[Vales Spoilers] After 12 years, LOTRO finally crossed a lore bridge I can't follow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheArtilleryman

So in my view, is it OK that the game invents its own lore to "flesh out" the story? Yes, as long as it it in keeping with the tone of the original material and there is a justification for it.

---

I totally agree and Shadows of Angmar is a masterpiece that should be written for none game players to read. Also Moria is great with actually in my opinion the same reasons you state. "Far, far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things."

This shouldn't have spawned an early sequel to alien but it did and we complained at the time and they toned down the writing. Mirkwood was again a really great story line. Nothing too fantastical (as I remember)
Then good down to earth inbred tribal and regional fighting for a long time until we reach Mordor.... I can accept a little fantastic five in there as the sorcerers and the like would be doing some nasty things. However it didn't make great play even though the story just about made it.
Then we hit back into the land where we can breath some of the free air and boom.... fantasical hits us again. It really isn't required. It is a stretch to let us think that Radagast could have created the Beorning when remember what happened when the Valar Aulë created the dwarfs? Ilúvatar was kind of pissed and only intervened in their destruction when Aulë repented and showed faith by actually attempting to destroy his creation. So on what planet would he allow a Mair - Radagast to create essentially a species and then let that become corrupted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheArtilleryman

I see your view on the shape-shifting, but it just about works

---

The thing is when you get to the limit of your allowance, it has to be reigned in. Otherwise what next? Flying eagle taxis and a rope to climb into the most secretive sanctum in the whole of middle earth notwithstanding the far sightedness of possibly the greatest immortals to live within mortality.

Lets just make sure we make ourselves heard when it gets silly like this and hopefully the creative juices are honed back to good old classic story lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabadalofDorlomin

"Far, far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things."

This shouldn't have spawned an early sequel to alien but it did and we complained at the time and they toned down the writing. ...

---

Yeah, I would have much preferred these creatures to look more like smaller Balrogs, or the Watcher - more daemonic than, as you say, the aliens that they became.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabadalofDorlomin

It is a stretch to let us think that Radagast could have created the Beorning when remember what happened when the Valar Aulë created the dwarfs? Ilúvatar was kind of pissed and only intervened in their destruction when Aulë repented and showed faith by actually attempting to destroy his creation. So on what planet would he allow a Mair - Radagast to create essentially a species and then let that become corrupted.

---

It isn't that unrealistic. Saruman created the Uruk-Hai, and the Valar did nothing. They left it to the inhabitants of Middle-Earth to sort out. According to SSG, Radagast taught men the skill and they became Beornings. There isn't much difference, except the Beornings are a force for good, not evil. If this is accepted, then basically Radagast used his abilities to make the world a better place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheArtilleryman

It isn't that unrealistic. Saruman created the Uruk-Hai, and the Valar did nothing. They left it to the inhabitants of Middle-Earth to sort out. According to SSG, Radagast taught men the skill and they became Beornings. There isn't much difference,

---

Sorry and apologies but I disagree with this statement entirely. The Uruk-Hai which translated becomes,

Uruk = Orc (in Black Speech or Urko in Quenya) and
Hai = Folk

So, really if you look at the etymology of the world folk or folc in old english or old dutch you see it points to people or a man.

So, you can see how Tolkien used the word Hai to indicate a use of man.

In other words unlike the new race that we are expected to believe Radagast invented, these were just (I say just in the loose sense) a foul breeding of already existing races. And the Hai means that men were involved. So we have Olog-Hai - Troll and Man..... then we have Uruk-Hai - Uruk with men. (

Uruks were around much earlier and bred by Sauron long before Saruman corrupted them further by breeding with man. The original Uruks were just the larger of the orc tribes bred strongest to strongest until they had an orc which they called Uruk.

Tolkien really gave us a fantastic back story to ponder over.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabadalofDorlomin

Sorry and apologies but I disagree with this statement entirely. The Uruk-Hai which translated becomes,

Uruk = Orc (in Black Speech or Urko in Quenya) and
Hai = Folk

So, really if you look at the etymology of the world folk or folc in old english or old dutch you see it points to people or a man.

So, you can see how Tolkien used the word Hai to indicate a use of man.

In other words unlike the new race that we are expected to believe Radagast invented, these were just (I say just in the loose sense) a foul breeding of already existing races. And the Hai means that men were involved. So we have Olog-Hai - Troll and Man..... then we have Uruk-Hai - Uruk with men. (

Uruks were around much earlier and bred by Sauron long before Saruman corrupted them further by breeding with man. The original Uruks were just the larger of the orc tribes bred strongest to strongest until they had an orc which they called Uruk.

