Update 37 - River-hobbits

[Kipp]

To me there’s a clash with them being both described as a secretive people and adventurous.

Because secretive doesn't exclude adventure. A spy is secretive but lives an adventurous life. Being an adventurer doesn't mean you have to expose all of the culture and secrets of your people.

 

[Muffy]

To me there’s a clash with them being both described as a secretive people and adventurous.

Nu-uh, not at all. It's just you, specifically, that's adventurous. Just as much as most huMens, dwarves, and even elves are homebodies that want nothing to do with adventure and warfare, you as the "hero" player character, are the oddball who seeks adventure into the great unknown. In the same vein as it is just you who is freakishly tall among your kin as it is only the Beorning player character who is related to Grimbeorn and his children.

It's plot that's entirely ignorable if so desired.

 

[Kipp]

Nu-uh, not at all. It's just you, specifically, that's adventurous. Just as much as most huMens, dwarves, and even elves are homebodies that want nothing to do with adventure and warfare, you as the "hero" player character, are the oddball who seeks adventure into the great unknown. In the same vein as it is just you who is freakishly tall among your kin as it is only the Beorning player character who is related to Grimbeorn and his children.

It's plot that's entirely ignorable if so desired.

I agree and thats more or less the justification for any race being any class (outside of beorning). Are hobbits big readers of ancient lore and studier of runes? No. Is it impossible that a single hobbit, filled with inquisitiveness and the desire for adventure would study runes well enough to become a rune-keeper or lore-master? Obviously.

 

[Radhruin]

Because secretive doesn't exclude adventure. A spy is secretive but lives an adventurous life. Being an adventurer doesn't mean you have to expose all of the culture and secrets of your people.

The devs have already spun the idea of River-hobbits having been adventurous commonly enough that outsiders are familiar with them (despite the Lyndelby NPCs seeming anything but adventurous, more like Harfoots than anything else), so that one won't fly. The writing's inconsistent.

 

[Kipp]

The devs have already spun the idea of River-hobbits having been adventurous commonly enough that outsiders are familiar with them (despite the Lyndelby NPCs seeming anything but adventurous, more like Harfoots than anything else), so that one won't fly. The writing's inconsistent.

But secretive doesn't mean being isolationist.

 

[Happy Kirby]

As I say being secretive and/or adventurous going together depends on personal view, and ssg stated that the sub-race even before the 3 sub races of modern hobbits.. so it do makes sense if it consistent with the 3 modern sub-races, that's what I think.

 

[Arabani]

I agree and thats more or less the justification for any race being any class (outside of beorning).

The day when we get hobbit-beornings will probably be the happiest day of my lotro life, even if I do not like beorning in general and do not really play the class.

 

[Radhruin]

But secretive doesn't mean being isolationist.

They're not being secretive; people know about them. They've apparently already been going around calling themselves River-hobbits to outsiders. I pointed out earlier how going around calling themselves that should have attracted the wrong sort of attention when the Nazgul were in Rhovanion looking for the Ring, because Smeagol's people had lived by the river and there was a big question mark over where they'd gone. It's an unfortunate clash between the plot and the 'River-hobbit' meme.

 

[Muffy]

ssg stated that the sub-race even before the 3 sub races of modern hobbits.. so it do makes sense if it consistent with the 3 modern sub-races

Wait, what... does that... mean? Pardon, but could you restate that? I'm having the worst time understanding that statement.

 

[Happy Kirby]

Wait, what... does that... mean? Pardon, but could you restate that? I'm having the worst time understanding that statement.

If you read the lore description of River hobbit sub race, you will understand. Unfortunately I don't have my pc here so I can't show u

 

[Demelsa]

The devs have already spun the idea of River-hobbits having been adventurous commonly enough that outsiders are familiar with them (despite the Lyndelby NPCs seeming anything but adventurous, more like Harfoots than anything else), so that one won't fly. The writing's inconsistent.

This. This is what I sloppily tried to explain in my morning rush. It’s not consistent and there’s a lot of confusion, even with an intro. However explained.

 

[Happy Kirby]

This. This is what I sloppily tried to explain in my morning rush. It’s not consistent and there’s a lot of confusion, even with an intro. However explained.

Tbh I'm not really sure about the consistency. In 1 perspective, it's not. In another perspective (misthalow being known of existence before the 3 modern hobbits sub-race), it's makes sense. we probably need the lore writer to come here and explain to us..

 

[Demelsa]

I think my rushed point wasn’t exactly about secretive verses adventurous and them not being able to coincide. It’s more the general confusion surrounding the lore of these hobbits.

What exactly makes these Fallohidish hobbits River-hobbits though? I’d love some insight into that. There is a disconnect there that isn’t ignorable to me and many players. River-hobbit screams stoor and that was the general expectation for the race. You could say our bad for having expectations, but as you can see from the debate in this thread, we are invested in hobbits, we love LOTRO, we anticipated a new hobbit race with excitement.

