ask yourself a few questions:

1) does what I want to write 'change' anything about Tolkien's world and/or the time-period that the RP is set in? - If so, it's not acceptable for TT.

2) does what I want to write go against the RPG rules for a particular forum (either TT or TR); or does it go against the general posting rules (e.g. taking one outside of the PG-13 website rating) on COE? - if so, it's not acceptable, period.

It's possible to have interaction between characters to further a plotline in a TT RPG *without* breaking 'canon' or breaking/bending the RPG or Site rules, and that (I think) is what needs to be kept in mind...
"Tolo si, a tiro i cherth Eru" "Come now, and see the works of God"
nelenata
Council Member
Posts: 213
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 28, 2007 09:09
Gwendeth - with respect, have you read all my previous posts? I think there's been some misunderstanding -- I think you've missed my points, since all the points you're making are the same as mine! Lol. My apologies if I was unclear.

To me, nelenata, you're missing the point and/or confused what it means to have a Totally Tolkien RPG.

Quite simply, it is to come up with an idea/plot/storyline that is plausible and set it into one of the worlds Tolkien wrote about.


That's exactly what I said. I was responding to PBH's comment that there was too much focus on personal relationships in the thread, whereas Tolkien focused little on such things, and I was disagreeing that TT means 'writing like Tolkien'. My argument was that the 'subgenre' of a thread *is* irrelevent to whether or not it's TT.

My whole point is that I see the 'Tolkien never mentioned it specifically, so we can't mention it either' as unnecessarily nitpicky! (By the way, people who tan leather are called tanners, quite distinct from smiths. But in any case, the specifics in that case are irrelevant -- it was just an arbitrary example. You could use any number of things, like weaving linen or training horses.) There all sorts of occupations and minutiae of everyday life etc that must have happened but Tolkien never mentioned, and I think it's perfectly acceptable and within the canon to make educated guesses to fill in these holes.

I think the point is, what is necessary to enhance/further a plot? Your wish to keep mentioning 'women's cycles' (just 'because' there were women and pregnancies and they had babies!) doesn't have any point in any plotline that I can see.


I'm not doing it for the sake of it if that's what you mean, and I don't recall suggesting that. I think it's rather dismissive just to state that it has 'no point'. It could well have a bearing on a plotline, particularly one that has rather fragile personal relationships like the one that spawned this discussion. Menstruation has loads of potential for creating awkwardness and tricky situations. For example, it's potentially quite offensive for someone suddenly to excuse themself for no apparent reason, and then refuse to explain -- as indeed they couldn't, since such things would hardly have been mentionable... Plus it adds realism, which to me is an end in itself. Come on, it would have been a grubby world for humans! It wouldn't have been all glitter and pearly-white clothes that never get muddy, and personally I think RPs should reflect that realism.

In my particular case, it would have a very considerable bearing on what my character can and cannot do. This is something of a moot point until it's been established whether or not it's canon to inherit diseases -- but if we say, hypothetically, that it's acceptable, my character probably wouldn't plausibly be able to do anything even moderately energetic for a week per month, because a symptom of her hypothetical condition is losing a lot of blood during menstruation, as well as bleeding badly, very easily, in general (in severe cases sometimes bleeding for no apparent reason at all, but I wasn't planning on it being as bad as that, because if it were she'd almost certainly have died very young.). She'd probably be too anaemic to climb the stairs without having to sit down half way. As PBH has rightly pointed out, it's a strenuous world, and even wealthy and waited on as she (fortunately) is, I imagine it'd be hard to cope, especially given that she couldn't explain why she's washed out and can't go anywhere or accept any invitations. There are only so many excuses a person can make before it looks rude, after all.

A character can be ‘feeling bad’ or ‘feeling out of sorts’ without ‘details’.


