Hobbit Guardians? Sure, it's just great for the game to have hobbits being able to tank a Balrog. That just makes so much sense!
It really does make sense, GAME WISE! get it?
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
In whose opinion? Yours? You've already shown you certainly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to lore, so your opinion of maradakia's 'dedicated info' (whatever that's supposed to mean) is moot.
Ok maybe I don't know lore as you do? right?....I know you read 1st page of this thread, and completely ignore it when "questioning the lore behind Beornings as a class"....but yeah my point is moot...
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Given that skin-changers are NOT in the game, maybe you're the one with unreasonable expectations? I've seen this bias before, that just because someone wants something in the game they try to pretend they're automatically in the right, somehow. Sorry, no.
There is a difference between Valid and Invalid suggestions, note: NOT ALL VALID suggestions make to the game.
That been said, this suggestion is Valid. Follow my logic here?
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Your own attempt to prove me wrong by quoting some website didn't work too well, did it? If there's anyone round here who should start accepting things, it's maradakia.
Ok lets say beornings aren't decendant of Beorn, but somehow can skin-change their appearance and appearently they can defend a pass in Mirkwood with few numbers alone, and they are just "tough"...even then you would have to accept the following:
1.- Beorning as a class can be modeled after Beorn their "leader"
2.- Some Beorning can skin change
3.- a Hero in Middle earth could be a Beorning
oh this thread again, they won't take any suggestion seriously unless its a very small change anything relating to an institution of a new class, race, system, area (with outlines for possibly story avenues and quest zones etc.), revamps of any kind, etc. Will never be instituted into the game, that just how much Turbine values suggestions, we don't get to way in on the direction of the game in any serious way.
Turbine seem to differ: when the question was asked pre-beta they said no to skin-changers. Some people seem to think that fully playable Rangers or High Elves would also make sense, 'GAME WISE' and there too, Turbine seem to differ. So no, I don't 'get it' because I think you're wrong.
Ok maybe I don't know lore as you do? right?....I know you read 1st page of this thread, and completely ignore it when "questioning the lore behind Beornings as a class"....but yeah my point is moot...
There are umpteen posts by me in this thread saying exactly why I disagree with maradakia, in considerable detail.
There is a difference between Valid and Invalid suggestions, note: NOT ALL VALID suggestions make to the game.
That been said, this suggestion is Valid. Follow my logic here?
No. I don't agree that it is a valid suggestion because I think that like Rangers and High Elves, skin-changers are obvious NPCs.
Ok lets say beornings aren't decendant of Beorn, but somehow can skin-change their appearance and appearently they can defend a pass in Mirkwood with few numbers alone, and they are just "tough"...even then you would have to accept the following:
Let's not, because that's nothing like what I'm saying. The Beornings were, in the main, perfectly ordinary Men who'd chosen to take Beorn as their chieftain, most probably because his deeds in battle against the Goblins had made such an impression on them. His son Grimbeorn and whatever other male descendants he may have had were skin-changers, with Grimbeorn having inherited Beorn's role as chieftain after his father's death.
My principal objection to the whole idea of playable skin-changers is that I don't agree that a class can sensibly be based on the men of just one family!
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Jun 02 2012 at 05:59 PM.
Localization & rarity of "Beornings", much less the hilarity of were-bears, just doesn't spark any class desire in me.
I can & would love to see them as NPCs in their lands between Dale & Rivendell as a faction we could help, & even an instance or two with one or more of them...
I think this is where I disagree with the suggestion. A skinchanger class is not a valid suggestion. It would be like proposing an ent class. It just doesn't make sense.
Being a skinchanger is presumably innate to Beorn and his kind because a) only the men of his line could do it b) if it were a form of magic, how did a man learn it and no elf ever has? So it doesn't seem to be something you can learn.
From that stance, a valid suggestion would be a skinchanger race.
I think this is where I disagree with the suggestion. A skinchanger class is not a valid suggestion. It would be like proposing an ent class. It just doesn't make sense.
Being a skinchanger is presumably innate to Beorn and his kind because a) only the men of his line could do it b) if it were a form of magic, how did a man learn it and no elf ever has? So it doesn't seem to be something you can learn.
From that stance, a valid suggestion would be a skinchanger race.
I see where you're coming from, but Tolkien specifically wrote that Beorn is of the race of Man. Beorning is not a race, like Elf, Hobbit, and Dwarf. It is a subset of the race of Man.
We generally use race to mean species in games. Beorning, because of the ability to take bear's form, seems like it's own species, but Tolkien was clear and definite on this matter; Beornings are of the race of Man.
We generally use class in our games to mean role/occupation. Beornings, being a subset of the race of Man, don't quite seem to fit in that category of "class". However, my intent with this was to suggest it's introduction as a Class. They would require you to choose Race of Man. Choosing Beornings would be to choose your character type. The fact of being a Beorning would determine your class quests, which would be Beorning specific, like perhaps visiting Radagast, as connected to the text, wherein Tolkien mentioned this relationship. The skills you use would be based around being a Beorning too, like dreadful growls, and claw rends, and call on Bees for a debuff skill or what have you. Class traits would be derived from being a Beorning as well. In all the ways that a Hunter is defined by their class (skills, traits, story), a Beorning would be defined as well > Therefore, though we traditionally don't think of a subset of race as a "class", in this case it is suitable, and race certainly is not.
P.S. Tolkien left it undefined and vague as to how Beorn and the Beornings took bear's form. There are, to my knowledge, no quotes anywhere that describe how this change was effected. It is therefore NOT legitimate to assert as though it's factual that this is a hereditary trait. It definitely seems possible that it was hereditary, since Tolkien does say it's carried on by Beorn's descendants, but Tolkien also specifically mentions that Beorn was something of a magician, and that he knew Radagast, therefore it's also possible this was some learned magic, passed along in the family. Heredity may seem more likely, but it is still speculation on our part.
P.P.S We do have a prior precedent in Tolkien's works on Middle-earth of a sort of skin-changing, where Beren takes the form of Draugluin, a wolf, and Lúthien take the form of Thuringwethil, a vampire bat.
------------------------------------------
As for the questions of Race and Class, I discussed this in the original post, if you'd like to see some of the related quotations, I attached them here:
Beornings - Race of Man:
Tolkien emphatically states in his April 25, 1954 letter to Naomi Mitchison that "Beorn was a Man" (Letters 178).
'Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a Man' (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien No 144, dated 1954)
From the LOTRO Lorebook Official Lore entry on Beornings: The heirs of Beorn. The Men who dwelt in the Vales of Anduin between Mirkwood and the Great River. The were led by the descendants of Beorn, who for many generations retained their ancestor's ability to take the shape of a bear. (http://lorebook.lotro.com/wiki/Lore:Beornings)
Gimli asks about the Rohirrim, "What do you know of these horsemen, Aragorn?" And he answers, "...It was in forgotten years long ago that Eorl the Young brought them out of the North, and their kinship is rather with the Bardings of Dale, and with the Beornings of the Wood, among whom may still be seen many men tall and fair, as are the Riders of Rohan. At least they will not love the Orcs."." (The Two Towers: The Riders of Rohan)
"Most of the Men of the northern regions of the West-lands were descended from the Edain of the First Age, or from their close kin. Their languages were, therefore, related to the Adunaic, and some still preserved a likeness to the Common Speech. Of this kind were the peoples of the upper vales of Anduin: the Beornings, and the Woodmen of Western Mirkwood; and further north and east the Men of the Long Lake and of Dale. From the lands between the Gladden and the Carrock came the folk that were known in Gondor as the Rohirrim, Masters of Horses." (The Return of The King: Appendix F)
"The Eotheod had moved to those regions in the days of King Earnil II from the lands in the vales of Anduin between the Carrock and the Gladden, and they were in origin close akin to the Beornings and the men of the west-eaves of the forest." ( The Return of The King: Appendix A)
"These Northmen were descendants of the same race of Men as those who in the First Age passed into the West of Middle-earth and became the allies of the Eldar..." (Unfinished Tales: Cirion and Eorl)
"The Northmen appear to have been most nearly akin to the third and greatest of the peoples of the Elf-friends, ruled by the House of Hador." (ibid. Author's note.)
"Eorl the Young was lord of the Men of Eotheod. This land lay near the sources of the Anduin, between the upper ranges of the Misty Mountains and the northernmost parts of Mirkwood. Thither the Eotheod had removed some hundreds of years before from lands further south in the vale of Anduin. They were originally close kin of the Beornings and the men of the west-eaves of the forest; but they loved best the plains and wide fields, and they delighted in horses and in all feats of horsemanship. In the days of Garman father of Eorl they had grown to a numerous people somewhat straitened in the land of their home." (The Peoples of Middle-earth)
"East of the Misty Mountains, even far to the north, the Common Speech was known; though there, as in Esgaroth, or in Dale, or among the Beornings and the Woodmen of the west-eaves of Mirkwood, Men also retained their own tongues in daily use. The Eorlings, or the Rohirrim as they were called in Gondor, still used their own northern tongue; for the Riders of Rohan had come out of Eotheod near the sources of Anduin only some five hundred years before the days here spoken of. Yet all but their humbler folk spoke also the Common Speech after the manner of Gondor." (The Book of Lost Tales vol.12)
Why a Class
The Beornings are a branch of the race of Man, related to the Rohirrim, the Men of Dale, and the Woodmen, as quoted above. Why then did I propose this as a Class? Because for all intents and purposes the suggestion I was making would be treated as a Class. I imagined all Racial Traits to be those of the Race of Man, and the Skills and Trait Lines to be based upon being a Beorning (i.e. taking bear's form, fighting with bite attacks and claw rends, calling upon their great bees, instilling fear with roars etc, as detailed below). I imagined this would be the simplest and most straightforward way to implement, however there are various alternative approaches to this issues that may be preferable.
Alternatives - In character creation, among the Race choices of Man, Elf, Hobbit, and Dwarf, Beorning could be added as a sub-race of Man. The Class name could then be Skin-changer. Or, in character creation, if you select Race of Man, one of the options in the Class box could be Beornings, but say (sub-race) next to it. This is my preference. In the little Class Info blurb box describing what they are, the heritage of the Beornings as a sub-race of Man who are skin-changers, able to take bear's form, could be briefly explained. In the following screen to Select Origin, Vales of Anduin might be the only option as a Beorning, though their lands as described in the books are near Dale and not far from Rohan, so those might also be options.
History became legend, and legend became myth, and some things that should not have been forgotten were lost...
P.S. Tolkien left it undefined and vague as to how Beorn and the Beornings took bear's form. There are, to my knowledge, no quotes anywhere that describe how this change was effected. It is therefore NOT legitimate to assert as though it's factual that this is a hereditary trait. It definitely seems possible that it was hereditary, since Tolkien does say it's carried on by Beorn's descendants, but Tolkien also specifically mentions that Beorn was something of a magician, and that he knew Radagast, therefore it's also possible this was some learned magic, passed along in the family. Heredity may seem more likely, but it is still speculation on our part.
It's overwhelmingly implied that it is inherited, because:
- it's specific to Beorn and 'the men of his line'
- Beorn's descendants are lesser than he is, not so big or strong
- it's eventually lost, after many generations
It would be disingenuous to pretend that it's magic that could simply be learned. If it were possible for Men to learn how to change their shape by magic, then Elves should have been doing it all the time. They don't. Nor was Tolkien keen on the idea that magic could be acquired by learning alone, there was always the concept of power being innate to the individual and only being present in Men by rare exception.
P.P.S We do have a prior precedent in Tolkien's works on Middle-earth of a sort of skin-changing, where Beren takes the form of Draugluin, a wolf, and Lúthien take the form of Thuringwethil, a vampire bat.
Luthien was the daughter of a Maia and plainly possessed of extraordinary power. That takes it way out of our league, so to speak, no precedent whatsoever as far as Men are concerned.
From the LOTRO Lorebook Official Lore entry on Beornings: The heirs of Beorn. The Men who dwelt in the Vales of Anduin between Mirkwood and the Great River. The were led by the descendants of Beorn, who for many generations retained their ancestor's ability to take the shape of a bear.
And isn't that what I've been saying all along, that the Beornings were Men who were led by Beorn's descendants, and it was the latter who could take bear's-shape? As I've said previously, from a storytelling point of view it's pretty damn cool to have a people led by a clan whose menfolk could turn into bears; the story needs nothing else, no great mass of bear-folk. After only eighty years or so, there are limits to how large that clan could have grown and hence how many skin-changers there could be. Then we have to allow for how the second-generation skin-changers (Beorn's sons) would have grown old (as we know Grimbeorn had), and that some of the most recent generation would be too young to fight. Common sense suggests there couldn't have been that many of them who were of fighting age.
Gimli asks about the Rohirrim, "What do you know of these horsemen, Aragorn?" And he answers, "...It was in forgotten years long ago that Eorl the Young brought them out of the North, and their kinship is rather with the Bardings of Dale, and with the Beornings of the Wood, among whom may still be seen many men tall and fair, as are the Riders of Rohan. At least they will not love the Orcs."." (The Two Towers: The Riders of Rohan)
Establishing that the Beornings were predominantly Northmen much like the Bardings or the Eorlingas. No surprise there, given where they lived. None of that supports the idea of playable skin-changers in any way. The same goes for the rest of those quotes: I think you simply slap all that down to make your posts look more erudite, so that your own contrived notions look better by association.
