WildWeazel
Carthago Creanda Est
My only suggestion for the cities is to add some small tents and ash out around the edges and inside the walls.
Middle-Earth: Lord of the Mods (Private Beta I)
- Thread starter PCHighway
- Start date
@TLC
We're using the same gfx for the southrons as for Rohan. Only five culture groups, don'tcherknow.
I see what you mean about the evil city, maybe I can find a boring barracks/tent to stick in there...
Sauron made the Númenóreans build temples, maybe he made his own people do that as well.
Re: the giants.
It's looking good, as usual, but as Mithadan said it's not certain it can fit into the mod directly.
unless
Incidentally, I had a discussion with PCH yesterday about the troll gfx, and how I'm not very fond of the "anvil stuck to a toothpick" look of Kindred's first Troll ('s weapon). The discussion then went on to aaglos new ogre's, I think we should use those, while PCH think they look too human. I've grown up with John Bauer's troll art, and doesn't think "looking human" is a problem in trolls.
So, how should trolls look, and how are they looking?
Oh, and personally I think they should have pockets you can steal big talking keys out of.
We're using the same gfx for the southrons as for Rohan. Only five culture groups, don'tcherknow.
I see what you mean about the evil city, maybe I can find a boring barracks/tent to stick in there...
Sauron made the Númenóreans build temples, maybe he made his own people do that as well.
Re: the giants.
It's looking good, as usual, but as Mithadan said it's not certain it can fit into the mod directly.
unless
Incidentally, I had a discussion with PCH yesterday about the troll gfx, and how I'm not very fond of the "anvil stuck to a toothpick" look of Kindred's first Troll ('s weapon). The discussion then went on to aaglos new ogre's, I think we should use those, while PCH think they look too human. I've grown up with John Bauer's troll art, and doesn't think "looking human" is a problem in trolls.
So, how should trolls look, and how are they looking?
Oh, and personally I think they should have pockets you can steal big talking keys out of.
Oh! It sure looks rounder in the first pick.aaglo said:no, you may not say that the boulder is a bit too square, since it's completely random blob (it's the same blob in both pictures).
No biggie!
Ah, I see.aaglo said:
Trolls? I figger they should be humanlike, so aaglo's ogres are fine. In fact, aaglo's ogres aren't even half as humanlike as the Hobbit's illustrations of trolls from Tolkien's own pen, which (if memory serves) wore clothes like any other regular guy, and had names like "Bill." I can't imagine what sort of horrendous beast PCH thinks trolls look like if aaglo's ogres are too humanlike!
Interesting thought that "giants" and trolls are probably the same thing. Reinforces the thought that trolls should be human-like, don't it?
So what are the five city types that we'll be using, then? "Evil," Northmen-Southmen-Hobbits, Gondor-Arnor-Numenor, Elves & Dwarves?
aaglo
Furioso!
I'm sorry to litter this thread, but I was wondering, that I would do the stone giant the same size as the ogres - or would you people prefer it larger?
The inteded size is the surrounding smaller images.
The inteded size is the surrounding smaller images.
Greenlocke
Northern Hermit
Mithadan said:
I might be wrong, but I think that the term 'stone troll' was coined because the trolls turn to stone..right?
On to your other point re: stone troll ai. If the unit is immobile yet can bombard, do you mean that the ai will not use it to bombard? Even if it is not a barb unit?
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
As Mithadan said, JRRT apparently thought of trolls as looking quite human-like. Jackson's vision was decidedly more, well, xenomorphic. I don't think it matters awfully much what the gfx look like, as long as they're tolerably consistent between the different troll types. Personally I tend to think of trolls as quite non-human in appearance, but that's just me and having played too much Warhammer as a teen.
@aaglo: Would it be any extra work to speak of of making one troll-sized and one, well, giant-sized giant? Then modders could chose.
@aaglo: Would it be any extra work to speak of of making one troll-sized and one, well, giant-sized giant? Then modders could chose.
First I'd like to say to Aaglo, that that unit looks absolutely amazing . But I'm afraid this won't make it into the random map MOD. We probably have no need for giants who throw stones, however we will try our best to incorporate it into the MOD.
Second, I'd like to say to Mithadan, "you fool of a Took!"
You should know that we have far more pressing graphical needs than the unit suggested. We don't really need any more trolls, ogres, or giants. The Evil line by far has the most units available to them. Hobbits on the other hand, have something like 4 special unit graphics, and the rest are placeholders. It would be best for the people who will download and play the MOD if the team suggested more needed units in the name of LotM. I know what happened was an accident, but I still look at it like a missed opportunity.
Perhaps we can incorporate the unit as some type of ranged troll, who throws rocks. In other words, make it into a primitive weak bombard unit.
Bombard - barbarians.
Zxe, this has been tested by others Civ3 modders and myself. The only way to do this is to make a "barbarian" civ that is limited in settlers. We will need to make strides in both immobile bombard units and units who have Air unit bombing options. This goes for dragons as well.
I will be making a post soon about how trolls look.
. But I'm afraid this won't make it into the random map MOD. We probably have no need for giants who throw stones, however we will try our best to incorporate it into the MOD. Second, I'd like to say to Mithadan, "you fool of a Took!"