Tolkien really gave us a fantastic back story to ponder over.....

---

Firstly, let me say it is really refreshing to have a sensible debate on a topic whilst staying so polite - thank you! Tolkien was a keen debater, so he would approve, I am sure!

To the point:

Beornings are not technically a new species - they are descendents of the Edain, like other Northmen. Gandalf says of Beorn: "Some say that he is a bear descended from the great and ancient bears of the mountains that lived there before the giants came. Others say that he is a man descended from the first men who lived before Smaug or the other dragons came into this part of the world, and before the goblins came into the hills out of the North. I cannot say, though I fancy the last is the true tale." Also, Tolkien, in letter 144, wrote: "Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man." Any new spider-changing bad guys created by SSG could therefore also be accepted as still being men, but with the gift of skin-changing, like the Beornings.

Radagast is described by Gandalf as "a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue", so he may have had the power to bestow this gift.

Were there other skin-changers? Well Gandalf also says: "it is said that for many generations the men of his line had the power of taking bear's shape, and some were grim men and bad, but most were in heart like Beorn, if less in size and strength." So not all shape-changers were of a good nature. You could therefore have evil Beornings as a concept.

There have also been other examples of shape-changing in Tolkien lore:

• Thuringwethil - a shape-changer who could take the form of a bat

• Sauron - had been known to transform into a wolf

• Beren and Luthien: "By the counsel of Huan and the arts of Luthien he was arrayed now in the hame of Draugluin, and she in the winged fell of Thuringwethil. Beren became in all things like a werewolf to look upon, save that in his eyes there shone a spirit grim indeed but clean; and horror was in his glance as he saw upon his flank a bat-like creature clinging with creased wings. Then howling under the moon he leaped down the hill, and the bat wheeled and flittered above him." There was magic here that changed their forms - Luthien could not have "flittered" had the bat just been a disguise.

So there was an "art" of skin-changing that could be learned, by various different kinds of beings. The grey area that I think we need to clear this up is: when did Beornings acquire the skill to change? Their ancestors, the Edain, didn't have the skill inherently, so where did it come from? The wizards didn't arrive in Middle-Earth until the Third Age, so if we accept SSG's interpretation, they have to have only acquired the skill no more than 2000 years before the events of the books.

So... my challenge to you is - can you prove the Beornings had the skin-changing power before TA 1000, when the wizards showed up? If so, you win the debate, my friend! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheArtilleryman

Firstly, let me say it is really refreshing to have a sensible debate on a topic whilst staying so polite - thank you! Tolkien was a keen debater, so he would approve, I am sure!

To the point:

Beornings are not technically a new species - they are descendents of the Edain, like other Northmen. Gandalf says of Beorn: "Some say that he is a bear descended from the great and ancient bears of the mountains that lived there before the giants came. Others say that he is a man descended from the first men who lived before Smaug or the other dragons came into this part of the world, and before the goblins came into the hills out of the North. I cannot say, though I fancy the last is the true tale." Also, Tolkien, in letter 144, wrote: "Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man." Any new spider-changing bad guys created by SSG could therefore also be accepted as still being men, but with the gift of skin-changing, like the Beornings.

Radagast is described by Gandalf as "a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue", so he may have had the power to bestow this gift.

Were there other skin-changers? Well Gandalf also says: "it is said that for many generations the men of his line had the power of taking bear's shape, and some were grim men and bad, but most were in heart like Beorn, if less in size and strength." So not all shape-changers were of a good nature. You could therefore have evil Beornings as a concept.

There have also been other examples of shape-changing in Tolkien lore:

• Thuringwethil - a shape-changer who could take the form of a bat

• Sauron - had been known to transform into a wolf

• Beren and Luthien: "By the counsel of Huan and the arts of Luthien he was arrayed now in the hame of Draugluin, and she in the winged fell of Thuringwethil. Beren became in all things like a werewolf to look upon, save that in his eyes there shone a spirit grim indeed but clean; and horror was in his glance as he saw upon his flank a bat-like creature clinging with creased wings. Then howling under the moon he leaped down the hill, and the bat wheeled and flittered above him." There was magic here that changed their forms - Luthien could not have "flittered" had the bat just been a disguise.