So indeed, why a class when apart from their exotic leadership, the Beornings were essentially just another bunch of Northmen? We already have Men from Rohan and Dale in the game.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Jun 03 2012 at 08:46 AM.
Translation: Why have a game at all, when we can just read the books?
That's a good point. My answer is: because it would be fun.
No, it's more like why force player-character werebears on the setting when there's plenty of good stuff to go on without doing that. Again, note that the game doesn't include fully playable Rangers or Noldor just because people think it would be fun. As ever, the "it's a game, it's supposed to be fun" argument fails and fails hard because there's more to it than that.
Remember, this whole 'Beorning' business is only a player suggestion, not something that Turbine are planning to do or have ever even so much as hinted that they might consider (so far as I recall, at least).
No, it's more like why force player-character werebears on the setting when there's plenty of good stuff to go on without doing that.
Fair enough. If it were up to me, we wouldn't have Rune-keepers either. If it were up to you, we wouldn't even have playable hobbits I imagine.
Again, note that the game doesn't include fully playable Rangers or Noldor just because people think it would be fun. As ever, the "it's a game, it's supposed to be fun" argument fails and fails hard because there's more to it than that.
Half the RP kins on Landroval are made up of Rangers. They dress like Rangers, have names like "Descendants of the Numenor", etc. One of the problems with adding a Ranger race is that everyone would want to be one, instead of Man; sort of like SW and Jedi. I think they could have a "ranger-ish" class (that is, one inspired by rangers), and it would fit into the game just fine. If we can have a hunter class inspired by Legolas, why not have a ranger one inspired by Aragorn and/or the Dunedain?
I guess with skin-changers, I find them less lore-breaking than RKs (or even LMs).
So instead of "true" skin-changers, what if they had a class based on Beornings that would work like this. It would be a medium armor, 2H-axe-weilding (or unarmed?) melee class. It would have skills like "Bear Claw" and combat animations that showed a "ghosted" bear paw when the player attacked. Just like the LM attacks with an Ent-ghost, or FMs show spider-ghosts, etc.
RKs are supposedly not using magic; they use words to affect the morale of their friends and enemies. The animations are just done as magical lightning or fire attacks (which would be fine, if the rest of us could toggle them off, but that's another issue).
Why couldn't a "skin-changer-inspired" class work the same way? I know that's not what the OP is asking for, but it might be a palatable compromise. Let those who want it, have the fun of playing a skin-changer, and let those who would find that immersion/lore-breaking toggle the graphics off.
Fair enough. If it were up to me, we wouldn't have Rune-keepers either. If it were up to you, we wouldn't even have playable hobbits I imagine.
I'm no fan of RKs either, as you may have gathered, and had it been up to me, well... I guess some folks just have to have their 'mage' class but the styling could have been very different. None of that elemental nonsense, no clutching a silly little rock. There were plenty of good suggestions at the time it was announced for how to make it tolerably Tolkienesque, but of course that wasn't the design brief Turbine's management had given the devs.
Playable hobbits, on the other hand, are probably a price that absolutely has to be paid. Hobbit Guardians are ridiculous, though.
Half the RP kins on Landroval are made up of Rangers. They dress like Rangers, have names like "Descendants of the Numenor", etc. One of the problems with adding a Ranger race is that everyone would want to be one, instead of Man; sort of like SW and Jedi.
...which is, I believe, the reason why they're not included. That and the fact that Rangers weren't adventurers, they wouldn't go around doing the sort of thing adventurers might do. Ranging was serious business
I think they could have a "ranger-ish" class (that is, one inspired by rangers), and it would fit into the game just fine. If we can have a hunter class inspired by Legolas, why not have a ranger one inspired by Aragorn and/or the Dunedain?[/quote]
Fine by me as long as they called it something other than 'Ranger'.
I guess with skin-changers, I find them less lore-breaking than RKs (or even LMs).
I think shape-changing of any sort is something that's way too special in this setting for it to be in the hands of players.
So instead of "true" skin-changers, what if they had a class based on Beornings that would work like this. It would be a medium armor, 2H-axe-weilding (or unarmed?) melee class. It would have skills like "Bear Claw" and combat animations that showed a "ghosted" bear paw when the player attacked. Just like the LM attacks with an Ent-ghost, or FMs show spider-ghosts, etc.
I wouldn't mind a class with that sort of bear theme (not unarmed, mind, that'd be all kinds of wrong) but the obvious thing to do would be to make it a 'berserker' class and that's uncomfortably close to Champions.
RKs are supposedly not using magic; they use words to affect the morale of their friends and enemies. The animations are just done as magical lightning or fire attacks (which would be fine, if the rest of us could toggle them off, but that's another issue).
So Turbine tried to pretend but the spell descriptions give the game away. I know what you're getting at but that's just not a good example.
Why couldn't a "skin-changer-inspired" class work the same way? I know that's not what the OP is asking for, but it might be a palatable compromise. Let those who want it, have the fun of playing a skin-changer, and let those who would find that immersion/lore-breaking toggle the graphics off.
I see no problem with Beorn's descendants inspiring a sort of bear-cult in their followers, and making a class out of that with a bear theme. After all, we've got those wolf-themed Gauredain blokes in the game already. Mind you, no wearing bearskins, for obvious reasons!
::hands Radhruin a bottle of ibuprofen cuz his head has got to hurt after banging it against all those brick walls::
Rad, you deserve an award...I would've started name calling out of frustration by now...plus you say it all better than I could.
Someone gave me negative rep for giving Rad props for having a lot of patience....really??? Somehow I'm not too surprised...fight the good fight Rad!! LOL!
Skin-Changing could sound absurd, maybe if it works are "Hobbit throw rocks" just are a visual/cosmetic animation would people still have a problem with this?
For me would be great to able to transform into a bear in-game and attack a Boss in a raid, literally even if my skills are gone and I just have a different set of skills (bear skills) even then would be amazing, hopefully still useful for the raid grp to have a bear tackling the boss.
I see many possibilities for this idea to happen, this is not eagle mounts or a wacko suggestion in my opinion.
Skin-Changing could sound absurd, maybe if it works are "Hobbit throw rocks" just are a visual/cosmetic animation would people still have a problem with this?
How is that supposed to work, exactly? That seems like a cop-out.
For me would be great to able to transform into a bear in-game and attack a Boss in a raid, literally even if my skills are gone and I just have a different set of skills (bear skills) even then would be amazing, hopefully still useful for the raid grp to have a bear tackling the boss.
I see many possibilities for this idea to happen, this is not eagle mounts or a wacko suggestion in my opinion.
Beorn acted as a deus ex machina plot device in The Hobbit every bit as much as the Eagles did. When all seemed lost, he came charging in out of left field, tore through Bolg's bodyguard and then pulled down and crushed Bolg himself, thus winning the Battle of Five Armies for the good guys.