You should know that we have far more pressing graphical needs than the unit suggested. We don't really need any more trolls, ogres, or giants. The Evil line by far has the most units available to them. Hobbits on the other hand, have something like 4 special unit graphics, and the rest are placeholders. It would be best for the people who will download and play the MOD if the team suggested more needed units in the name of LotM. I know what happened was an accident, but I still look at it like a missed opportunity.
Perhaps we can incorporate the unit as some type of ranged troll, who throws rocks. In other words, make it into a primitive weak bombard unit.
Bombard - barbarians.
Zxe, this has been tested by others Civ3 modders and myself. The only way to do this is to make a "barbarian" civ that is limited in settlers. We will need to make strides in both immobile bombard units and units who have Air unit bombing options. This goes for dragons as well.
I will be making a post soon about how trolls look.
Why trolls do not have human like features.
I will base my argument largely around references from descriptions found in The Silmarillion and the Trilogy. I will purposely bypass much of what can be found in The Hobbit for two reasons. 1.) The subject on how The Hobbit conflicts with facts found in The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion is too large of a subject, and 2.) I will have a separate argument based on this issue further down. I believe that the heart of such an argument lies with how the Hobbit is a child's fairytale, and how we have dismissed evidence from the book before.
The Trilogy
Trolls are far from human, they were made in mockery of Ents, and therefore have little to do with men, or as said earlier, humans. I submit, as the first piece of evidence a description of the cave troll form the Fellowship of the ring. Tolkien describes that the troll itself was quite large in size. Tolkien uses terms such as "great" and "huge" to describe the arms and feet of the troll. He also says, in the same paragraph, that the trolls had a "dark skin with greenish scales." Scales, green scales no less, are hardly human like. Tolkien also identifies that the troll had no toes on its feet. This is by far one of the best descriptions of a troll's appearance in details, though it is not the only one.
In the escape from Moria, two large trolls had bore "great slabs" of stone, and hurled them over fire, to act as "gangways" for the Orcs to get across. Let's think about this for a minute. These beasts can carry what is effectively a massive, flat, broad boulder a fair distance, then throw them to bridge a fire. This seems like a feat that requires great girth and strength to achieve. Some have remarked that Peter Jackson's trolls look too much like body builders, I have reasoned that the feats that these trolls regularly performed must have required abnormal muscle-strength. These weren't the fat, bumbling, and cute trolls like the ones Mrtn showed in his link to John Bauer's artwork (and that semi-appear in the hobbit).
Tolkien often compares the Ents to trolls, discussing how the Dark Lord made them as "counterfeits" of the trolls. He mentions that Ents were as tall as trolls "12 feet." This implies that trolls were probably taller than most Ents were. The trolls must have varied in height, for you can see this when they talk about Grond, not the hammer, but the battering ram Sauron used to take down the gate of Minas Tirith. The hammer itself was made of a 100ft tree. Two mountain trolls were the ones responsible for slamming a 100ft tree, with a steel caped head, into the gate of Minas Tirith. That would require a lot of strength, and Tolkien puts emphasis on it. "Grond was hurled forward by huge hands. It reached the gate. It swung. A deep boom rumbled through the city like thunder through the clouds."
Also concurring with Tolkien's varying troll sizes and breeds, there is a nice description of a company of hill-trolls. Tolkien describes them like so: "taller and broader than men they were" this doesn't seem like much, but I wish to illustrate something here. This is a big obvious, blinking neon sign. Tolkien's doesn't mention size unless it means something. If he says broader than a man, he means broader than any human. Take note of that, here is the rest of the quote: "They were clad in only a close fitting mesh of horny scales, or maybe that was their hideous hide." This shows that these variation of trolls was probably shorter than most other trolls. But they were nonetheless taller than, more grotesque, and broader (think muscles) than any man. They didn't bother with clothes in battle. Why the hell would they bother with clothes at any other time then? Yet even here, Tolkien speculates that that was their skin! No human-like form has scales. No human-like form has horny scales either.
Tolkien, in the same paragraph, goes on to say how they "roared" and "bellowed" like beasts (further pushing the impression they weren't humans), and had knotted hands. Knotted, like a steroid-pumped up body-builder, Mrtn. They were reckless, a more beast-like than human-like trait. They were tall enough to aim down, as Tolkien gives specific mention that they "beat upon helm and head," like "smiths hewing the hot bending iron." Again, this implies the trolls were quite strong. These trolls, after knocking an important adversary down, would bite the throats of their enemies. Here is a quote: "
bent over him, reaching out a clutching claw; for these fell creatures would bite the throats of those they threw down." Pippin then stabbed the troll, and black blood gushed out. The troll fell down, and buried some soldiers underneath him; "like a rock."
Fell creature? Claw? Throat-biting? Black blood?
Human-like? I don't think so.
The Sil
Speaking of black blood, let's move onto The Silmarillion. Here is a direct quote:
" Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed; and it is sung that the axe smoked in the black blood of the troll-guard of Gothmog until it withered, and each time that he slew Húrin cried: 'Aurë entuluva! Day shall come again!'"
That's right, 'smoked in the black blood of the troll guard.' Until the freaking blade withered. The blood, logically then, was most likely very hot. Variances in blood is something Tolkien uses often to differentiate between creatures and humans. Dragons, indeed are another example. Dragons could talk like humans, dragons were in many cases smarter than humans, but they were not human-like in any physical resemblance.