So there was an "art" of skin-changing that could be learned, by various different kinds of beings. The grey area that I think we need to clear this up is: when did Beornings acquire the skill to change? Their ancestors, the Edain, didn't have the skill inherently, so where did it come from? The wizards didn't arrive in Middle-Earth until the Third Age, so if we accept SSG's interpretation, they have to have only acquired the skill no more than 2000 years before the events of the books.

So... my challenge to you is - can you prove the Beornings had the skin-changing power before TA 1000, when the wizards showed up? If so, you win the debate, my friend! :)

---

Just popped home before we are off following the sun for the weekend.... I will return :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

Despite the speed with which players can experience the game, we spend a lot of time thinking these things through while designing them -- just because it's a fantasy setting doesn't mean we take it any less seriously. Now I want a 'Passionately Irked' title, though. :)



Quite the opposite! I was a lawyer in my previous life, before I Narnia'd my way to Middle-earth, so arguing the merits of a decision is one of my very favorite hobbies. Combine that with game design challenges and with my obvious inability to stay away from the forums and you get a combination where I look forward to just these sort of discussions. They happen in the office too: we don't always agree with a particular direction and sometimes need to work things through with a compromise.



I very much disagree, which should come as no surprise. I think some of our storytelling in recent years has been the best we've ever done.



And it's the age-old 'should there be a LotR game at all?' discussion, which the Professor would undoubtedly have answered in the negative. But I like videogames and I like Middle-earth, so I'm very glad there is. The various ambiguities left in the text have been our stock-in-trade since the very beginning, twelve years ago -- so it's not like this is a recent development, and I think we'll probably keep looking for interesting places to expand upon, as we've always done.



Only for hobbit players, I assume? To allow Elves and dwarves and other Big Folk to involve themselves in the Scouring of the Shire would seem to step on the Professor's shoes and undermine the whole point of the story, wouldn't it?

;)

I'm being a little cheeky, but only because it's a useful demonstration of the sort of things we spend years thinking about. It's a complicated, tricky sort of thing, and I love it. :)

MoL

---

If the only for hobbit players is in play, then only humans should be allowed at helms deep since the only elf and dwarf were part of the fellowship. Just saying...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabadalofDorlomin

I love it how you get so passionately irked when someone questions your judgement in the way you interpret the meaning of something which is in it self fantasy or other worldly. Or are you the kind of person who doesn't like being challenged?

Anyway, I think it is getting difficult now for the team to seek out decent stories from the directions they are choosing to go. Tolkien kept certain aspects deliberately ambiguous and rightly so. Should we keep stepping on his shoes and second guessing things that he definitely thought was best to leave alone.

This could be solved by heading back to safe areas of the story... lets forget a big battle with another of Tolkiens mysteries (Shelob) and head back to the Shire.. South Farthing and Scouring will do very nicely. No complicated and convoluted slights of hand, just good old back to where we all started to protect our spiritual homes... I'm personally sick of helping folks in far off lands when Sharkey and his bandits are clearly heading to if not running wild and smoking all my weed stores.

---

mate, personally talking always,
i stll trust the team in creating great side stories!
its the interesting side stories that kept us going all these years or would had been in mordor since 2008
seams that a big part of us has a different opinion about Gandalf's words meaning
still, i m repeating my self i know, if Radagast was a master of skin changing why he does not changing?
if Tolkien had meant the he really is, a master of shapes, then the books should had a totally different approach,
different characters, different heroes, different everything...........
having this "skill" and the abillity to transfer this knowledge, it looks to me as a huge powerfull mastery that is greater than Gandalf's and Saruman's putting them together!
here we r talking about selfcreating a different DNA! not a mind "magic" of Morgroth, who at least was the greater of the Vala, creator of wold, even n angly one........
the whole theme leaks from everywhere, its totally against lore n there is no deep thinking in it, creating the RK is nothing comparing with this!
its not a small thing those few written words, Radagast is transformed into a totally different person!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

Despite the speed with which players can experience the game, we spend a lot of time thinking these things through while designing them -- just because it's a fantasy setting doesn't mean we take it any less seriously. Now I want a 'Passionately Irked' title, though. :)
Quite the opposite! I was a lawyer in my previous life, before I Narnia'd my way to Middle-earth, so arguing the merits of a decision is one of my very favorite hobbies. Combine that with game design challenges and with my obvious inability to stay away from the forums and you get a combination where I look forward to just these sort of discussions. They happen in the office too: we don't always agree with a particular direction and sometimes need to work things through with a compromise.
I very much disagree, which should come as no surprise. I think some of our storytelling in recent years has been the best we've ever done.