I said earlier that I don't think it's appropriate to get explicit, but I cannot see why discreet references are not OK. I can't speak for anyone else, but to me there's a world of difference in terms of excusability (if that's even a word...) between someone who's foul-tempered and lashes out at people because she has terrible PMS, and someone who lashes out just because she's had a terrible day. For lots of women they're on totally different temper scales. Women have been granted reduced responsibility in courts of law for offences like GBH because they were suffering from PMS at the time - it's simply not the same thing as your average temper tantrum. And even better, because of ettiquette, it's not something that the victim can explain away in this setting. Voilá -- much potential for misunderstandings and unnecessarily ruffled feathers. Conflict's the lifeblood of a story! (Ech, no pun intended... sorry.) It's just a dimension of human existence.

Sentences like "No blemish or sickness or deformity could be seen in anything ... On the land of Lórien there was no stain" (FOTR p. 341) are, to me, pretty much tantamount to saying that elsewhere, there *are* such things.

Once again, you can't change what Tolkien wrote since a TT RPG must remain canon to his creation.


I don't think we should contradict what's written by him. But nor do I think it's uncanonical to draw conclusions from such statement about things that weren't explicitly mention, or to do the odd bit of informed, necessary gapfilling. Nowhere have I suggested that we disregard Tolkien's established writing -- I don't believe anyone has suggested this.

Um, according to the ‘time’ Tolkien wrote for Middle Earth, I doubt such long walks were ‘unusual’ to the people living there. For Frodo and Sam, yes, it would have been, but then Tolkien specifically comments on the nature of Hobbit Feet. He also mentioned them being tired, so (again) I think you are being a bit ‘nitpicky’.

It was only an example, but we'll go with it anyway. I'm talking about what players on CoE write, not what Tolkien wrote in the canon -- I was commenting on all these princesses etc that are always cropping up in RPs. Not the ordinary people who would certainly have been pretty fit just from the effort it would take to carry out daily tasks.

Returning to your point in the first quote of this post about being 'plausible' (and I'm definitely with you on that one) -- if we're being realistic, I can't imagine any of these noble girls would regularly walk very far - why would they, when they can afford horses to carry them any considerable distance? With direct reference to the thread, my character Rosien is certainly no long-distance walker, not because she's idle, but because she's high-born and has never needed to walk miles and miles. Similarly, she's never scrubbed potatoes. Why would she? If she were dumped in the middle of nowhere and had to walk home, she would have blisters -- and if she had to scrub a lot of potatoes, she would probably end up with sore hands. It's plain realism, like women can't realistically carry 6-foot muscled warriors around like sacks of potatoes.

1) does what I want to write 'change' anything about Tolkien's world and/or the time-period that the RP is set in? - If so, it's not acceptable for TT.


Of course! As I see it, this discussion is mostly about deciding what does change things in Tolkien's world, and what doesn't. I don't think anyone's disputing that we need to stick to written canon - the question is, can we fill in the bits that aren't written?

Hope that clears up any misunderstandings.

[Edited on 28/8/2007 by nelenata]

[Edited on 28/8/2007 by nelenata]
gwendeth
Accounts Admin, Sindarin Mod & Head Stargazer of Varda
Posts: 5808
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 28, 2007 03:38
Hello again,

Nelenata, I *did* read your previous posts carefully, and I believe I was polite in my reply. You, however, are becoming 'condescending', IMHO.
As for drawing lines... to be honest, I suspect that as a topic, 'women's problems' are sufficiently embarrassing and (rightly or wrongly) taboo for most people not to want to get gory with it. Besides, I think that like violence and romance, it's mostly common sense -- stop before it gets anatomical is my personal guideline. I usually try to work out whether I would *see* what I'm describing onscreen in a PG-13 film, in detail. If I wouldn't, I try to make it oblique and sort of indirectly let people know what's happening, without describing it in detail -- or at all. It isn't easy and I have no idea whether you think that's a decent rule of thumb, but it's the one I've always used.

The thing is, whether or not you ‘see’ it or not, it’s *not* appropriate to write it in an RPG on a PG-13-rated website.
I said earlier that I don't think it's appropriate to get explicit, but I cannot see why discreet references are not OK.

Yes, but you are getting explicit, and unnecessarily so - both in the RPG in question as well as in this thread.