The Hobbit
The Hobbit was written in the spirit of a children's book. That much should be universally agreed upon. Mrtn and Mithadan agreed upon it in the past, ironically, when we were talking about Giants and if they had a place in the MOD.
The Hobbit was written for children, then. It was simplified, and the gory details removed. You don't hear about the frightening trolls with horny green scales, no toes, and hot black blood, who tear the throats out of men with their mouths. You won't hear anything about that in a children's book, for obvious reasons. Does that mean that all of The Hobbit is incorrect, and that we should throw it out? Of course not.
But I want you people to question this. The MOD is about ME. Why are the cute bumbling trolls nowhere to be found in LotR (besides as statues) and Tolkien's notes of ME, which forms a large part of the Silmarillion? The Hobbit, while based in ME, is meant to be told like a fable, like an old fairytale. It isn't meant to be the epic that LotR and the other tales of ME are. It is distinctly "Hobbit-like" and cute for a reason. That reason isn't the stuff that inspires people to make Civ3 MODs.
The Encyclopedia of Arda
TEA gives some insight about The Hobbit when talking about giants, here is a quote:
"It's important to remember that, at the time he was writing The Hobbit, Tolkien was engaged in writing a simple children's story. It's unlikely that he gave much thought to fitting the giants into a larger scheme. Indeed, at that point, the Ents did not even exist in his imagination, so any later explanation - if indeed he devised one at all - must have been fitted to the facts after the event."
This goes into context to show you just how far out there The Hobbit, like some information in The Lost Tales, is from LotR and ME as we know it. It is fair to assume then that trolls were un-human. TEA goes on to say that the Trolls were looked at by Tolkien as "demons" which can be seen with this quote, also from TEA: "The 'rog' element of torog is reminiscent of the same element in Balrog, and the two may share a derivation from rauko, 'demon'. Following this, and hints from The Etymologies (in volume 5 of The History of Middle-earth, a possible source of the name would be taur rhaug, where taur means 'vast, mighty, overwhelming, awful', and rhaug is the origin of 'rog', 'demon'. Hence - assuming this speculation has any basis in reality - the name 'torog' would mean 'mighty demon'."
My Conclusions
I can not, for the life of me, base my views of what a troll is off of The Hobbit. Nor can I entirely base them off of what Jackson, Alan Lee, or John Howe made them out to be. I can base them off of my imagination however. I believe that these trolls looked very un-human. I think that they were beasts, creatures, dumber than orcs but not less cruel.
The graphics available are Aaglo's awesome looking Ogre's, and Kindred72' realistic movie trolls. I think, that by very definition, Ogre's are more human-like than the trolls that Tolkien described are. For this reason, I can't jump on the bandwagon for replacing Kindred72's trolls with the Ogres. Jackson's vision, while certainly not entirely canonical, fits the whole "bellowing" "fell beast" idea, pushing it too an extreme. But none-the-less, I'd take the extreme over pretty much anything else.
Also, there are only three Ogre's, one of which has gunpowder, and one of which carries a scimitar. In my mind, those, while great-looking, they don't fit Tolkien's description of trolls in the epic ME universe. There are 3 troll units; the Stone Troll, Cave Troll, and Olog-hai. We will need to use some of Kindred72's even if we took the scimitar Ogre. What then? We have hyper-realistic Jackson inspired trolls upgrading, or being upgraded to, human-like Ogres? That doesn't fly with me, I don't like it.
But the third Ogre, the one with the spikes is a must have. It has bone, horn you could say, armor, and an awesome hammer. Better yet, its face is completely covered in a (LotR movie inspired?) helmet. This fits will with the more intelligent Olog-hai. So, I saw we take that unit, and leave Kindred72's other two trolls where they are.
I will base my argument largely around references from descriptions found in The Silmarillion and the Trilogy. I will purposely bypass much of what can be found in The Hobbit for two reasons. 1.) The subject on how The Hobbit conflicts with facts found in The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion is too large of a subject, and 2.) I will have a separate argument based on this issue further down. I believe that the heart of such an argument lies with how the Hobbit is a child's fairytale, and how we have dismissed evidence from the book before.
The Trilogy
Trolls are far from human, they were made in mockery of Ents, and therefore have little to do with men, or as said earlier, humans. I submit, as the first piece of evidence a description of the cave troll form the Fellowship of the ring. Tolkien describes that the troll itself was quite large in size. Tolkien uses terms such as "great" and "huge" to describe the arms and feet of the troll. He also says, in the same paragraph, that the trolls had a "dark skin with greenish scales." Scales, green scales no less, are hardly human like. Tolkien also identifies that the troll had no toes on its feet. This is by far one of the best descriptions of a troll's appearance in details, though it is not the only one.
In the escape from Moria, two large trolls had bore "great slabs" of stone, and hurled them over fire, to act as "gangways" for the Orcs to get across. Let's think about this for a minute. These beasts can carry what is effectively a massive, flat, broad boulder a fair distance, then throw them to bridge a fire. This seems like a feat that requires great girth and strength to achieve. Some have remarked that Peter Jackson's trolls look too much like body builders, I have reasoned that the feats that these trolls regularly performed must have required abnormal muscle-strength. These weren't the fat, bumbling, and cute trolls like the ones Mrtn showed in his link to John Bauer's artwork (and that semi-appear in the hobbit).