Fallohide is likely a conscious choice. More marketable? Maybe. I wish they were called something else at this point.

 

[Radhruin]

As I say being secretive and/or adventurous going together depends on personal view, and ssg stated that the sub-race even before the 3 sub races of modern hobbits.. so it do makes sense if it consistent with the 3 modern sub-races, that's what I think.

It isn't (consistent, that is) and the more you keep going on about personal views rather than having any real explanation the shakier you make it look. The Lyndelby hobbits are a bit of everything, just like hobbits elsewhere are, there's nothing about them that makes them seem like Fallohides in particular because for whatever reason the devs didn't make the effort to do that.

As for being secretive versus isolationist, if they weren't isolationist then the outside world would have had the best part of fourteen hundred years to find out they were there just by chance from seeing them going to and fro. I don't think that's the sort of secret that could feasibly be kept for such a long time.

 

[Demelsa]

Tbh I'm not really sure about the consistency. In 1 perspective, it's not. In another perspective (misthalow being known of existence before the 3 modern hobbits sub-race), it's makes sense. we probably need the lore writer to come here and explain to us..

True, if we knew where they were coming from it might help understanding and being more accepting of them.

 

[Happy Kirby]

It isn't (consistent, that is) and the more you keep going on about personal views rather than having any real explanation the shakier you make it look. The Lyndelby hobbits are a bit of everything, just like hobbits elsewhere are, there's nothing about them that makes them seem like Fallohides in particular because for whatever reason the devs didn't make the effort to do that.

As for being secretive versus isolationist, if they weren't isolationist then the outside world would have had the best part of fourteen hundred years to find out they were there just by chance from seeing them going to and fro. I don't think that's the sort of secret that could feasibly be kept for such a long time.

That's why I said I'm not really sure and need the lore writer to come here and explain. I view the lore on multiple perspective, not just 1. Lore sometimes can be verily confusing and need verification

 

[Happy Kirby]

Fallohide is likely a conscious choice. More marketable? Maybe. I wish they were called something else at this point.

Yeah, body wise, Fallohide-like being the fittest of the 3 so they are the most suitable choice for anyone who doesn't like fatty hobbits. So.. the different of River-hobbits and shire-hobbit need to be closer to fallohides and farther from the rest

Since the sub-race being misthallow maybe we should call them misthallow or lyndelby or ancient hobbit? This maybe not official but maybe what we call in a group

 

[Gryffs]

Since there seems to be uncertainty about whether the height was altered, it would be interesting if we could see images of current "river hobbits" next to Shire Hobbits, as we've seen on earlier pages of this thread, so we can compare. I'm not on Bullroarer, or I'd take the picture myself.

 

[MadeOfLions]

The devs have already spun the idea of River-hobbits having been adventurous commonly enough that outsiders are familiar with them (despite the Lyndelby NPCs seeming anything but adventurous, more like Harfoots than anything else), so that one won't fly. The writing's inconsistent.

Welcome to Beta, where games change in development.

When I added the Intro, I also changed Meneldir's dialogue in the original 'Before the Shadow' instance -- the storyline of 'Instance: Humble Beginnings' makes River-hobbits much more rare than we were originally planning, where their backstory wouldn't have been specified. Now that they're definitely from Lyndelby, I think it's pretty well-specified that you're much more unique than you would have been if adventuring ran in your family.

I think there's something else worth keeping in mind, though: River-hobbits aren't from the Shire. Anyone who knows about the hobbits of the Shire (already a much higher number in LOTRO than would realistically be the case!) is going to see that a River-hobbit looks and feels like something different. Maybe they call you a 'River-hobbit' because a wandering Wizard casually mentioned the river-folk to them once and they didn't ask for elaboration; maybe the Stoors of Clegur believe you just love water and boats, but at least you're not from Glyn Helyg, where hobbits live in the sky. Folk in Middle-earth aren't omniscient (mostly), so I think some of the information they have about River-hobbits is likely to be a game of telephone (which hasn't been invented yet). So when they say you're a River-hobbit, they might have something different in mind. I think that's fine and pretty interesting, although Meneldir now won't say he's heard of River-hobbit adventurers before you came along.

MoL

 

[Demelsa]

I’m weary on the subject of River-hobbits. But one last reply before I take a break.

River-hobbits aren’t from the Shire, I don’t think anyone doesn’t realise this or expects them to be exactly like River-hobbits, but once again I think the core issue, even more than the lore confusion, is that they feel more like the Race of Men than Hobbits.

I think the majority here are fine with differences and don’t mind them being different to Shire-hobbits, or having variety. Even a lot of the folks who are pro this River-hobbit model seemed to be for variety. I welcomed the diverse additions to the Men models, for example. But it’s the scaled-down models of Men for hobbits that is bothering a lot of people. Hobbits are all related to each other in the end, however distantly. You’d think they'd bear more similarity than not, while still having differences.