The only thing I have to add is that I believe your insistence upon posting ‘detailed descriptions’ of women’s cycles/issues is merely for ‘shock’ value.

There is no place for ’problems’ of that sort in a Tolkien-based RPG... TT or TR. Storylines galore (good ones!) before this one haven’t mentioned it, many after this one *won’t* mention it, because it’s not necessary. What you need to focus on is the plotline of the RPG you’re in and how that will be accomplished (and I suspect it will be without your character going into unnecessary details about why she’s not feeling well).
"Tolo si, a tiro i cherth Eru" "Come now, and see the works of God"
BerethEdhellen
RPG Moderator & Mistress of the Sea
Posts: 3098
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 28, 2007 07:13
The rules say that TT posts will be based on that which is canon; i.e. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic....the writer in this case being JRR Tolkien. That does not mean the written works of Nelenata.

I would like to make it clear that I do not entirely disagree with many of your thought about problems facing the people in Middle-Earth. I'm quite certain there were ills and ailments much like we experience today; i.e work injuries, sniffles, blisters, even plagues or worse. Men and women suffered from discomforts and deficiencies common to that era...though I can see such things as sufficient water to bathe/drink, enough food to feed a family, the difficulty in hand-making garments, the creation of tools, etc. being more a daily problem to them than genetic disorders. They certainly didn't have the equivalent of a Walmart or any handy grocery store to run to for a loaf of bread or a new saddle. And frankly, there are enough issues in the above mentioned problems to fill a thread without your persistance in focusing on edgy issues (those relating to female issues and drugs, for example) that push the envelope of the CoE posting rules.

Simply put, we have restrictions in the Totally Tolkien forum that all must follow, which essentially means that whatever is posted must be based on what Tolkien wrote, not what we would have liked him to have written. And as the canon of his work is so vast and expansive, it is really unnecessary to add to it arbitrarily. Furthermore, it must not override the basic PG-13 context permissible on CoE.

But as a general guideline -- do TT threads have to be the same *type* of story as LOTR and the rest of Tolkien's works? I'm not sure I agree that in order to be canon, we need to tell stories like Tolkien as well as abide by the rules of his world.


Just out of curiosity, who's world other than JRRT's did you imagine telling stories about if you know we are expecting your posts to be based on 'canon' works? Yes, they DO have to be the same type of story as LOTR and the rest of Tolkien's works.

I just like to be specific to show that yes, I've researched it and yes, it could happen that way -

But I think there's a case for saying that the argument for genetic disorders is actually stronger than the one for 'normal' diseases. Of course, PBH does have a point in that 7000-odd years might not be long enough for such 'mistakes' to be made. Arda isn't exactly on an evolutionary timescale! But... equally, it might.


It could happen that way. It might have happened that way. The point is, it DIDN'T happen that way in JRRT's works. No matter how much you research drugs, genetics, DNA or female problems, you cannot use this research to rewrite JRRT's works...or his world. If he didn't write it, it didn't happen in his world, no matter how much you wish to 'extrapolate' or 'reason' that it could have.

the question is, can we fill in the bits that aren't written?


The bits, yes...in keeping with the premise of the thread. Let's see some realistic 'search' for craftspeople, materials, pack animals and carts and food, for example. If you must spend your time in research, why not research what it took to build a city in medieval times....how many people it took, what kinds of clothes they wore, what tools did they use, what kinds of materials were required and how were those materials moved to the building sites.

Now, if you wish to add some embellishments and tweak his world to some degree, we can allow that in the Tolkien Related forum, as long as it doesn't travel too far from the written (or in TR's case, the filmed) world as presented. However, this is not your thread. It belongs to Confused Elessar and it would be his decision whether he'd want it moved or not, and his only. If he wishes it to remain in TT, then you will have to adjust your writing to fit the canon world of JRRT, and relinquish your determination to throw in Nelenata's ideas of what his world should have or could have been.