It's not dissimilar to Eagle mounts, in that: in both cases it's players wanting to appropriate something cool from the books for themselves, regardless of how special it's supposed to be.
How is that supposed to work, exactly? That seems like a cop-out.
Just saying transforming into bear could work different ways, even just as a cosmetic/travel thing and work for a race/class in game.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Beorn acted as a deus ex machina plot device in The Hobbit every bit as much as the Eagles did. When all seemed lost, he came charging in out of left field, tore through Bolg's bodyguard and then pulled down and crushed Bolg himself, thus winning the Battle of Five Armies for the good guys.
It's not dissimilar to Eagle mounts, in that: in both cases it's players wanting to appropriate something cool from the books for themselves, regardless of how special it's supposed to be.
I don't think Beorn is that different then than Aragorn or Gandalf then, even then there are classes based on these characters or similar, Boern based class isn't as impacting as a Eagle Class for example, one of them is absurd and the other works (Beorn-like class)
I'll say what I say every time someone suggests a new class: unless game mechanics are created which demand a new role, there's no need for a new class. Every new class suggestion is simply a mish-mash of existing class abilities (you could argue that Warden and Rune-keeper meet that description). "How about a Champion-like class which can only wear medium armor and use 1-handed weapons, but can summon a pet?" or "How about a Hunter-like class which can only wear light armor but can heal?"
Just saying transforming into bear could work different ways, even just as a cosmetic/travel thing and work for a race/class in game.
So basically pointless, then. Messing with lore for the sake of it.
I don't think Beorn is that different then than Aragorn or Gandalf then, even then there are classes based on these characters or similar, Boern based class isn't as impacting as a Eagle Class for example, one of them is absurd and the other works (Beorn-like class)
Notice how we don't even have fully playable Rangers. Why do you think that is?
I wasn't talking about an Eagle class at all, something that should have been obvious. You seem to have missed the point about the overuse of something which is primarily in the book as a deus ex machina. It would be crass to overuse the Eagles by having them helping the player-characters repeatedly (a line I hope Turbine aren't tempted to cross again, as once was more than enough) and in this setting it'd be crass to have player-characters who could turn into bears. I think people have become too casual about things like that, as a result of playing games which feature far less restrained fantasy (WoW being a particular case in point). What 'works' in a generic fantasy game doesn't necessarily work here.
I think this is a great idea but it should only be avaliable when purchased with tp. Overall, its well researched and I think it should be added to the game.
I just saw a bear named Beorn the other day. Seems Beorn has taken to following around Lore Masters like a puppy dog, maybe for the yummy bowls of oats or something...
Now, that is a lovely picture. But that can't be Beorn; it might be his father. Beorn is described (when in humanoid form) as
a huge man with a thick black beard and hair and great bare arms and legs with knotted muscles. He was vclothed in a tunic of wool down to his knees, and was leaning on a large axe.
A little later he is described as also having "bushy black eyebrows."
He is, of course, the Bear's Son of all kinds of Indo-European mythology including Beowulf. Philologists (such as Tolkien was) haven't been able to reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European word for "bear." Germanic "Bear" and "Baer" and "bruin" mean "brown." Slavic medved means "the one who knows honey." Latin ursus, Greek arktos, and Celtic artos are related to each other, and don't seem to mean anything other than "bear." But once (about fifty years ago, when I was majoring in Linguistics, which never got me anywhere) I read an old paper linking them with the Sanskrit root rk, meaning "to shine," which yields Rakshasa meaning a demon. So ... bears shine?? Yes: the Great Bear in the sky. It's a nice idea, anyway. I wish I had done more with PIE philology when I had the chance; but I was young and the guy who taught it terrified me.
If you want to see some amazing information on Norse mythology, Tolkien, Beowulf, Beorn, and the linguistic and historical roots and associations, check this link out!
That's a university website about the Saga of Hrolf Kraki, a very cool tale in it's own right, which has very strong connections to Beowulf. Actually if you click on the Characters link on that page, it charts a direct comparison of characters from each of these legends.
If you go to the link from that page to Extracts From Hrolf's Saga, you can see the background for Bjorn's transformation into a bear. It's super cool.
As a notable aside, Tolkien published a paper, and gave lectures on Beowulf, titled: "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" which Bruce Mitchell and Fred C. Robinson,(in their Beowulf, An Edition (1998), call "the most influential literary criticism of the poem ever written".
History became legend, and legend became myth, and some things that should not have been forgotten were lost...
Now, that is a lovely picture. But that can't be Beorn; it might be his father.
Tolkien didn't go in for that sort of anthropomorphism, so far as I'm aware. His werewolves are huge demonic wolves, for example, rather than the wolf-men of modern popular culture. As far as shape-changing goes, as you rightly pointed out Beorn was either a huge, powerfully-built guy with black hair and beard and busy eyebrows *or* he took the shape of a great black bear, not anything in-between. That follows Norse myth, which has characters taking animal shape entirely (like the Dwarf Ótr, who could change himself into an otter).
Really, Beornings are no different in substance than Numenorians, both seem to have had a gift that changed their bodies.
In any case, is there a more Iconic and unique class Idea in LOTR?
Possibly the Dunedain Ranger, or the Gondorian Tower Guard, but the Beorning is way up that list of unique and iconic.
It may just be a matter of time.
If you mean skin-changers then say skin-changers, because not all Beornings could do that, just Beorn's direct (and by implication, specifically male) descendants. I don't know why you mention LOTR there because the Beornings were barely even in it (they're mentioned a few times in passing but that's that).
Rangers are arguably far and away the most iconic 'class idea' in LOTR but you'll note that we don't have playable Rangers either, even after all this time. Never mind 'unique' and 'iconic', how about 'fits the game' when it comes to skin-changers (how would itemization work for them?), 'makes sense' (since the number of descendants Beorn might have had would sensibly be limited) and 'lore-friendly' (they were having to defend their own lands even before the Council of Elrond, in order to keep the road passable, and what sort of man of Beorn's line would abandon his homeland and his kin when all hell was about to be let loose?).
Either way, no less lore breaking than a Runekeeper (Which ignores everything about how magic works in Middle Earth).
Demand for an elemental mage class would have been very substantial. Jeff Steefel categorised such a class as essential to this sort of game. A shapechanging class is arguably not a vital element like that.
Oh, and one more thing that just occurred to me: LOTR doesn't mention skin-changing, so far as I recall, and if Turbine no longer have licensing for The Hobbit then by implication they cannot make any use of things that are only mentioned there. Having Beornings about the place would be okay, meeting Grimbeorn the Old would be okay, but no taking bear's-shape.
If you mean skin-changers then say skin-changers, because not all Beornings could do that, just Beorn's direct (and by implication, specifically male) descendants. I don't know why you mention LOTR there because the Beornings were barely even in it (they're mentioned a few times in passing but that's that).