Tolkien often compares the Ents to trolls, discussing how the Dark Lord made them as "counterfeits" of the trolls. He mentions that Ents were as tall as trolls "12 feet." This implies that trolls were probably taller than most Ents were. The trolls must have varied in height, for you can see this when they talk about Grond, not the hammer, but the battering ram Sauron used to take down the gate of Minas Tirith. The hammer itself was made of a 100ft tree. Two mountain trolls were the ones responsible for slamming a 100ft tree, with a steel caped head, into the gate of Minas Tirith. That would require a lot of strength, and Tolkien puts emphasis on it. "Grond was hurled forward by huge hands. It reached the gate. It swung. A deep boom rumbled through the city like thunder through the clouds."
Also concurring with Tolkien's varying troll sizes and breeds, there is a nice description of a company of hill-trolls. Tolkien describes them like so: "taller and broader than men they were" this doesn't seem like much, but I wish to illustrate something here. This is a big obvious, blinking neon sign. Tolkien's doesn't mention size unless it means something. If he says broader than a man, he means broader than any human. Take note of that, here is the rest of the quote: "They were clad in only a close fitting mesh of horny scales, or maybe that was their hideous hide." This shows that these variation of trolls was probably shorter than most other trolls. But they were nonetheless taller than, more grotesque, and broader (think muscles) than any man. They didn't bother with clothes in battle. Why the hell would they bother with clothes at any other time then? Yet even here, Tolkien speculates that that was their skin! No human-like form has scales. No human-like form has horny scales either
. Tolkien, in the same paragraph, goes on to say how they "roared" and "bellowed" like beasts (further pushing the impression they weren't humans), and had knotted hands. Knotted, like a steroid-pumped up body-builder, Mrtn
. They were reckless, a more beast-like than human-like trait. They were tall enough to aim down, as Tolkien gives specific mention that they "beat upon helm and head," like "smiths hewing the hot bending iron." Again, this implies the trolls were quite strong. These trolls, after knocking an important adversary down, would bite the throats of their enemies. Here is a quote: "
bent over him, reaching out a clutching claw; for these fell creatures would bite the throats of those they threw down." Pippin then stabbed the troll, and black blood gushed out. The troll fell down, and buried some soldiers underneath him; "like a rock."Fell creature? Claw? Throat-biting? Black blood?
Human-like? I don't think so.
The Sil
Speaking of black blood, let's move onto The Silmarillion. Here is a direct quote:
" Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed; and it is sung that the axe smoked in the black blood of the troll-guard of Gothmog until it withered, and each time that he slew Húrin cried: 'Aurë entuluva! Day shall come again!'"
That's right, 'smoked in the black blood of the troll guard.' Until the freaking blade withered
. The blood, logically then, was most likely very hot. Variances in blood is something Tolkien uses often to differentiate between creatures and humans. Dragons, indeed are another example. Dragons could talk like humans, dragons were in many cases smarter than humans, but they were not human-like in any physical resemblance.The Hobbit
The Hobbit was written in the spirit of a children's book. That much should be universally agreed upon. Mrtn and Mithadan agreed upon it in the past, ironically, when we were talking about Giants and if they had a place in the MOD.
The Hobbit was written for children, then. It was simplified, and the gory details removed. You don't hear about the frightening trolls with horny green scales, no toes, and hot black blood, who tear the throats out of men with their mouths. You won't hear anything about that in a children's book, for obvious reasons. Does that mean that all of The Hobbit is incorrect, and that we should throw it out? Of course not.
But I want you people to question this. The MOD is about ME. Why are the cute bumbling trolls nowhere to be found in LotR (besides as statues
) and Tolkien's notes of ME, which forms a large part of the Silmarillion? The Hobbit, while based in ME, is meant to be told like a fable, like an old fairytale. It isn't meant to be the epic that LotR and the other tales of ME are. It is distinctly "Hobbit-like" and cute for a reason. That reason isn't the stuff that inspires people to make Civ3 MODs.The Encyclopedia of Arda
TEA gives some insight about The Hobbit when talking about giants, here is a quote:
"It's important to remember that, at the time he was writing The Hobbit, Tolkien was engaged in writing a simple children's story. It's unlikely that he gave much thought to fitting the giants into a larger scheme. Indeed, at that point, the Ents did not even exist in his imagination, so any later explanation - if indeed he devised one at all - must have been fitted to the facts after the event."
This goes into context to show you just how far out there The Hobbit, like some information in The Lost Tales, is from LotR and ME as we know it. It is fair to assume then that trolls were un-human. TEA goes on to say that the Trolls were looked at by Tolkien as "demons" which can be seen with this quote, also from TEA: "The 'rog' element of torog is reminiscent of the same element in Balrog, and the two may share a derivation from rauko, 'demon'. Following this, and hints from The Etymologies (in volume 5 of The History of Middle-earth, a possible source of the name would be taur rhaug, where taur means 'vast, mighty, overwhelming, awful', and rhaug is the origin of 'rog', 'demon'. Hence - assuming this speculation has any basis in reality - the name 'torog' would mean 'mighty demon'."