You could also carry your thoughts to Loki's Palace where there are less restrictions on what anyone from Tolkien to Rowling to Shakespeare wrote, though even there, the PG-13 rules apply just as on CoE. Or you can write your own fan fiction to meet your own personal standards of what Tolkien's world should have been like. You could in that way further explore your ideas of the things not spoken of in Tolkien's world.

But you may not change/modify/unnecessarily add to or detract from Tolkien's world in the Totally Tolkien forum. I think that should be clear and simple enough for anyone to understand.
Life is good! Live it to the fullest. Love well those near and dear. "You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are ever flowing on ....." Heraclitus I Aear cân ven na mar
PotbellyHairyfoot
Grandpa Moderator
Posts: 2929
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 29, 2007 10:12
In almost all of our TT roleplays we add to Tolkien's work and fill out the details, but we try do so in the world he developed without changing the details.


One last point - Ina story about starting a new settlement-If I was gathering settlers and one candidate said; 'I wanna come but I'm sick and bleeding profusely for one week in four: I'd not hesitate in leaving that person behind as build a settlement is hard work and you cannot afford to carry someone who cannot contribute fully
nelenata
Council Member
Posts: 213
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: August 31, 2007 09:55
Gwendeth...

You, however, are becoming 'condescending', IMHO.


If I gave that impression, then I apologise; it wasn't my intention. I do, however, feel that what I've said is being misunderstood and misrepresented, and I also feel somewhat patronised.

The thing is, whether or not you ‘see’ it or not, it’s *not* appropriate to write it in an RPG on a PG-13-rated website.


Why not? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought the whole point of a PG-13 rating was to determine what's appropriate for the age range to see onscreen (although isn't there a new rating system now? It's a different system here in the UK, so I may well be wrong.) I rather think that if it's acceptable fare in a PG-13 film, it should be acceptable in writing -- which is, in my opinion, a far less immediate, graphic and explicit medium than television. There are things a child could read in a book happily which would disturb them if they saw it onscreen, but I doubt it works the other way round unless the author goes into lurid detail, which I do not advocate. I'm not disputing that we need to keep to the PG-13 rule -- never have. What I dispute is that mention of menstruation contravenes that rule. Most 13-year-old girls have first-hand experience of it in any case!

Yes, but you are getting explicit, and unnecessarily so - both in the RPG in question as well as in this thread.


I disagree. Nowhere have I gone into details. I stated what the problem was, and did not elaborate. What I've written wasn't even remotely graphic -- I didn't 'picture' anything, as it were. If I hadn't stated that she was starting her monthlies, I reckon you'd be forgiven for thinking she had indigestion or something. I cannot see how this is being explicit, and nor can I agree that it is inappropriate.

The only thing I have to add is that I believe your insistence upon posting ‘detailed descriptions’ of women’s cycles/issues is merely for ‘shock’ value.


I assure you that I am not sufficiently childish to get into a protracted debate about such things merely for the dubious pleasure of shocking people. I don't want detailed descriptions, and I don't recall ever suggesting that. The reason I keep banging on about it is that there was a discussion as to whether or not it was canon, and I think it is. I also think it's appropriate to mention, as long as such mention isn't graphic. Representing my reasoning in a debate is not an example of insisting on something in order to derive some obscure pleasure by shocking people. As a topic it shouldn't be shocking in any case, IMO.

-----------------------------------------

BerethEdhellen --

Just out of curiosity, who's world other than JRRT's did you imagine telling stories about if you know we are expecting your posts to be based on 'canon' works? Yes, they DO have to be the same type of story as LOTR and the rest of Tolkien's works.


By 'type of story' I didn't mean a different universe or anything! I meant... well, the subgenre, as it were. Kind of hard to explain -- the focus of the story, e.g. as I see it, LOTR as a plotted story is very much quest-based. Does that mean that in order to stay within the canon, all our threads have to follow the same kind of narrative structure and focus as LOTR, i.e. be quest-based? For my part, I think it's perfectly possible to have a thread with a smaller focus -- romance, friendship, coming-of-age, whatever -- while still playing well within the bounds of Tolkien's universe. I wasn't querying whether it was OK to shove random other universes into TT!