Rangers are arguably far and away the most iconic 'class idea' in LOTR but you'll note that we don't have playable Rangers either, even after all this time. Never mind 'unique' and 'iconic', how about 'fits the game' when it comes to skin-changers (how would itemization work for them?), 'makes sense' (since the number of descendants Beorn might have had would sensibly be limited) and 'lore-friendly' (they were having to defend their own lands even before the Council of Elrond, in order to keep the road passable, and what sort of man of Beorn's line would abandon his homeland and his kin when all hell was about to be let loose?).
Demand for an elemental mage class would have been very substantial. Jeff Steefel categorised such a class as essential to this sort of game. A shapechanging class is arguably not a vital element like that.
Oh, and one more thing that just occurred to me: LOTR doesn't mention skin-changing, so far as I recall, and if Turbine no longer have licensing for The Hobbit then by implication they cannot make any use of things that are only mentioned there. Having Beornings about the place would be okay, meeting Grimbeorn the Old would be okay, but no taking bear's-shape.
Beornings are descendants of Beorn (hence the term BEORNing). The term can be used that way, and that is how I am using it.
Specifically I point out that this is a supernatural blessing that passes down via family line, much like the height and lifespan of the Dunedain.
We can go into how you hate the idea, but can you come up with one reason that Beornings would not fit that does not apply to Runekeepers and or Hobbits.
Also it is mentioned in the appendix, and since beornings are mentioned in the plain text, the appendix can be used.
Beornings are descendants of Beorn (hence the term BEORNing). The term can be used that way, and that is how I am using it.
Debunked earlier in the thread. There were a great many Beornings, and unless Beorn went around knocking up every girl in the North they couldn't all be his descendants. We're told be became the chief of many sturdy Men, not that he sired an entire people.
As also mentioned earlier in the thread, we have the Bardings, who weren't all descended from Bard, and also the Eorlingas, who weren't all descended from Eorl. So you can't just say 'hence' like that and insist on it IN CAPITALS. If anything, that would make it the odd one out if it were that way.
Specifically I point out that this is a supernatural blessing that passes down via family line, much like the height and lifespan of the Dunedain.
I doubt Tolkien thought it through like that when he was writing The Hobbit, and he doesn't seem to have bothered elsewhere (probably because Beorn couldn't be made to fit in with the very different way shape-changing was imagined in the Silmarillion). There is no 'official' explanation for Beorn.
We can go into how you hate the idea, but can you come up with one reason that Beornings would not fit that does not apply to Runekeepers and or Hobbits.
There were at least lots of hobbits (thousands?) but there couldn't have been very many skin-changers. They were the men of just one family, remember. I already explained why we got the RK in particular (any game without a mage would be appreciably less marketable, but shapechangers just don't have the same draw).
Also it is mentioned in the appendix, and since beornings are mentioned in the plain text, the appendix can be used.
Where is skin-changing mentioned in the Appendices, please? I had a look, but couldn't find anything. And besides, as I recall, something that is only mentioned in the Appendices cannot be used either. If it's not mentioned in the body of LOTR (which Beornings are, and Grimbeorn is, and honey-cakes are but skin-changing is not) then it's out of bounds, I thought.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Aug 28 2012 at 03:56 PM.
Beornings are descendants of Beorn (hence the term BEORNing). The term can be used that way, and that is how I am using it.
Jolly good, but that's not how Tolkien uses it. The cat can have her kittens in the oven -- doesn't make 'em buns.
Originally Posted by ararax2
Specifically I point out that this is a supernatural blessing that passes down via family line ...
Oh -- as in, Elbereth did it? Or "Orome made me a bear"?
I will point out, as I did long ago, that although it is not unreasonable to assume that some of Beorn's direct descendents were skin-changers, this isn't what the text says. The only person who is clearly and explicitly said to have the power of skin-changing is Beorn himself.
(Beren and Luthien, by the by, did NOT have this power. They used the skins of evil supernatural animals to effect their changes.)
Originally Posted by ararax2
We can go into how you hate the idea, but can you come up with one reason that Beornings would not fit that does not apply to Runekeepers and or Hobbits.
One of these days I am going to write the essay on why RKs are not lore-breaking (though I can't make the same argument on behalf of Lore-masters, and sadly, the best example of a Rune-keeper that I can think of is Saruman.)
Hobbits, on the other hand, are not a problem. Per Appendix B, hobbits were first mentioned as coming to Eriador in 1050. This means that they had to have been somewhere else first.
1050 The Periannath [hobbits] are first mentioned in records, with the coming of the Harfoots to Eriador.
1150 The Fallowhides enter Eriador. The Stoors come over the Redhorn Pass and move to the Angle, or to Dunland.
1300 ... The Periannath migrate westward; many settle at Bree.
That's three separate migrations into Eriador, referencing three of the hobbit groups.
And not to forget Gollum himself: "...there lived by the banks of the Great River on the edge of the Wilderland a clever-handed and quiet-footed little people. I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the Stoors ..." (Gandalf to Frodo, Chapter 2.
Hobbits seem to have been all over the map. LoTR focuses on the Shire hobbits, but that doesn't mean they were the only ones in the world. If we are going to allow ourselves to make assumptions and assume that some of Beorn's sons and grandsons had the ability to change skin, we should also assume that not all the hobbits from outside came to Eriador, nor that all the Eriadorian hobbits migrated to Bree and later to the Shire. It's quite plain that a number stayed in Bree, so there is no reason to suppose that others wouldn't have stayed in other places.
As regards a hobbit tanking a Balrog -- oh, don't be silly. NO ONE can tank a Balrog. Everyone who has tried it, died. The successful two took the Balrog with them (by falling off a great height, which just goes to show that Balrogs don't have wings.)
Originally Posted by ararax2
Also it is mentioned in the appendix, and since beornings are mentioned in the plain text, the appendix can be used.
Beornings are mentioned in the text as 1) being excellent bakers, and 2) having a leader who isn't so keen on dwarves.
If you want to propose a class called Baker based on the Beornings, go right ahead. I think it would be lovely to have some classes that just stayed home and did crafting.
~Memphis Belle~
Sikozu: Do you have any plan of escape?
Aeryn: Run.
Sikozu: Anything more detailed, Aeryn?
Aeryn: Run quickly.
I will point out, as I did long ago, that although it is not unreasonable to assume that some of Beorn's direct descendents were skin-changers, this isn't what the text says. The only person who is clearly and explicitly said to have the power of skin-changing is Beorn himself.
To be fair: it says clearly in The Hobbit that the men of Beorn's line retained the skin-changing ability for 'many generations', although they weren't as big or strong as he had been.
(Beren and Luthien, by the by, did NOT have this power. They used the skins of evil supernatural animals to effect their changes.)
Luthien was half-Maia so she could legitimately have all sorts of magical abilities. That said, I do find Tolkien's approach to be inconsistent there, because being able to change your own shape doesn't necessarily mean you can change someone else's.