My Conclusions
I can not, for the life of me, base my views of what a troll is off of The Hobbit. Nor can I entirely base them off of what Jackson, Alan Lee, or John Howe made them out to be. I can base them off of my imagination however. I believe that these trolls looked very un-human. I think that they were beasts, creatures, dumber than orcs but not less cruel.
The graphics available are Aaglo's awesome looking Ogre's, and Kindred72' realistic movie trolls. I think, that by very definition, Ogre's are more human-like than the trolls that Tolkien described are. For this reason, I can't jump on the bandwagon for replacing Kindred72's trolls with the Ogres. Jackson's vision, while certainly not entirely canonical, fits the whole "bellowing" "fell beast" idea, pushing it too an extreme. But none-the-less, I'd take the extreme over pretty much anything else.
Also, there are only three Ogre's, one of which has gunpowder, and one of which carries a scimitar. In my mind, those, while great-looking
, they don't fit Tolkien's description of trolls in the epic ME universe. There are 3 troll units; the Stone Troll, Cave Troll, and Olog-hai. We will need to use some of Kindred72's even if we took the scimitar Ogre. What then? We have hyper-realistic Jackson inspired trolls upgrading, or being upgraded to, human-like Ogres? That doesn't fly with me, I don't like it.But the third Ogre, the one with the spikes is a must have. It has bone, horn you could say, armor, and an awesome hammer. Better yet, its face is completely covered in a (LotR movie inspired?) helmet. This fits will with the more intelligent Olog-hai. So, I saw we take that unit, and leave Kindred72's other two trolls where they are.
tjedge1
Writer of writerly things
The Tolkien professor has spoken. I often wondered how accurate the movies were. That was very enlightening. I have to agree with you on the basis you set in that post. Or should I call it short story.
I still want the giant though.
I still want the giant though.
It would still be nice to have the Giant for scenario purposes, and if Aaglo is happy to make it then that is a bonus.
I also agree with the analysis of Trolls. I remember that my old Tolkien Bestiary attempted pictures of Trolls based on these meagre descriptions - all covered in scales - and they looked pretty peculiar. It surprised me that Jackson et al ignored the one definite thing we know of Trolls' appearance - the scales - but like you I think they were clearly right to make them huge and bestial.
By the way, I always assumed that when Tolkien talks of a blade being "smoked" in someone's blood he's speaking metaphorically: it is like a newly-forged blade being plunged in water. In other words, the blade (and the warrior who wields it) is being forged - tested and strengthened - in battle. But I could be wrong there.
I also agree with the analysis of Trolls. I remember that my old Tolkien Bestiary attempted pictures of Trolls based on these meagre descriptions - all covered in scales - and they looked pretty peculiar. It surprised me that Jackson et al ignored the one definite thing we know of Trolls' appearance - the scales - but like you I think they were clearly right to make them huge and bestial.
By the way, I always assumed that when Tolkien talks of a blade being "smoked" in someone's blood he's speaking metaphorically: it is like a newly-forged blade being plunged in water. In other words, the blade (and the warrior who wields it) is being forged - tested and strengthened - in battle. But I could be wrong there.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
NB: Human-like doesn't necessarily mean human-sized. I do hope not even Mrtn was suggesting that trolls weren't big.
Interesting thought on torog. The first syllable could also relate to words for "hard, stiff", which might be fitting for a race hard as stone. I'm doubtful if flies, tho; the element rog, raug, Q (a)rauco, is said to refer to the greatest and most terrible of Morgoth's servants, and however mighty trolls were, they were hardly on a level with the Balrogs.
Didier Willis refers it to TUR-UK, which would be an extended from of TUR "power, control, mastery, victory". Basically, big strong dudes. This seems to me more likely. Unfortunately, nothing seems to be known about the word except the brief note in Appendix F.
Interesting thought on torog. The first syllable could also relate to words for "hard, stiff", which might be fitting for a race hard as stone. I'm doubtful if flies, tho; the element rog, raug, Q (a)rauco, is said to refer to the greatest and most terrible of Morgoth's servants, and however mighty trolls were, they were hardly on a level with the Balrogs.
Didier Willis refers it to TUR-UK, which would be an extended from of TUR "power, control, mastery, victory". Basically, big strong dudes. This seems to me more likely. Unfortunately, nothing seems to be known about the word except the brief note in Appendix F.
I love aaglo's stone-giant, just what I had in mind. The hair -- the body hair and the facial hair -- is great! Whether or not it goes into the random-map Mod isn't an issue for me (hopefully not for aaglo, either), although it would be a hoot to have it in a scenario-type Mod (with a "Gaia" type civ for dragons and what not, which might get us around the immobile-bombarding-barbarian problem). I'm going to put it in. Size? Looks fine to me, as long as it's noticably bigger than humanoid units. Just so one gets the idea that "hey, this ain't some regular hairy guy, is it?" The rest of my wee discussion below needn't have any bearing on aaglo's unit creating:
On to PCH's thing. Good stuff. Bottom line: use the Kindred72 trolls for the "cave troll" and the "stone troll," and use aaglo's ogre with the helmet for the Olog-hai. Fine with me, makes sense with upgrading and whatever.