---

your story telling is great n its the reason, most of the older guys like me keep coming! plz keep on the good work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

And it's the age-old 'should there be a LotR game at all?' discussion, which the Professor would undoubtedly have answered in the negative. But I like videogames and I like Middle-earth, so I'm very glad there is. The various ambiguities left in the text have been our stock-in-trade since the very beginning, twelve years ago -- so it's not like this is a recent development, and I think we'll probably keep looking for interesting places to expand upon, as we've always done.
Only for hobbit players, I assume? To allow Elves and dwarves and other Big Folk to involve themselves in the Scouring of the Shire would seem to step on the Professor's shoes and undermine the whole point of the story, wouldn't it?;)
I'm being a little cheeky, but only because it's a useful demonstration of the sort of things we spend years thinking about. It's a complicated, tricky sort of thing, and I love it. :)
MoL

---

Are you saying that you r leaving a big(caps on) part of the story out?????????????
nope i dont belive it ! you ll do it !!! one way or n other!!!
i see my self in a seriess of solo instances doing errands for the 4 hobbits running here n there in the shire! (like what you did with the attack on Pelenor fields)
the story havent even reached the midsummer day n the big marriage, we have enough time for the scouring, do as many shelbs you like, then the scouring n after this travel us wherever you like!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

I very much disagree, which should come as no surprise. I think some of our storytelling in recent years has been the best we've ever done.

---

With the exception of the incredibly shameless allegory of the Dale storyline, I agree. I think everything in Gondor up until the destruction of the ring was pure perfection, and Mordor was excellent as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valakircka

your story telling is great n its the reason, most of the older guys like me keep coming! plz keep on the good work!



Are you saying that you r leaving a big(caps on) part of the story out?????????????
nope i dont belive it ! you ll do it !!! one way or n other!!!
i see my self in a seriess of solo instances doing errands for the 4 hobbits running here n there in the shire! (like what you did with the attack on Pelenor fields)
the story havent even reached the midsummer day n the big marriage, we have enough time for the scouring, do as many shelbs you like, then the scouring n after this travel us wherever you like!

---

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that we have great side stories but have exception to ones that there really is no need for.

There was no need to have shape shifting bastardisations using not even a single sentence but a phrase within a sentence to base it on. Is the controversy worth it to drive Lotro story forward? No. There are umpteen places we could be now instead of in the vales. Being in the Vales for me is like filling the map out for filling it out sake.
I like the map to be fleshed out but the problem with that is, is that we end up having to have contrived and forced stories because really there is none to give.

It is like the mentality in SSG has changed. We have gone from Expac based to no Expacs and now since Mordor was such a huge success, they going back to expac. So, what you get in the meantime is body filler to the main narrative.
Not even good body filler at that, I mean it is no Lothlorien or Evindim.

The only reason we are in the Vales and not helping to clear enemies and help get Minas Tirith ready is because it is Minas Tirith.... The black hole of many a PC crash....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabadalofDorlomin

There are umpteen places we could be now instead of in the vales. Being in the Vales for me is like filling the map out for filling it out sake.
I like the map to be fleshed out but the problem with that is, is that we end up having to have contrived and forced stories because really there is none to give.

---

Where would you rather go? What would make more sense? Where would such lore NOT be 'contrived'?

I really don't feel that strongly either way. But I prefer if Beorn's family had an innate ability and the "secret" wasn't a secret that could be "revealed" at all, but something only they can do. The wolf-men and spider-orcs are much more fun when they're aspirational. To me. Then we can have the menace of... oh no, what if a former minion of Sauron actually transforms them into super spiders? super wolves? Oh wait.. wargs.

The transformation aspect is already lore. Saruman, orcs to uruk. Sauron elf to orc. But not the skin changer as a result of any wizard / istari. More fun if that's unique, well, to me.

However it doesn't bother me any more than berserkers do. Or creatures that summon other creatures. There are many ways to have an "alternate" set of skills without being a skin changer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

"And that message brought me hope. For Saruman the White is the greatest of my order. Radagast is, of course, a worthy Wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue; and he has much lore of herbs and beasts, and birds are especially his friends." - Gandalf, _The Fellowship of the Ring_

MoL

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

Does it not? Mastery over shapes sure sounds like you have control over shapes to me. And the "if Radagast could do this he WOULD have!" argument holds little water for me -- Radagast's role in Fellowship of the Ring is pretty small; who's to say what the extent of his powers might have been if he had a more central part to play? If Gandalf tells us that Radagast has "mastery over shapes," I'm inclined to believe him -- but maybe he was talking about his skill at finishing jigsaw puzzles, as indicated upthread. :D

MoL

---

I see a wizard with mastery of shapes and hue more a person who can create illusions. Shape shifting doesn't fit into this imo because it lacks illusion and offers something tangible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

I very much disagree, which should come as no surprise. I think some of our storytelling in recent years has been the best we've ever done.