It could happen that way. It might have happened that way. The point is, it DIDN'T happen that way in JRRT's works. No matter how much you research drugs, genetics, DNA or female problems, you cannot use this research to rewrite JRRT's works...or his world. If he didn't write it, it didn't happen in his world, no matter how much you wish to 'extrapolate' or 'reason' that it could have.


To be honest, and with respect, I'm not sure that 'rewrite' is the right word -- it implies actually changing the written fabric of what's canon. I'm not suggesting that it's OK to do that, and never have. What Tolkien wrote is what Tolkien wrote. My argument is that such things (the last two issues at least) are implicitly part and parcel of that world, because they're integral to things that he stated exist in Arda (i.e. humans, and women respectively.) I don't suggest that it's OK just to add things on -- I accept your earlier arguments about plants like poppies that we don't know actually existed in Arda (plus the dubious PG-13 issues with them in particular). But those two particular issues... well, I repeat the toenail analogy. I don't see that it's a change to Tolkien's works to say that human toenails grow. It's an assumed fact that goes along with 'human'.

But you may not change/modify/unnecessarily add to or detract from Tolkien's world in the Totally Tolkien forum. I think that should be clear and simple enough for anyone to understand.


I agree. I don't dispute this -- it's the whole point of TT, after all. What I'm disputing is whether these issues we're debating *are* changes/modifications/additions etc. Like sneezing. I don't think anyone sneezed in LOTR, but I'm absolutely certain that that's how they would react if they were enveloped in dust. I don't think it's an addition, or a detraction, or a change in any way. I think it's part of the canon, by association. Or, better, by definition. Humans have collar bones, eyelashes, toenails, kneecaps, they eat and sleep, the women menstruate, (most) bear children, they grow old, they die. Not all of those were mentioned by Tolkien, but they all go along with 'human'. They're not additions or changes, they're just details. If anything, I believe it would be an alteration to the canon to say that humans don't do these things -- like saying 'Elves grow old and die.' It's contrary to the definition.

--------------------------------------------------

PBH...


In almost all of our TT roleplays we add to Tolkien's work and fill out the details, but we try do so in the world he developed without changing the details.


I agree. This is exactly what I'm arguing for -- and what I consider that I'm doing, for reasons given above. I'm not arguing with the rules of TT, I'm arguing that what I'm doing fits into them.


One last point - Ina story about starting a new settlement-If I was gathering settlers and one candidate said; 'I wanna come but I'm sick and bleeding profusely for one week in four: I'd not hesitate in leaving that person behind as build a settlement is hard work and you cannot afford to carry someone who cannot contribute fully


You've got a good point -- that's actually why she wasn't meant to come originally; she was really the only viable option. However, Rosien's not a manual worker, she's an administrator. If she were expected to actually build buildings and perform physical labour, there'd certainly be no question of her being any use whatsoever. Since her role is to make sure that everything is in the right place, at the right time, and paid for on time, I don't think she really needs to be strong or fit to perform it -- or even in particularly good health. In my reckoning, she's good enough at what she does to make the handicap an acceptable price for having her. The girl is *good* -- otherwise you're right, she wouldn't be there.

In fact, that's really one of my main reasons for introducing the hereditary bleeding issue at all -- because it would make life hard for her. Frankly, I think she has it too easy otherwise. She's rich, she's beautiful, she's confident, good at what she does and enjoys it. What has she got to struggle with if she's healthy too? Lol. I thought that if I just wrote it that she was generally delicate, I'd have problems with being specific about illnesses if she were always coming down with things, and I don't like being vague about such things -- it always strikes me as wishy-washy and lazy, to be honest. I figured it would less hairy canonically to have *one* specific problem whose origin is arguably part and parcel of being human, and stick with it.

*glances at epically long discussion* Eh, maybe I was wrong...



Incidentally, new hypothetical query: If I hadn't specified that she had a genetic blood condition that also exists in our world, but rather had simply stated her situation, said 'This is how she is' (i.e. 'I bleed a lot, easily, and it's a pain')and left it at that, would we be having this discussion now? That's not a criticism, just a question. I can see that there could be a canonical difference (albeit small) between saying 'I have a sniffly mild illness with cold-like symptoms' and saying 'I have the common cold, caused by the selfsame virus we have on Earth.'