Following TCL, why should "human-like" equal "human-sized," or even just "human"? I don't see that implication at all. A good part of PCH's argument strives to show that trolls are big and strong, much more so than any hopped up human. He wants us to accept that they're different species. At the risk of sounding like a valley girl, I say "duh!" I want to know if the appearance of trolls is anthropomorphic (which, doubtless, can come in degrees). There isn't a question in my mind that trolls (and giants, presumably) are WAY bigger and stronger than people and are not even close to being the same species!
The kicker is the scales. Fascinating. Tolkien dithers on that. In Moria, the trolls have a "skin with scales." At the Black Gates, the trolls might have scaley skin, or they might not. There, it could just as well be scale armour of some kind. (At a strech, one could figger the Moria trolls were also wearing scale armour, which was referred to poetically as "skin," sort of like them poems about fishes mail. But I'm not going to go there.) Maybe cave-trolls, being a different species or sub-species, were naturally scaley while hill-trolls had to compensate for a lack of scales? What would we have to say about all the other types of trolls? Hard to make an airtight case here either way.
Regarding the Hobbit, Tolkien considered it published canon and went to great pains to make it fit into ME, seeing how it's the prologue to tLotR. Sure there were discrepancies (like Bilbo's account of finding the ring), but we really oughtn't to be so quick to dismiss it as a kid's book. It is a kids book, but it's part of ME in spite of that. It's going to be hard to dismiss the Hobbit's trolls when Bilbo realises they're "Obviously trolls." What I found interesting was TLC's suggestion that stone-giants were actually trolls, sort of how -- as we well know by now -- "goblins" in the Hobbit are simply "orcs" (and "hobgoblins" are "Uruks"). If a troll can be called a "giant," it is particularly anthropomorphic!
However, the goblin-as-orc connections are terminological differences between two texts, whereas the "giant" vs. "troll" bit is within the same text, so it's harder to make that kind of move. What I do find unconvincing is the implication that the Hobbit is so sanitized for wee children that its descriptions of trolls just don't fly. The trolls in the Hobbit apprently liked to eat human beings ("manflesh"), which isn't exactly a comforting thought for little children. If I take that anthropophagy (*munch munch*) as true, then I'll be hard-pressed to throw out the rest of the account too. Let me make a suggestion, based on (speculative, though informed) sub-species-difference: maybe the trolls in the Hobbit were a kind that wore clothes (maybe these were "stone-trolls," a moniker that apparently doesn't appear either in the Hobbit or tLotR), whereas the hill-trolls (possibly) wore armour, and cave-trolls went about sky-clad. In any case, I'm not here to say we must have trolls in the mod like the kind we find in the Hobbit. No reason we couldn't, either, in the end.
The really weird thing in all this is the thought that aaglo's orcs look too much like humans, as if (by implication) one might mistake them for human body-builders. What on earth? "Hands" like meat hooks, black blood, roars, horrid hide, beastial -- aaglo's ogre graphics fit this bill in spades.
By the way, what's wrong with scimitars? Orcs carried them all the time, why not trolls too?
As to the bit about a wasted opportunity, think of this request as just my little pet thing that I've often requested of other unit makers (embryodead and Kinboat, if memory serves), and not as a Mod thing. If aaglo is having fun making ogres, why not throw a giant in there if he's up for it? Whatever gives him kicks. Sure we need more hobbit graphics (what precisely, I don't know yet), but it's not as if aaglo was on a roll making halfling or kender graphics and a hobbit would have been the next logical step. It's not like I've wasted his resources vis-à-vis the mod, because he might have made a hobbit but instead had to change gears and make this out-of-place giant. Rather the other way around.
By the way, aaglo, do you wanna try your hand at a few hobbit units?
With hugs,
Misty
On to PCH's thing. Good stuff. Bottom line: use the Kindred72 trolls for the "cave troll" and the "stone troll," and use aaglo's ogre with the helmet for the Olog-hai. Fine with me, makes sense with upgrading and whatever.
Following TCL, why should "human-like" equal "human-sized," or even just "human"? I don't see that implication at all. A good part of PCH's argument strives to show that trolls are big and strong, much more so than any hopped up human. He wants us to accept that they're different species. At the risk of sounding like a valley girl, I say "duh!" I want to know if the appearance of trolls is anthropomorphic (which, doubtless, can come in degrees). There isn't a question in my mind that trolls (and giants, presumably) are WAY bigger and stronger than people and are not even close to being the same species!
The kicker is the scales. Fascinating. Tolkien dithers on that. In Moria, the trolls have a "skin with scales." At the Black Gates, the trolls might have scaley skin, or they might not. There, it could just as well be scale armour of some kind. (At a strech, one could figger the Moria trolls were also wearing scale armour, which was referred to poetically as "skin," sort of like them poems about fishes mail. But I'm not going to go there.) Maybe cave-trolls, being a different species or sub-species, were naturally scaley while hill-trolls had to compensate for a lack of scales? What would we have to say about all the other types of trolls? Hard to make an airtight case here either way.