MoL

---

But... Who's story are you telling?

When side stories material become equal to or surpass the material content they are derived from then that person isn't telling the original story. That's just using the source material as a benchmark for context.


I say, its time for you all to get back to the meat of the known story and accept the books have a determined outcome. Really, how can it hurt? You will still be able to make your own side story additions after the fact. For me personally, I don't want to wait another 5 years of distractions to finally come to the story's end. 12 years has been long enough. As Sam would say. "Get it over."

It's like someone reading a story to an audience and at the last 30 pages they put the book down and start telling another story they created and when someone ask. "How does the book story end?" The reader says "Oh never mind with that", listen to this short sidetrack I wrote last night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serin36

Where would you rather go? What would make more sense? Where would such lore NOT be 'contrived'?

---

There is such a lot of uncontrived, (Wouldn't you class a fictional story as contrived in the first place?) story for the timeline we are running.

Take a look at the original contrived timeline :D

There is so much going on in the coming months in the main story.
As I said in a couple of my earlier posts, why are we not engaging in the areas that we know. I'm all for fleshing out the map, don't get me wrong, but I want to be, for the first time in this game, running back and forth telling all and sundry what I and my fellows have been a part of. Then help them rebuild. Help get the charges of the Harad to submit and finally be pardoned by Ellesar. Obviously we can't head back to the shire before Sharkey and his henchmen have arrived but the Vales? Spider changelings?

It is what it is... but lets us please forget about fictitious battles with Shelob.... It is even more an abhorrent lore breach than the aforementioned.

Shelob was gone; and whether she lay long in her lair, nursing her malice and her misery, and in slow years of darkness healed herself from within, rebuilding her clustered eyes, until with hunger like death she spun once more her dreadful snares in the glens of the Mountains of Shadow, this tale does not tell.

I hope that we don't cross this line.... let me explain why....... when I get home from work :D

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <><><><><>

Explanation:


So, three phrases stick out.. "Shelob was gone", "in slow years of darkness healed herself" and "this tale does not tell"

So,

• "Shelob was gone" - a statement of fact or a statement that the author was done with this character? or both?
• "in slow years of darkness healed herself" - a question left for us to ponder? But by the statement "was gone"! leads to the belief that it was meant to be that way and in any case the "slow years" negates any chance without breaking the lore, that we should see her in game.
• "this tale does not tell" - maybe you would think this could lend itself to the fact that other tales could be written but should be read as a clear instruction coupled with the other 2 points above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadeOfLions

(clipped)

If I wanted to give you Eagle mounts, I wouldn't have to point to this line to do it. It's not the fact of flying on Eagles that I find troubling, since that happens in the books more than once; it's that the Eagles are noble, sentient creatures, and they don't come at your call. I would much prefer a system where Eagles come and interrupt the thing you're doing, picking you up and carrying you away to help THEM with the important thing they want done, regardless of what you have to say about it. Now that's an Eagle mount I can get behind!

MoL

---

Hmm, surely there are eaglets around who need to learn how to carry tiny creatures to safety someday. They aren't just born knowing how to rescue Gandalf from a wizard tower. And since giant magical eagles in LOTR are probably also very long lived, they may age in a way imperceptible to anyone other than an elf. Since they're young, their courage may fail them in certain areas. And their size isn't suitable for some locations. But it's the kind of great responsibility that a great hero like myself would welcome. I mean, to foster an eagle... what an honor!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabadalofDorlomin

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that we have great side stories but have exception to ones that there really is no need for.

There was no need to have shape shifting bastardisations using not even a single sentence but a phrase within a sentence to base it on.

---

i totally aggre!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabadalofDorlomin

Is the controversy worth it to drive Lotro story forward? No. There are umpteen places we could be now instead of in the vales. Being in the Vales for me is like filling the map out for filling it out sake.
I like the map to be fleshed out but the problem with that is, is that we end up having to have contrived and forced stories because really there is none to give.