One of these days I am going to write the essay on why RKs are not lore-breaking
Please don't. We've been around the buoy on that one so many times already.
Hobbits seem to have been all over the map. LoTR focuses on the Shire hobbits, but that doesn't mean they were the only ones in the world. If we are going to allow ourselves to make assumptions and assume that some of Beorn's sons and grandsons had the ability to change skin, we should also assume that not all the hobbits from outside came to Eriador, nor that all the Eriadorian hobbits migrated to Bree and later to the Shire. It's quite plain that a number stayed in Bree, so there is no reason to suppose that others wouldn't have stayed in other places.
The Shire and the Bree-land were implied to be the only places where hobbits lived comfortable settled lives. There were said to be hobbits living 'Outside' right enough but without the Rangers looking out for them, hobbits had to live differently - in holes (but not comfortable ones), surviving by hiding rather than living out in the open, by implication having to live in comparatively small groups so as not to give the game away by their numbers.
If we are going to allow ourselves to make assumptions and assume that some of Beorn's sons and grandsons had the ability to change skin...
It's plainly stated that Beorn's male descendants were Skin-changers. No assumption needed.
However, taking your example of Hobbits elsewhere, that is not to say that Beorn is the only source of the Skin-changing ability. It's implied he lived in a tribe of Skin-changers in the mountains who were attacked by Goblins. An assumption we could make is that Beorn was not the only survivor and that there are other lines out there.
That would be more than enough to have a Skin-changer race for the Hero of Eriador (I'm opposed to class because a class is something you can learn and Skin-changing is plainly an inherent ability).
Originally Posted by paebrain
which just goes to show that Balrogs don't have wings.
It's plainly stated that Beorn's male descendants were Skin-changers. No assumption needed.
I disagree. Here is the passage:
"Beorn indeed became a great chief ... and it is said that for many generations the men of his line had the power of taking bear's shape ..."
Please note the difference between the declarative "Beorn became a great chief" and the presumptive "it is said ... the men of his line had the power..." In the first instance, the author is stating a fact. In the second, the author is repeating what others say, but what he does not know to be true. Therefore, I hold that we cannot say for a fact that the descendants have the power of skin-changing, because the author does not say that. It's an assumption.
Originally Posted by Dorothir
It's implied he lived in a tribe of Skin-changers in the mountains who were attacked by Goblins. An assumption we could make is that Beorn was not the only survivor and that there are other lines out there.
I'll grant that, if you can provide a good reference in The Hobbit that the tribe had the same ability, and he wasn't a one-off?
Originally Posted by Dorothir
You mean 'don't have functional wings'.
I mean they don't have wings at all. The "wings" referred to in the text ("The Bridge of Khazad-Dum") are not physical wings, but a shadow that surrounds it. "... the shadow about it reaching out like two vast wings. " But certainly, supposing a Balrog to have parts that are not described, any wings it had would not be functional.
~Memphis Belle~
Sikozu: Do you have any plan of escape?
Aeryn: Run.
Sikozu: Anything more detailed, Aeryn?
Aeryn: Run quickly.
A shapeshifter would be the last one I'd think of when writing a class wishlist. But this suggestion is properly researched would be consistent to lore. Groar!
Last edited by Linfandel; Aug 29 2012 at 09:28 AM.
I support this suggestion: it is, at the very least, better defended and thought out than the runekeeper.... the OP is very well done. And, ulterior motive, I want to be a hobbit that turns into a teddy bear.
Draegon:
"stack all the morale you want but dont come on here wonderin why you aint hittin hard! "
Debunked earlier in the thread. There were a great many Beornings, and unless Beorn went around knocking up every girl in the North they couldn't all be his descendants. We're told be became the chief of many sturdy Men, not that he sired an entire people.
The way language works, especially in cultural indo-european ones, the O' family line such as O'Neills, the Plantagenets, the Ynglings, are dynastic, while ones like Wessex and Orange are governmental titles representing a people/place.
Therefore I use Beorning in the sense of the house of Beorn, as opposed to the woodsmen, it is also the way it is used in the War of the Ring game. I think everyone here agrees that shape changing only is Beorn's line, and when I refer to Beorning I refer to them as a comparison to the Dunedain, who are a distinct genetic line. That alone should tell you that I am refering to a gifted genetic line descending from Beorn.
Now the discussion about Beorn's tribe having the skill, is a different story.
As also mentioned earlier in the thread, we have the Bardings, who weren't all descended from Bard, and also the Eorlingas, who weren't all descended from Eorl. So you can't just say 'hence' like that and insist on it IN CAPITALS. If anything, that would make it the odd one out if it were that way.
Actually the Eorlings are probably 99% descended from or related to Eorl, considering that 99% of Europe is descended from Charlemagne in the 1200 years from his death, it is likely that in 500 years from Eorl's death, 99% of the Eorlings are descended from him, In many cases They are related to him via multiple paths.
The term can be used multiple ways. That is all I'm saying.
I doubt Tolkien thought it through like that when he was writing The Hobbit, and he doesn't seem to have bothered elsewhere (probably because Beorn couldn't be made to fit in with the very different way shape-changing was imagined in the Silmarillion). There is no 'official' explanation for Beorn.
Tolkien attributed it to a super natural event, beyond that he just did not think much of it, it is a book after all.
There were at least lots of hobbits (thousands?) but there couldn't have been very many skin-changers. They were the men of just one family, remember. I already explained why we got the RK in particular (any game without a mage would be appreciably less marketable, but shapechangers just don't have the same draw).
You are just making excuses, there is no reason other than marketability that a RK is in the game when a Beorning is not. Your whole argument boils down to people would rather play a mage then a druid. Which I think is pointless.
Where is skin-changing mentioned in the Appendices, please? I had a look, but couldn't find anything. And besides, as I recall, something that is only mentioned in the Appendices cannot be used either. If it's not mentioned in the body of LOTR (which Beornings are, and Grimbeorn is, and honey-cakes are but skin-changing is not) then it's out of bounds, I thought.
I believe it is Appendix F Peoples and Languages, But I will need to check. But IIRC, if someone or something is mentioned in the plain text even once, then it is likely open for usage in the appendix. If it is only Appendix, then it is off limits.
I mean they don't have wings at all. The "wings" referred to in the text ("The Bridge of Khazad-Dum") are not physical wings, but a shadow that surrounds it. "... the shadow about it reaching out like two vast wings. " But certainly, supposing a Balrog to have parts that are not described, any wings it had would not be functional.
It's entirely based on opinion whether they had wings or not. Some say the description of wings is solely the shadow, others think the description of wings was actual wings. You cannot just say that Balrogs didn't have wings as though it's true. We don't actually know.
