Yea, thats exactly right. RPGs even encourage you to tailor the rules to you liking. If one would deviate significantly, using official products is a little more difficult. But if youre comfortable tinkering with the rules, that shouldnt pose a problem

While the explanation is garbage, the rules are fine. Many systems forgo overly detailed ancestries/species/races/whatever. Choosing mechanics and optics to get more variety is fine. Plays into the casual vibe DnD aims for,
I'm usually a leftie/(overly) conscious of language, but this is just a desperate try to gain some goodwill without really trying new waters. Since I'm playing PF2/DnD4 (or totally different stuff like mythras/pdq/savage worlds or the likes), I don't care.
Rpgs are niche anyway and dem wotcies doing shit won't change anything. In fact, I'm hopin they bury themselves so deep, we won't have to deal with them anymore.

this is the way

KARMA GAMBLING

I obviously care little for the reasons of your rudeness. This is the internet after all. It's disappointing of course, since there's common ground and I expect more fruitful results from different attitudes, but again, this is the internet. Whatever floats your boat.

You might argue I'm biased, since many of the assumingly exihibited values do not bother me.

With regards purely to the hypotext however, I feel the same outrage that the likes of Earthsea (disgusting, every adaption of it), GoT, The Expanse, The Dark Tower, Lotr and Hobbit by Jackson, Dresden Files show, Nochnoi Dozor, His Dark Materials, Harry Potter, Wheel Of Time, Cloud Atlas, Dune (both versions) and many others instilled in me. Every signle one fell short. Horribly so. And most egregious are the changes by choice and not those out of obvious necessity. (It still is another medium and thus commands changes. This fact remains.)
Yet I also acknowledge that every adaption is an interpretation of sorts. And the actualization/transvaluation is not a new process and in itself nothing bad. Romans knew the concept (or at least the phenomena appeared alongside) as aemulatio (though admittedly they oftentimes changed names. Not every time though, if you'd compare the senecan and the euripidean Medea. Values and subsequent judgement changed drastically.
It's still a common practice - think of Goethes Iphigenia, Joyce' Ulysses or just look at the many versions of Antigone. She had many different roles, from freedom fighter, revolutionary to just someone with moral courage. The acts depicted as morally laudable naturally changed, sometimes significantly, sometimes ever so slightly.

There are also remakes or commplete reimaginations of movies, shows or books. A good example would be "Sherlock", "Elementary", some older movies and Doyle's original stories.
You might argue that Tolkiens work is way more closed and finished than my cursory examples. And, I think, you'd be right to a degree, even though the Silmarillion was not finalized by JR himself.
However, as I have said before, not everyone values autrhorial intent or even the integrity of a given work equally. This is not wrong in itself, but a matter of perspective and taste.

The main problem, in my opinion at least, stems from the fact that we view adaptions in the fantasy genre as something that should portray the original as close as possible and percieve every change as infraction, as (almost deliberate) abuse, dare I say blasphemy.
Which in turn seems to be a result of the weak exposure of the genre. If you could expect another adaption in the next 10 years, there'd be no need to put that much hate in the current one.
And the questionable marketing presenting these movies as somehow representative. Or even claim dealing faithfully. A fuqqin lie indeed. Intended to lure people, bath in the fame, benefit from the original's fame - in short to make money. This however is neither right nor left, it's just big corpo capitalism. And honestly no surprise.
Which is why I say, as I said before - the best reaction would be to honor the actual book by talking about it in as many ways we can think of. And, if you got the stomach for it, watch what they've made of it and talk again.

Yet, and this is where I feel you've taken the wrong turn, you focus on the political. I obviously disagree with your political views and have neither the time nor the inclination to fight about these. Something youd probalby agree on anyway.
However: If you got spare time for Tolkiens world in spite of whatever misguided social tendencies you witness, you might spare this topic and not sacrifice it on the altar of some crusade or another.
Or not.
We probably disagree on this one too, but I felt the need to make on point: You can love Tolkien, read him once a year, dedicate multiple shelves to him, dislike the trailers so far and still accept them. Without being an amazon "shill" (as much as anyone can be who's generally prepared to watch their content if it fits)

Well, that escalated quickly. And was kinda what I'd hoped to circumvent by adding a disclaimer. Guess that worked well.
I'd actually rather say nothing at all. But then, you being a dick shouldn't make me one, right?