Regarding the Hobbit, Tolkien considered it published canon and went to great pains to make it fit into ME, seeing how it's the prologue to tLotR. Sure there were discrepancies (like Bilbo's account of finding the ring), but we really oughtn't to be so quick to dismiss it as a kid's book. It is a kids book, but it's part of ME in spite of that. It's going to be hard to dismiss the Hobbit's trolls when Bilbo realises they're "Obviously trolls." What I found interesting was TLC's suggestion that stone-giants were actually trolls, sort of how -- as we well know by now -- "goblins" in the Hobbit are simply "orcs" (and "hobgoblins" are "Uruks"). If a troll can be called a "giant," it is particularly anthropomorphic!
However, the goblin-as-orc connections are terminological differences between two texts, whereas the "giant" vs. "troll" bit is within the same text, so it's harder to make that kind of move. What I do find unconvincing is the implication that the Hobbit is so sanitized for wee children that its descriptions of trolls just don't fly. The trolls in the Hobbit apprently liked to eat human beings ("manflesh"), which isn't exactly a comforting thought for little children. If I take that anthropophagy (*munch munch*) as true, then I'll be hard-pressed to throw out the rest of the account too. Let me make a suggestion, based on (speculative, though informed) sub-species-difference: maybe the trolls in the Hobbit were a kind that wore clothes (maybe these were "stone-trolls," a moniker that apparently doesn't appear either in the Hobbit or tLotR), whereas the hill-trolls (possibly) wore armour, and cave-trolls went about sky-clad. In any case, I'm not here to say we must have trolls in the mod like the kind we find in the Hobbit. No reason we couldn't, either, in the end.
The really weird thing in all this is the thought that aaglo's orcs look too much like humans, as if (by implication) one might mistake them for human body-builders. What on earth? "Hands" like meat hooks, black blood, roars, horrid hide, beastial -- aaglo's ogre graphics fit this bill in spades.
By the way, what's wrong with scimitars? Orcs carried them all the time, why not trolls too?
As to the bit about a wasted opportunity, think of this request as just my little pet thing that I've often requested of other unit makers (embryodead and Kinboat, if memory serves), and not as a Mod thing. If aaglo is having fun making ogres, why not throw a giant in there if he's up for it? Whatever gives him kicks. Sure we need more hobbit graphics (what precisely, I don't know yet), but it's not as if aaglo was on a roll making halfling or kender graphics and a hobbit would have been the next logical step. It's not like I've wasted his resources vis-à-vis the mod, because he might have made a hobbit but instead had to change gears and make this out-of-place giant. Rather the other way around.
By the way, aaglo, do you wanna try your hand at a few hobbit units?
With hugs,
Misty
WildWeazel
Carthago Creanda Est
So are we using aaglo's ogres at this point, and if so what for? I don't remember any mention of "ogres" in LOTR, and they look to human-like for trolls, but they are too good to not be used.
aaglo
Furioso!
You can also make a simple palette-edit on the irongut-ogre (to replace his skin-colour to whatever you like).
As for the discussion on trolls: excellent stuff, guys
About the trolls in The Hobbit: could it be, that bilbo&comp. met some other species of trolls never mentioned again in the books? Or has the bestiary of middle-earth thoroughly been presented in some book I haven't seen? Maybe they were something like river trolls or forest trolls? Who knows...
As for the discussion on trolls: excellent stuff, guys
About the trolls in The Hobbit: could it be, that bilbo&comp. met some other species of trolls never mentioned again in the books? Or has the bestiary of middle-earth thoroughly been presented in some book I haven't seen? Maybe they were something like river trolls or forest trolls? Who knows...
I wouldn't call it a short storytjedge1 said:
. I want the Giant as well, it will be great to have in the Quest for Erebor. The problem is that the Quest for Erebor is pretty far off on the horizon.
Yes, yes, the unit looks awesome and like I said we will try and find a way to incorporate it as soon as we can. I've nothing against The Hobbit in anyway.Plotinus said:
That's what I'm talking about. I'll get to TLC's and Mithadan's post later, but the fact that they are tall, covered in scales, and have all these odd features isn't meant to say the movie's representation is perfect. It is to say that the more "beast-like" they look the more accurate it is.Plotinus said:
That could be very true. The problem is there are so many metaphors in Tolkien's notes, and therefore in The Sil as well. However, the quote says that the blade withered. Tolkien has many instances of swords snapping and blades breaking in his works. The reason it withered could not be that the blood of the trolls were hot, but that the ax blade grew hot striking the scales and armor of the trolls. It would make sense why the sword smoked in the blood of the trolls, the blade was so hot that the cold(?) blood created steam, or smoke in his words. I do find it odd that he specifically mentions how the blood had an effect on the blade, but what it means in anyone's guess. Regardless, they had black bloodPlotinus said:
.
No not at all, the size isn't what was my issue. My point was that these were large, beast-like creatures. Size is just another way to differentiate between them and humans. My quote above about trolls being 12 feet is in comparison to the Ents. In other words, trolls are as large as Ents. Mrtn did find a quote saying Treebeard was 14 feet, which shakes things up a bit. I think Ents were basically taller than trolls, but there was a range. Ents were probably 11-14 feet, and troll 8-12 feet. Depending on the type of breed.The Last Conformist said:
Well, looking at them in context, as far as the regular forces in Sauron's army, trolls were the most powerful. Morgoth however, is quite different I'd agree. But gone are the days of armies of dragons, balrogs, and God knows what else. There is no question about it though, trolls are the most powerful unit that will appear in fairly large quantities in our MOD. Perhaps trolls were more frequent in Morgoths time, or were known to the Sindar before the Balrogs saved Morgoth from the Queen of Spiders.The Last Conformist said:
Me tooMithadan said:
, yes, of course we can use it in a scenario.
