forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

So I'm playing a wild hobbit of the Anduin, and recent events (will try to avoid spoilers) made me wonder if Wild Hobbits remember Gollum (or Smeagol). It's probably pretty rare that a hobbit becomes so bad his family drives him out into the wilderness. They wouldn't know the details probably, but I can see Gollum living on as a boogeyman among them.

What an interesting idea! It's been about 500 years since Sméagol murdered his friend/cousin for the Ring so, yes! 'Gollum' might have become something of a supernatural legend and folklore among the Wild Hobbits. They might have even forgotten that he was ever one of them. At the very least, the story has probably become muddled and greatly exaggerated. I would be interested to see what you come up with.

I love this.

I'm thinking he's some kind of ghost story to warn hobbit lads and lasses about nosing into things best left alone. Smeagol used the ring to find out secrets and put them to cruel uses, and even before that he was always prying into things.

I only have the base game and adventurer's companion, so Idk if there is much in the way of canon information about the Wild Hobbit communities. I find myself making things up to flesh out my character.

Deaghaidh wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:59 pm

It's probably pretty rare that a hobbit becomes so bad his family drives him out into the wilderness.

That's true of Shire-hobbits and probably Bree-hobbits, but we know almost nothing about wild hobbits. I would guess they don't resemble civilized hobbits much at all.

They wouldn't know the details probably, but I can see Gollum living on as a boogeyman among them.

Possibly, but Gollum's crimes were thievery, gurgling, and spreading malicious gossip. His grandmother turned him out of the family hole and he left. Not exactly the stuff that leads to an enduring legend.

Well, and murder

Nobody ever found out about the murder of Déagol, so far as we know. Nor is it said that Gollum murdered anyone else before being turned out.

That's really just an interpretation though. Deaghaidh's interpretation is just as valid--and sounds like a great bit of detail for a character background/history.

Wild Hobbits have the Shadow-sight cultural blessing--maybe that gave/gives them more of an uncanny sense over what was behind Smeagol/Deagol. There's certainly a grim/suspicious side to their history from the description in AC.

I say run with it!

cuthalion wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:24 am

That's really just an interpretation though. Deaghaidh's interpretation is just as valid--and sounds like a great bit of detail for a character background/history.

There's stuff you made up that doesn't contradict the books, then there's stuff that's actually in the books.

If the books say "X, Y, and Z," and I say "The books say X, Y, and Z," then someone saying "And also W!" may not contradict the book, and they're free to put W into their own games, but what I said remains true: the book never says W. In this case it doesn't even hint at W.

There is no evidence I'm aware of that Gollum murdered anyone after Déagol and before he was turned out of his grandmother's hole, so there is no evidence to suggest that his people thought of him, then or after, as a boogeyman.

He did gain that reputation among the woodmen of Mirkwood while he was wandering in Wilderland after leaving the Misty Mountains, because he did commit gruesome murders at that time. These stories helped Gandalf track him down.

Yes--it's not that I don't understand your point. It's just that there's 2 major problems with where you're coming from. Especially given the forum we're speaking in:

1. What you often say in these situations hinges on the fact that your reading of Tolkien is 100% correct, which in a book based on the concept of reported events and the layering of many oral/textual sources/histories, is a little bold. In any work of fiction--or even in the real world--there's a level of subjectivity you have to acknowledge. Different truths can be valid for different people.

2. When TOR is based around the idea of secondary/subcreation within Tolkien's world, it isn't very functional to constantly point out how players are deviating, even in the slightest way, from what is written. One, not everyone is going to play so strictly, or with such an eye for detail--and that's ok. Two, see (1) above: they might be playing according to their own reading of Tolkien. Even if it doesn't meet your idea of what Tolkien wrote/meant, that's ok.

I don't mean to come across too combative here, but I also don't think the point of these forums is to dismiss people's ideas when they are just looking for help being creative.