---

no sorry i disagrre its great to have as much as more middle earth possible n it needs quests n folk n enemies to fill it.
its n other thing to fill the map n other to translate the lore to the way it fits!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabadalofDorlomin

It is like the mentality in SSG has changed. We have gone from Expac based to no Expacs and now since Mordor was such a huge success, they going back to expac. So, what you get in the meantime is body filler to the main narrative.
Not even good body filler at that, I mean it is no Lothlorien or Evindim.

The only reason we are in the Vales and not helping to clear enemies and help get Minas Tirith ready is because it is Minas Tirith.... The black hole of many a PC crash....

---

totally agree on this too, still i want the map full opened no matter what but not a lore breaking, talking about content, lore translations, classes, races, or anything tarnsforming lotro into n other fantasy mmorpg!

(caps on)again n thats for all to hear, devs or players, skinchangers were only a few!
no bear man adomination class/race was needded!!! one adomination the RK is more than enough!!!
skinchanging is not a skill that can be teached!!! if Radagast was able to teach a skill so strong, Gandalf would be only the fool friend of hobbits, party goer, trader of fireworks n nothing more!!!! ok and pipesmoker too :p
if Radagast was able to teach it why there r no more skinchangers in the books???
even in game you devs have only created a familly of skinchangers, descandents of Beorn, where r the rest? (if they r not a few)
adding a phrase n destroying the lore just to continue your story is so bad n so poorly thought, you could do lot better!!!
adding a phrase n destroying the lore just to add a handfull of quest n a stupid village of a stupid enemy, you could had added anything to continue the story!!!!
master of shapes does not mean teacher of skinchanging!
i m really tired with this, i really hope you would not do something like this again!!! :mad:
class or race or lore............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gripply

I really don't feel that strongly either way. But I prefer if Beorn's family had an innate ability and the "secret" wasn't a secret that could be "revealed" at all, but something only they can do. The wolf-men and spider-orcs are much more fun when they're aspirational. To me. Then we can have the menace of... oh no, what if a former minion of Sauron actually transforms them into super spiders? super wolves? Oh wait.. wargs.

The transformation aspect is already lore. Saruman, orcs to uruk. Sauron elf to orc. But not the skin changer as a result of any wizard / istari. More fun if that's unique, well, to me.

However it doesn't bother me any more than berserkers do. Or creatures that summon other creatures. There are many ways to have an "alternate" set of skills without being a skin changer.

---

exactly!
totally agree!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheArtilleryman

Firstly, let me say it is really refreshing to have a sensible debate on a topic whilst staying so polite - thank you! Tolkien was a keen debater, so he would approve, I am sure!

To the point:

Beornings are not technically a new species - they are descendents of the Edain, like other Northmen. Gandalf says of Beorn: "Some say that he is a bear descended from the great and ancient bears of the mountains that lived there before the giants came. Others say that he is a man descended from the first men who lived before Smaug or the other dragons came into this part of the world, and before the goblins came into the hills out of the North. I cannot say, though I fancy the last is the true tale." Also, Tolkien, in letter 144, wrote: "Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man." Any new spider-changing bad guys created by SSG could therefore also be accepted as still being men, but with the gift of skin-changing, like the Beornings.

Radagast is described by Gandalf as "a worthy wizard, a master of shapes and changes of hue", so he may have had the power to bestow this gift.

Were there other skin-changers? Well Gandalf also says: "it is said that for many generations the men of his line had the power of taking bear's shape, and some were grim men and bad, but most were in heart like Beorn, if less in size and strength." So not all shape-changers were of a good nature. You could therefore have evil Beornings as a concept.

There have also been other examples of shape-changing in Tolkien lore:

• Thuringwethil - a shape-changer who could take the form of a bat

• Sauron - had been known to transform into a wolf

• Beren and Luthien: "By the counsel of Huan and the arts of Luthien he was arrayed now in the hame of Draugluin, and she in the winged fell of Thuringwethil. Beren became in all things like a werewolf to look upon, save that in his eyes there shone a spirit grim indeed but clean; and horror was in his glance as he saw upon his flank a bat-like creature clinging with creased wings. Then howling under the moon he leaped down the hill, and the bat wheeled and flittered above him." There was magic here that changed their forms - Luthien could not have "flittered" had the bat just been a disguise.

So there was an "art" of skin-changing that could be learned, by various different kinds of beings. The grey area that I think we need to clear this up is: when did Beornings acquire the skill to change? Their ancestors, the Edain, didn't have the skill inherently, so where did it come from? The wizards didn't arrive in Middle-Earth until the Third Age, so if we accept SSG's interpretation, they have to have only acquired the skill no more than 2000 years before the events of the books.