Well I forgot something. They don't upgradeMithadan said:
. They are all stand alone units it turns out, because they are spawned from buildings and none are build-able. However, it is cool to have various troll units running about.
I love it when you talk like that!Mithadan said:
Anthropomorphic is someone's new favorite wordMithadan said:
. But yeah it fits the occasion. I can see where you are coming from. The Hobbit is a great book, and I am in no way trying to demean its greatness. However I do feel that it was written more in the way that our beloved Bilbo would tell a story to a young Pippin, rather than in the epic manner of LotR. Don't forget, The Hobbit is written from, well, a Hobbit's perspective. Unlike LotR, which takes multiple viewpoints throughout the story.
Looking at a passage from LotR written from a Hobbit's perspective, the book takes an entirely different feel to it.
Firstly, let's agree to never use the term manflesh againMithadan said:
. Secondly, I have some points about the breeds of trolls I wish to illustrate under Aaglo's post. Thirdly, I'd agree they shouldn't be entirely thrown out. Yet I also believe that they sections of the book has been heavily molded by Tolkien to fit a child's understanding. I believe it would be an insult to Tolkien to say he didn't alter The Hobbit from his original invented mythology to fit a child's view. He was quite capable of it, and quite good at it.Tolkien has written (in letters) that he had struggled with getting LotR off on the right foot. This is why it seems ages before anything epic happens in the FotR, I believe that this is reflective of the transition between The Hobbit and LotR. People, and publishers, wanted another children's book. I can see the struggle in FotR with this. Tom Bombadil, his wife (Goldwater?), they very localized descriptions of The Shire, the focus on Bree as an adventure, the Barrow Wights, etc. This is all very reminiscent of The Hobbit, a book where there is only vague hinting of the existence of Mordor, and a Dark Lord.
I think you misunderstood, partly because of my lack of information. Mrtn and I had been discussing this for hours, over a span of two days before he posted about it. He mentioned that Jackson's trolls looked too much like body builders, too hyper-realistic and by being so didn't fit his respectable viewpoint of trolls. I never said (or intended to) say that the Ogre's looked like body builders. I was saying they didn't.Mithadan said:
There is no mention of a troll carrying a sword as far as I know. You might say that this is a minor technicality, but in my eyes it just furthers the connection to humans, that and the facial features.Mithadan said:
I've no beef with the stone giant whatsoever. I just hoped that Aaglo didn't do it because he thought it would be in LotM's random map MOD.
Misty Mountain Hop?Mithadan said:
It could be, there were many different types of trolls mentioned. The Hill-trolls, the Cave Trolls, the Stone Trolls, the Olog-hai, there is even a passing mention of a Snow Troll which can be further studied in TEA. There is no doubt that there are varying types. I'm just a little skeptical at why only the trolls in the Hobbit don't fit with the mention of the other trolls.aaglo said:You can also make a simple palette-edit on the irongut-ogre (to replace his skin-colour to whatever you like).
As for the discussion on trolls: excellent stuff, guys
About the trolls in The Hobbit: could it be, that bilbo&comp. met some other species of trolls never mentioned again in the books? Or has the bestiary of middle-earth thoroughly been presented in some book I haven't seen? Maybe they were something like river trolls or forest trolls? Who knows...
I've never heard of river or forest trolls. In Tolkien's eyes the bad guys destroyed forests and stuff. A river troll would be difficult, as sunlight (seemingly) turned all but the Olog-hai to stone, or severely weakened them.
Mrtn may be very interested in that palette change
.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
A problem with this is that the word torog would be expected to date all the way back to the First Age.PCH said:
Aslo, purely linquistically, taur-rhaug seems a somewhat unlikely origin of the word to me; one'd expect **torrog. It's unfortunate we do not know the plural; by Willis's etymology, it ought be*tyryg (perhaps analogical *teryg), by TEA's *toroeg or something of the sort.
Yet another possibility is that it's a nomen unitatis like glamog; calling a troll-host taur "mighty" doesn't like it couldn't occur to the kind of mind that would call an orc-host glam "clamour". The plural would then presumably be *toryg. I mostly threw in this suggestion to confuse you, but there's no particular reason it couldn't be true. We simply know to little of the word to say much for sure.
aaglo
Furioso!
Well, what hobbits do you need for the mod (read: is there somewhere a list of needed unit graphics)?
AlcTrv
Only goes to one thread.
...but... but... no manflesh?
Damn...
Finally on spring break, so you can all expect the private beta to go out in 2 weeks I think, right when break ends, because the lord spites me... possibly for the manflesh?
Damn...
Finally on spring break, so you can all expect the private beta to go out in 2 weeks I think, right when break ends, because the lord spites me... possibly for the manflesh?
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
What's wrong with the word "manflesh"?
I'm, as said, the not the gfx guy guy, but I seem to recall we need a couple "militia" style hobbit units. Hobbits with spears and bows, I guess.
I'm, as said, the not the gfx guy guy, but I seem to recall we need a couple "militia" style hobbit units. Hobbits with spears and bows, I guess.
Similar threads