The way language works, especially in cultural indo-european ones, the O' family line such as O'Neills, the Plantagenets, the Ynglings, are dynastic, while ones like Wessex and Orange are governmental titles representing a people/place.
Not demonstrably relevant.
Therefore I use Beorning in the sense of the house of Beorn, as opposed to the woodsmen, it is also the way it is used in the War of the Ring game. I think everyone here agrees that shape changing only is Beorn's line, and when I refer to Beorning I refer to them as a comparison to the Dunedain, who are a distinct genetic line. That alone should tell you that I am refering to a gifted genetic line descending from Beorn.
'Beornings' is a collective term for all of them, not just his line; Tolkien doesn't distinguish it like that and given that there were supposed to be a lot of Beornings, they can't sensibly all be descended from Beorn. And no, the Dunedain were not one distinct 'genetic line', but many which shared a common trait: their collective ancestors were all those Edain blessed by the Valar after the War of Wrath, not just one guy.
As I already pointed out, when Tolkien does the -ing thing he doesn't tend to imply ancestry.
Now the discussion about Beorn's tribe having the skill, is a different story.
Actually the Eorlings are probably 99% descended from or related to Eorl, considering that 99% of Europe is descended from Charlemagne in the 1200 years from his death, it is likely that in 500 years from Eorl's death, 99% of the Eorlings are descended from him, In many cases They are related to him via multiple paths.
The term can be used multiple ways. That is all I'm saying.
I know it can be in general (i.e. outside of this context) but Eorl brought a large people with him to settle in Calenardhon, and they then took the name Eorlingas for themselves rather than calling themselves the Éothéod as they had previously. So no, Eorlingas means the kin and followers of Eorl, as with the Bardings being the kin and followers of Bard, and by very strong implication (unless skin-changers bred like rabbits) it'd be so for the Beornings as well.
Tolkien attributed it to a super natural event, beyond that he just did not think much of it, it is a book after all.
[citation needed]
Sorry, but this is Tolkien we're talking about here, where in so many cases he'd racked his brains to explain why things were the way they were. The difference is that he didn't bother for The Hobbit because there he was writing a story for children, nothing serious (it wasn't supposed to tie in with anything else, it was written to be fully standalone). It's no good saying "it is a book after all" as if that's all the explanation that's needed!
You are just making excuses, there is no reason other than marketability that a RK is in the game when a Beorning is not. Your whole argument boils down to people would rather play a mage then a druid. Which I think is pointless.
No, I'm being realistic. Jeff Steefel said that there has to be a mage class in a game of this sort, and the only reason there would have to be one would be the marketability of what was supposed to be a mainstream game - there are a lot of people who say they always play mages. If shape-changers were an equal draw, a must-have, then we would have them already for that reason (unless, of course, the rights-holder has already turned round and said "No!"). The idea of a shape-changing class is a late accretion to FRPGs, whereas mages are a classic archetype (along with warriors, thieves etc.) and hence more missed if absent.
I believe it is Appendix F Peoples and Languages, But I will need to check. But IIRC, if someone or something is mentioned in the plain text even once, then it is likely open for usage in the appendix. If it is only Appendix, then it is off limits.
There's a passing mention of the Beornings in Appendix F, but no mention of skin-changing so far as I could see. It's the latter that I'm saying could easily be out of bounds because so far as I'm aware it's not mentioned in LOTR at all.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Aug 29 2012 at 02:57 PM.
'Beornings' is a collective term for all of them, not just his line; Tolkien doesn't distinguish it like that and given that there were supposed to be a lot of Beornings, they can't sensibly all be descended from Beorn. And no, the Dunedain were not one distinct 'genetic line', but many which shared a common trait: their collective ancestors were all those Edain blessed by the Valar after the War of Wrath, not just one guy.
As I already pointed out, when Tolkien does the -ing thing he doesn't tend to imply ancestry.
Actually you have pointed out nothing of the kind, you havent even proven that there were non family members of Beorn that were considered and called Beornings. You just assume for each case there is no ancestry, and then build circular reasoning.
You replace Beornings with Tooks and you get the same exact meaning.
Beorn was the leader of many stout men, not many stout Beornings. The Beornings kept the path open in that the core group of Beorn's household and his men kept it open.
And yes after so much time on Numenor, all of the Dunedain are related to each other. They all recieved a genetic gift, and it was passed down genetically.
I know it can be in general (i.e. outside of this context) but Eorl brought a large people with him to settle in Calenardhon, and they then took the name Eorlingas for themselves rather than calling themselves the Éothéod as they had previously. So no, Eorlingas means the kin and followers of Eorl, as with the Bardings being the kin and followers of Bard, and by very strong implication (unless skin-changers bred like rabbits) it'd be so for the Beornings as well.
[citation needed]
Firstly Eorlingas and Eorlings are used, Second, they are based on the old English.
Ing denotes "belonging to, son of"
So again your assuming that it is always used in the same case. From the beginning I stated that it can be used both ways, and it is used both ways. In Old, Modern, and Tolkien English.
Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a man
letter 144
And we all know where Men get magic.
Sorry, but this is Tolkien we're talking about here, where in so many cases he'd racked his brains to explain why things were the way they were. The difference is that he didn't bother for The Hobbit because there he was writing a story for children, nothing serious (it wasn't supposed to tie in with anything else, it was written to be fully standalone). It's no good saying "it is a book after all" as if that's all the explanation that's needed!
No, I'm being realistic. Jeff Steefel said that there has to be a mage class in a game of this sort, and the only reason there would have to be one would be the marketability of what was supposed to be a mainstream game - there are a lot of people who say they always play mages. If shape-changers were an equal draw, a must-have, then we would have them already for that reason (unless, of course, the rights-holder has already turned round and said "No!"). The idea of a shape-changing class is a late accretion to FRPGs, whereas mages are a classic archetype (along with warriors, thieves etc.) and hence more missed if absent.
So you agree, if Shape changers are profitable, LOTRO should get them?
There's a passing mention of the Beornings in Appendix F, but no mention of skin-changing so far as I could see. It's the latter that I'm saying could easily be out of bounds because so far as I'm aware it's not mentioned in LOTR at all.
I may be remembering HOME and not the Appendix, I will have to get back to you on that.
Actually you have pointed out nothing of the kind, you havent even proven that there were non family members of Beorn that were considered and called Beornings. You just assume for each case there is no ancestry, and then build circular reasoning.
Given that there were a lot of Beornings, that would be too many for them all to share the same ancestry given that only a few generations (three and a bit) at most could have passed since Beorn's day. That's just common sense, unless as I said you assume that skin-changers breed like rabbits.
You replace Beornings with Tooks and you get the same exact meaning.
Not a good comparison because the Tooks had been around for a long, long time and so there could readily be so many of them. Besides which, Took was definitely and solely a family surname. So no, not the same.