I added literary studies as background so you might realize where my views are coming from. I like context in conversation as to prevent missunderstandings. Like the fact that not everybody views authorial intent as useful information when discussing stories or that deconstruction, or for reception concepts of rewriting (talking about structuralist method, not necessarily the political implications), might create interesting turns.
This is in itself a-politcal. As it concerns structural elements. And if you think Bezos to be a leftie, I'm not sure we're using the same term.
Obviously, bombarding you with information I'm not certain you know seemed rather rude. Good way to end conversations. So I tried to add my theoretical interest in adaptions. Or other perhaps boring stuff. Thought it might explain the fact that I equally loathe and admire them.

On the other hand it provided you with a target. And since you've ignored everything but this, it probably was important information. We both saved ourselves some time.

> "Using the little exposure" I've been digging and have seen and read more than just "a little exposure".

Well, I wholeheartedly disagree. The _source material_, as well as the fantasy genre itself do not get much exposure. People notice them for but a brief moment. The adaption almost always replaces them, hides them. Until another hyped up show repeats the process.
Unless we'd use the exposure to talk about them in different ways or places.
Or we could just push some other agenda, attack people as soon as they disagree - in other words focus on everything but the work itself.
I'm sure you're really a big fan..

[Disclaimer since I've no taste for those discussions. If the following facts are a reason not to talk, so be it: I'm what you'd call a leftie, I suppose, and I'm talking neither the american kind nor antifa lmao. I'm also doing a PhD in literary studies so our views might differ..]

> ain't a just the average shitty
> we've seen with a lot of other stuff over the last decade.

Yea, sorry, but you're pushing an agenda. Which is worse than every movie. Using the little exposure the source material gets and supplant it with ideas you're likely talking about often enough.

> They deserve the criticism.

If only the criticism would target the actual show. But it can't because it ain't there yet. So all there is to talk about are some decisions. Of which we know next to nothing. Is it integrated well into the show? Will it be an interesting interpretation? We don't know.
All there is to criticize are snippets without context.

But they fit into something so let's milk it.

> It's deliberate deconstruction

Deconstruction of what? The books? That's not a bad thing. Just because they paid money so noone else can make movies/a show about the stuff doesn't mean it's actually some kind of official visual representation of the books. You can't tell me you're really buying into that.
And deconstructing, in the literary context, is actually quite interesting. Taking parts and making something of it. See what they can tell you in juxtaposition. You just gotta lose the idea of the show being the books.

If you're talking about some kind of social order in which tales of Middle-earth have no place we're back at foqin politics and agendas.
If you're talking about the purity of the source, I'd say you've lost. You can't even say the same with different words. Every translation is already messing with the original. Any transmedial adaption is doomed from the beginning.

yeah idk about that nerdrage.
the purpose is obviously to make money and to entertain. whether that succeeds remains to be seen.
it never is, was or will be the perfect adaption. or even adapting anything at all. like, everytime theres a movie adaption, people will start acting like this is something new.
this time there are, for some people, controversial changes due to some left/right ideology shiet. oh noes, they added black people and put halflings where they shouldnt be.
but honestly, tis just some damn proxy. otherwise theyd add 15 love stories that shouldnt be there, some damn stupid jokes and probably cut important scenes, change stuff they shouldnt. most likely they gonna do this too. big surpise.

leave the damn politics out of my beloved fantasy. and no, they started is not an argument. the big discussion, the foqin focus on it is just too much. fight your stupid wars somewhere else.
ones gotta accept that movie adaptions are never meant as an representation of the books. its just a theme they use. they exploit it. and if you start comparing you will lose. because itll somehow taint the books and itll make the movies just inacceptable. just accept it as the capitalistic fanfic it is.
sad thing is, once i accepted this i could look forward even to the most miserable butchery of my favourite books - just to realize yall will not only keep on whining like yall didnt know, but also make this a battleground for other stupid discussion.
like no shit sherlock, theyll ruin it, theyll make money and they adjust it to the viewers. especially if a big company is doing it. and theyre not pumping millions into replicas for nerds
im in a mood to burn my three silmarillion editions so i can start telling myself that i dont ***in care

why tho

sir, if youd be so kind as to leave the narrative intact. much obliged. we can aim for facts another time, dont you worry