Thoughts?
BerethEdhellen
RPG Moderator & Mistress of the Sea
Posts: 3098
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: September 02, 2007 05:57
Nelenata,

I assure you that I am not sufficiently childish to get into a protracted debate about such things merely for the dubious pleasure of shocking people.


Perhaps not for the pleasure of shocking people but persistent protracted debate is definitely evident in your continued posts. However, you are now becoming redundant...your arguments are becoming repititious and you are failing to prove your case successfully to any of the moderators or other members. I think the time has come to cease and desist, and for the moderators to state what will or will not be allowed in the TT thread of which you are member.

You have made your point about your character, it requires no further details nor hints regarding her personal issues. Everyone knows now what you meant to say. While we will not ask you to edit what you have already written (though we should), there is no necessity to dwell upon it in future posts. And a point of interest...not all 13 yr. old girls have had to deal with this issue yet, which is why there is a rule in CoE that pertains to 'bodily fluids'. I don't think I need to expand upon what those are, do I?

There will not be any further discussion of DNA, genetics, 'rare orphan' diseases, and other modern day issues, no matter how much you extrapolate their existence being reasonable. The closest JRRT came to discussing genetics was to add the family trees of several races, which falls under the category of geneaology.

There will be no further references to drugs other than mild herbs commonly recognized in JRRT's works available to all members. What that means is that combing through obscure manuscripts for a one line potential reference to some other drug that was later deleted from his thoughts will not be allowed to be added as 'the word of JRRT'. Whatever PG-13 means to you is irrelevant...it's what it means to we moderators that counts here.

And speaking of research, you have pointedly avoided my suggestions several times about what you could be studying and researching that would actually benefit the thread and move the story forward in the right direction. Let me state them again: rebuilding a medieval city required supplies, materials, craftspersons, food, water, carts/wagons, pack animals, clothing, tools, etc. If you must spend your time 'researching', you could be very helpful to the other players by researching those issues.

This discussion is at an end. You have offered your reasons and the moderators have found them unacceptable. Ergo, if you wish to continue in your current thread, you must do so under our rules and guidelines. Should you continue pushing the envelope, the moderators will issue you a warning, the first step before a strike.
Life is good! Live it to the fullest. Love well those near and dear. "You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are ever flowing on ....." Heraclitus I Aear cân ven na mar
Hanasian
Council Member
Posts: 995
Send Message
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: May 30, 2008 04:49
After long consideration about starting what I would consider a "Totally Tolkien" RP, the previous discussion in this thread that ended last year, and the seeming lack of activity in this forum, I've reached a conundrum. I wanted to start an RP that takes place during the time of Arnor circa the year Third Age 775 during the reign of King Elendur. At this time I figure that his son and grandsons would be alive and becoming of age. The RP would delve into the family, its impending divisions, and the divisions and the political intrigue between Arthedain, Rhuadur, and Cardolan. However, being that Tolkien never wrote about any of this stuff, I'm afraid any artistic writing may be interpreted by the mods not to be 'Totally Tolkien'. Being the lack of activity, and the fact much of what wasn't in the movies is lost on so many, maybe this is something I may want to write on my own?

My other RP idea was to focus on the Forsaken Inn several years before the War of the Ring, but again, I worry that since details weren't written about by Tolkien, it may not be considered "Totally Tolkien". Should I give it a go and see what happens? Or should I start it in the 'Tolkien-Related fora?
Eighth King of Arthedain - It was in battle that I come into this Kingship, and it will be in Battle when I leave it. There is no peace for the Realm of Arnor. Read the last stand of Arthedain in the Darkest of Days.
BerethEdhellen
RPG Moderator & Mistress of the Sea
Posts: 3098
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: May 30, 2008 05:19
First of all, Aveleg, we're delighted to see that you've finally considered joining the RPG Forums. May I recommend you read THIS RULE, which will tell you what we're looking for in both TT and TR threads. You might want to peruse the other Rules and Guidelines at the tops of each of the three forums as well.