Beorn was the leader of many stout men, not many stout Beornings. The Beornings kept the path open in that the core group of Beorn's household and his men kept it open.
Tolkien never differentiates in that fashion and calls them Beornings collectively. There are supposed to be a lot of them, remember?
And yes after so much time on Numenor, all of the Dunedain are related to each other. They all recieved a genetic gift, and it was passed down genetically.
Using the term 'genetic' in a fantasy context is silly, especially as it doesn't work like that as described (it's a trait that weakens with time even though there's no intermarriage between them and other Men). It acts like what it is, a blessing that lessens as they lose faith. And no, it hardly seems likely that out of a large population, they all became related to each other. Wouldn't that make them inbred?
Firstly Eorlingas and Eorlings are used, Second, they are based on the old English.
Ing denotes "belonging to, son of"
So again your assuming that it is always used in the same case. From the beginning I stated that it can be used both ways, and it is used both ways. In Old, Modern, and Tolkien English.
Yes, it's used in both meanings at the same time. Kin and followers. You're the one who's trying to make out it's exclusively kin in the case of the Beornings (my, how convenient!), when in the other two it's definitely both kin and followers.
Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a man
letter 144
And we all know where Men get magic.
That's a skin-changer AND a bit of a magician. The two aren't linked in that sentence.
So you agree, if Shape changers are profitable, LOTRO should get them?
Don't play games. That is not what I said: shape-changers don't have the same draw that mages do, so you shouldn't assume they should get the same exception.
I may be remembering HOME and not the Appendix, I will have to get back to you on that.
Fair enough but I'm pretty sure LOTR doesn't mention it (that's why I was surprised when you said it) and that, of course, is what matters.
Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Aug 29 2012 at 05:12 PM.
To be fair: it says clearly in The Hobbit that the men of Beorn's line retained the skin-changing ability for 'many generations', although they weren't as big or strong as he had been.
I'm still disagreeing with this. The text very clearly says "it is said", not "it is". Therefore, the source of the information is unreliable. That means that the descendents might or might not have had the ability. I acknowledge the validity of the argument that the descendents might have had the ability, but I don't acknowledge it as a stated fact.
Frankly (to get back into the extrapolation zone), if I were a person living in Beorn-lands, with all sorts of nasty enemies around, and my big chief had the ability to turn into a super-powerful bear and wallop the living daylights out of every goblin in reach -- thereby making himself much feared by said goblins, I'd sure enough keep the story alive that his son had the same ability. It might just keep the nasty enemies away for a bit longer. Heck yeah, I'd be one of the "sayers" in the "it is said" part of the story. I'd say it to everyone who passed through town.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Luthien was half-Maia so she could legitimately have all sorts of magical abilities. That said, I do find Tolkien's approach to be inconsistent there, because being able to change your own shape doesn't necessarily mean you can change someone else's.
She might could (have magical abilities) and apparently did, given her performance in overcoming Morgoth. But shape-changing in this way is an extrapolation not supported by the text. One could argue that the Maiar do have the ability to take new shapes -- Sauron definitely did, and possibly Arien and Tilion as well. But The Silmarillion is something of a shapeshifter itself, so it's hard to argue anything definitively that doesn't come into the self-contained (more or less) stories that it contains. Tolkien was not a brilliant theologian, and his myth-making tends to be inconsistent and full of holes. (How, for example, did Melkor become corrupt?) So anything about Eru, the Valar, and the Maiar is dicey.
Since the only thing we know is that B & L had to have those skins to be disguised, the implication is that the power was in the skins and not themselves. The wolf and the bat were both supernatural creatures.
But I agree that Tolkien is inconsistent all around. Prof. Olsen says that Tolkien never published anything until it was practically ripped from his hands. He was always in the process of "making": nothing was ever complete. He doesn't clean up inconsistencies. The chapter "Strider" contains vestiges of Strider's original incarnation as a hobbit who had been tortured by the Nazgul, just as "The King of the Golden Hall" contains vestiges of the original Aragorn/Eowyn romance. That's why nothing can be taken as canon outside the three published works (The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion), because everything else is working papers -- thoughts in flux. Even The Hobbit has to be taken with a grain of salt, and Tolkien did revise it so it was a bit more consistent with LotR. The entire canon is a tad unreliable.
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Please don't. We've been around the buoy on that one so many times already.
<grin>
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
The Shire and the Bree-land were implied to be the only places where hobbits lived comfortable settled lives.
Agreed. My point was that one cannot say, "Oh, it doesn't matter if we throw in some lore-impertinent beings, because we are already breaking the lore because we have hobbits all over the place, and the only place Tolkien had them was in the Shire!" (People often forget about Bree.) They don't come into the canon in any active way, but it's very clear in the Appendices that hobbits did not originate in the Shire.
=================
Originally Posted by ararax2
Though a skin-changer and no doubt a bit of a magician, Beorn was a man...
And we all know where Men get magic.
No, I don't think we all do know that. The only "magical" men I can think of offhand -- and it's a stretch -- are the Nazgul. Whom did you have in mind? Or are you saying that Men get magic from Evil Overlords, and Beorn had a Ring of Power?
Originally Posted by ararax2
Actually you have pointed out nothing of the kind, you havent even proven that there were non family members of Beorn that were considered and called Beornings. You just assume for each case there is no ancestry, and then build circular reasoning.
The origin of the Beornings is in Appendix F, "Of Men," the seventh paragraph, which begins "Most of the Men of the Northern Regions of the West-lands were descended from the Edain of the First Age, or from their close kin." In this paragraph, Tolkien describes "families" (not blood families) of Men based on their language families. Tolkien was, first and foremost, a philologist, not a world-builder. He made the languages first, and the stories came later. So we should pay very close attention any time he talks about language. He describes several related groups of humans, who include the Beornings and the Eorlings. These people are all related -- they have a common ancestry, and their languages are related.
Remember that line from the movie: "Follow the money"? In Tolkien, it's always "Follow the language".
The Beornings are referred to as a group that has a language. Therefore, they are not Beorn's direct male descendents. Further proof that they are a group of people, not a blood family, is in Gimli's remark about the honey-cakes of the Beornings, "for the Beornings are the best bakers I know of."
Would someone like to argue that Grimbeorn and his brothers and sons and nephews are bakers?
Last edited by paebrain; Aug 30 2012 at 01:43 AM.
~Memphis Belle~
Sikozu: Do you have any plan of escape?
Aeryn: Run.
Sikozu: Anything more detailed, Aeryn?
Aeryn: Run quickly.
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU
Senior Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Mosby, Founder of The Palantíri kinship (Landroval) - LotRO Charts Tumblr
Grand Member Online status:
Junior Member Online status:
Mosby, Founder of The Palantíri kinship (Landroval) - LotRO Charts Tumblr
Grand Member Online status:
Reputation:
Poster of Note Online status:
Member Online status:
"
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