So... my challenge to you is - can you prove the Beornings had the skin-changing power before TA 1000, when the wizards showed up? If so, you win the debate, my friend! :)

---

This is absolutely right! The lore-logic makes perfect sense. After all, Rhosgobel is not terribly far from Beorninghus, where Beorn's people lived for a very long time from what little we know.


There is a group of Men whose biography has yet to be fleshed-out by SSG, but we have heard glimpses of them... for it was on account of Castamir's refusal to accept any King of blood lineage from them that the Kinstrife happened in Gondor. These were the Men of Rhovanion, who had a Kingdom, and who were defeated by the Easterling Wainriders in various wars stretched across the plains to the south and east of Mirkwood. One of these leaders managed to take part of his people, who were formerly enslaved by the Easterlings, and escape to the Anduin and settled between the river and Mirkwood in roughly the same area where we find the Woodmen villages in the Vales (hence their similarities to the Rohirrim in their NPC models; the original woodsmen we met in the Rushgore looked more akin to Dunlendings, and they wisely changed their design as NPC's). The current Woodsmen cannot perceive, given the long centuries that have passed, that the elusive "North-men" were probably their ancestors, or at least cousins sharing the same root on the grand family tree. Now, the group who became the Eotheod moved north, founded Framburg, and they were between the Ered Mithrim and the Misties. It was from this group that Eorl led his horsemen south- ultimately becoming Rohan.

Now, I highly suspect that the Beornings (and from a Gondorian perspective, all Rhovanion folk are Northmen) came from the same stock as the folk of Rhovanion, may even have been related to the ancestors of the Rohirrim (which makes Tolkien's re-appropriation of an Anglo-Saxon mead hall as Beorn's Lodge make sense lore-wise), and in all probability, were- and so, with Rhosgobel not terribly far away, it would make sense that one of Beorn's ancestors, if not Beorn himself, learned this "ability" from Radagast, who is already associated with animals and understanding their speech and so on. So, there we have it. Now, when the Woodsmen refer to their homeland in the Blight, which is long since lost- which is to the east of Mirkwood's Narrows, we may then pinpoint precisely where the heart of the Rhovanian Kingdom likely was. When we eventually head directly east of Mirkwood, I have little doubt that we will discover Rhovanion ruins, find lore artifacts of that period, perhaps shed some more light on the Kinstrife's origins with Vindumavi and the crown prince Eldacar (well, the real origins were simply that Castamir was literally a royal jerk), and so on. There is much of interest there- as the folk of Dale, Lake-Town, the Woodsmen, and the Rohirrim, and probably the Beornings, and perhaps even the Hobbits (*we know they are a particular strain of human, and we know they do not quite appear until the Third Age), all happen to share that same root of ancestry, the old Kingdom which was Gondor's oldest ally (and its void of absence was ultimately filled by Rohan- triumphant after the long centuries of exile in the North).

So yeah- Radagast's influence? I can totally view that as a valid concept in the lore.

I think the issue that folks are having is more of a "Dispersion of the Mystery" issue. Someone mentioned the Aliens in Moria in the Foundations of Stone. I think that's precisely it. Tolkien often deliberately left some things as mysterious- such as the origins of the Ent-wives, the unfathomable depths of Moria, the Nameless things, Beorn's origins and that of his skin-changing, how Radagast gets lost in nature and never returns West as he was supposed to and why if he was so good would he not return, and so on. There are a lot of such mysteries. Earnur's ultimate fate in Minas Morgul is another- and so is what would eventually happen with Shelob. So, for example, I -used- to imagine Moria as an unfathomably huge labyrinth. Now, my mind can explore every nook and cranny from top to bottom, from "lowest dungeon to highest peak," and imagine the Map from the Silvertine Lodes to the FoS. It's awesome as a game, but its disconcerting to me and how I used to imagine Moria- so I have to use some mental acrobatics to remember, "this is Game Moria, not Book Moria," due to the down-scaling of the world and so on and so forth. So, the unfathomable depths of Moria, in-game, become fathomable, and that has some natural consequences to how we imagine Moria, which we may or may not like. This is the "Dispersion of the Mystery" issue that this game has always and ever grappled-with- something that was mysterious becomes "answered" by the game in some way, which can be cool, but it also disperses that sense of mystery once the "mystery is solved," as it were.