As far as where you should begin, I personally hesitate to give you the go ahead to begin your first ever thread here in the TT Forum. We mods like to have a sense of a new member's writing skills and leadership abilities before that occurs.

That's not to say we haven't been overly cautious. We asked Erumelmo (a newbie at the time) to begin his first thread in TR, which has since proven to be an error on our part. He has not only begun/led/maintained a canon-quality thread but has attracted some really good writers as well. When he begins another thread, we will happily allow him to do so in the TT Forum.

Ergo, the bottom line is this. If we allow you to begin a thread in TT, it will be entirely your responsibility to maintain it as such. If it gets off tangent, we can always move it to TR. It might also be helpful to join an ongoing thread just to get your feet wet, though I can't think of any that cover your preferred subject. If you'd like to reactivate the Forsaken Inn, I don't think PotbellyHairyfoot nor I would object, if that's a way you'd like to begin your experience.

This is all my opinion....I'm sure PB and AU22 will wish to respond to your queries as well.

Meanwhile, a pleasure to see your interest.
BerethEdhellen

Life is good! Live it to the fullest. Love well those near and dear. "You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are ever flowing on ....." Heraclitus I Aear cân ven na mar
Hanasian
Council Member
Posts: 995
Send Message
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: June 08, 2008 10:13
No worries. I found a board that allows mature writers a sense of creativity in a free-form setting.

For the record, I did read all the linked threads a few times. As for joining other threads, its hard fr me to get my head around scripted stories, so I doubtr I would be able to give them my fullest attention, and there is nothing more frustrating that people joining RPs, post a couple times, then disappear.

As for the Forsaken Inn... I didn't realize there was one here.
Eighth King of Arthedain - It was in battle that I come into this Kingship, and it will be in Battle when I leave it. There is no peace for the Realm of Arnor. Read the last stand of Arthedain in the Darkest of Days.
BerethEdhellen
RPG Moderator & Mistress of the Sea
Posts: 3098
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: What is;'Totally Tolkien'? Open Discussion
on: June 09, 2008 09:25
Check your PM's, Arveleg.
Life is good! Live it to the fullest. Love well those near and dear. "You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are ever flowing on ....." Heraclitus I Aear cân ven na mar
Hanasian
Council Member
Posts: 995
Send Message
Post
on: November 30, 2013 01:50
So it was 5.5 years ago when I was contemplating starting an RP here, and 2.5 years since anyone has posted to an RP here.
Seeing how things work, Tolkien-Related seems to be the way to go as you have some leeway in content even if it's 'mostly Tolkien'.

I don't seem to have the PM from BerethEdhellen, but I'm guessing it had something to do with reading all the guideline threads. I found the one on paragraphs quite helpful.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Just posting here with my little observation, and it's sad to see 2011 the last year anybody posted in this forum.
Eighth King of Arthedain - It was in battle that I come into this Kingship, and it will be in Battle when I leave it. There is no peace for the Realm of Arnor. Read the last stand of Arthedain in the Darkest of Days.
BerethEdhellen
RPG Moderator & Mistress of the Sea
Posts: 3098
Send Message
Avatar
Post
on: December 06, 2013 09:36
Sad that the newest RPG is so old. I do wish you would post something somewhere so I have something to check. *LOL*
Life is good! Live it to the fullest. Love well those near and dear. "You cannot step into the same river twice, for the waters are ever flowing on ....." Heraclitus I Aear cân ven na mar
Hanasian
Council Member
Posts: 995
Send Message
Post
on: December 12, 2013 05:04
Well Lady Bereth Elhellen, most of my RP ideas would be considered 'Tolkien-Related' here on CoE.
Eighth King of Arthedain - It was in battle that I come into this Kingship, and it will be in Battle when I leave it. There is no peace for the Realm of Arnor. Read the last stand of Arthedain in the Darkest of Days.
12
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email