Now, we have to remember the -context- that Tolkien built around his lore. He didn't write his book as if it had the definitive answer to everything- it's why he left stuff deliberately vague in some cases. But, as a game, and as a game that, in order to sustain its players, -must- foray into the unknown, it's quite important that the game do what it -has to do- in order to keep going. The game must craft not merely new content, but it must do so in a way that makes the more "lore-oriented" parts of the quest-lines be compelling and worthy of exploring.

The context is simply this. Tolkien was not merely writing the story with consciousness of himself as a writer. He was writing these events as if they -really happened- thousands and thousands of years ago, with the Red Book of Westmarch as his "source text" that he was "translating." So, we have three fictional writers who provide the frame for the story. We have Findegil King's Writer in Minas Tirith- who takes charge of editing the story. Passages in LOTR that feel more "bird's eye view" or historical in tone are likely the work of Findegil in Tolkien's frame. We may certainly attribute the Appendices to Findegil as they are basically historical timelines and explanations. We have Samwise Gamgee, who fills-out some of the details, particularly of his own perspective. We have Frodo himself, who writes the main body of the work.


So, when the line that talks about, for example, Shelob, speculates on whether she died of her wounds or slowly regained her strength throughout the years, "this tale does not tell," -in-lore-, what this simply means is that neither Findegil King's Writer, nor Frodo, nor Sam, learned the ultimate fate of Shelob, or that if they knew her ultimately fate, "This tale does not tell [because it got very very ugly and unworthy of recounting in the histories out of dread]", or we might interpret this as Tolkien deliberately leaving us with a mystery as readers.

But there -are- multiple potential interpretations of such lines because of the narrative frame- Frodo, Sam, and Findegil, and what we are aware of in the lore depends on their awareness as writers. Their perspectives are limited; they might not always be "reliable narrators" depending on the subject, and they have the grace to admit to it with such mysteries.

So, here's the point. Clearly, whatever will "go down" with Shelob in the Minas Morgul expansion, the only way it would have a snowball's chance in the Cracks of Doom as staying in accordance with the lore, would be that, for whatever good reason, neither Frodo, Sam, nor Findegil learn about this, and so, in their absence of knowing events, write the lines they write in what becomes our text of LOTR. In short, anything that happens down there can't merely be -possible-, but also feel -plausible- given what we currently know. Given what we currently know, that may prove quite difficult, depending on what they do.


Has such a narrative maneuver happened in-game before? Yes. It happened with Thaurlach and the Rift of Nurz Ghashu. They needed a "lore reason" as to why this momentous event was not mentioned in the text of LOTR. So, they devised having Gandalf and Lord Elrond counsel against mentioning such things to anyone, and thus it does not appear in our source text. This is largely -the- maneuver that permits the game to do so much in its storytelling, and its probably -the sole method- of making narrative writing in this game even possible.

So, the real issue is not really, "did X, Y, or Z" happen in the lore. It's "Could X, Y, or Z" happen, despite not being in our source text, in ways that are plausible to us as players and readers?" Is it plausible that Radagast taught Beorn's ancestors how to skin-change? To me, yes, based on what we know once we piece it all together. What I love about this move with Radagast is that................... it takes something that felt very foreign from the lore- these wild men in Forochel and Misties and Ered Mithrim and now Woodsedge, and it makes them feel far more part of Middle-earth, making the reasons behind their existence make sense.

When I first played in Forochel, the Gauredain didn't feel part of Middle-earth to me, other than a few passages in the Sil about werewolves. For the longest time, I thought they were once werewolves or a remnant of that part of the First Age, perhaps worshippers of Sauron when he was known as the Lord of Werewolves prior to his thwarting by Luthien. But, it still................. I don't know. It felt very weird, these Wolf-people without a clear lore origin. Now, its starting to make far more sense, and I like that in their case this skinchanging was a -good- thing that was corrupted, rather than an inherently -bad- thing that came from ages past. Because, "nothing is evil in the beginning," as Gandalf says, and it really helps give some more context to Radagast's peripheral role in this story- and I would like a lore-plausible, in-game, explanation of why he doesn't sail West. I think they are building to this, slowly, and this is the game largely doing its best with what it has to work-with. But, of course, not all may agree with this because-------------> the mystery has been dispersed in so far as the game is concerned, which does have its own range of consequences- mostly all concerning plausibility.

So, as the Dev's continue to write, I would encourage them to focus not only on answering the question, "Is X possible in the lore?" But to also ask and stress the question: "Is this -plausible-, given what we know?"