Where do dragons/trolls come from?

Where do dragons/trolls come from? by Elemarth on 2010-07-19 03:21:00 UTC

To The Silmarillion! (Away!) by Vixenmage on 2010-07-19 03:57:00 UTC Reply

I don't remember, but off the top of my head, I think Melkor/Morgoth created dragons. At the least, they are Always Chaotic Evil. Same with trolls, if I recall-- they were made, by the "pale imitation" thing. Made as originals by Melkor/Morgoth, but only by copying Ents.

Which means... by Huinesoron on 2010-07-19 08:42:00 UTC Reply

... that since Melkor could never create actual life (only Iluvatar can do that - see Aule and the dwarves as proof), they have to be either a) corrupted something-elses, b) Maiar, or c) mere extensions of Morgoth's or Sauron's will.

Trolls seem a little too common to be Maiar, and apparently act of their own accord. Might they be corrupted Stone Giants (see The Hobbit)? Tolkien also mentioned 'Tree-giants' seen in the Shire, so the Ent=Giant connection is there. If Melkor took Stone Giants and twisted them, giving them a form of intelligence in exchange for somewhat reduced stature, might that account for them? I suspect Yavanna was quite ticked off to see her own creation mocked by creatures made of stone - her husband's domain.

That would allow trolls to breed, but what about dragons? Tolkien's dragons come in four combinations: fire-breathing and not, flying and not. Glaurung was fire-breathing but not flying. The Cold-drakes were non-fire-breathing, but some could fly. Smaug and Ancalagon could do both. The Cold-drakes, at least, seem to have bred true, but it's entirely possible that Smaug himself was created by Morgoth. Certainly he is described as the last great Fire-drake. If this is the case, might (and I'm theorising completely here) Cold-drakes have been either pre-Melkor, or some form of corrupted snake, while Fire-drakes, being more powerful and having an unnatural ability, were Maiar in built shells, like Balrogs? Of course, their bodies could well have been 'built' by twisting something pre-existing anyway...

hS

Well, you learn something every day... by Elcalion on 2010-07-20 00:26:00 UTC Reply

I thought cold-drakes breathed "ice" (and wondered how that was supposed to work, at least thermodynamically, :-P ) but "cold-as-in-not-hot" makes much more sense.

Liquid helium? by Techno-Dann on 2010-07-20 00:48:00 UTC Reply

Condense water-ice out of the air?

(And thank you! I've been meaning to read this bookagain.) (nm) by Vixenmage on 2010-07-19 03:58:00 UTC Reply

As for dragons... by doctorlit on 2010-07-19 03:55:00 UTC Reply

I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the Tolkienverse, but I think Glaurung, from The Children of Húrin, is said to be the "father of all dragons." That probably isn't literal, since I doubt Morgoth cloned Glaurung (especially since Glaurung lacked wings), so magic is probably involved somehow...And I don't know much of anything about Tolkien trolls (except that they're less annoying than internet trolls).

Hopefully someone else who knows better than I can correct me/enlighten you further.

Dragons... by Eclectus on 2010-07-20 03:10:00 UTC Reply

Perhaps they were their own pre-existing species, created along with the animals and suchlike, and all Morgoth did was make them sentient? Technically, that's just changing life into different life... And I harbor the theory that life = sentience anyway. Did you know that even paramecia have personalities? -cough- Anyway.

Since we're on this topic, what about the fell-beasts? I'd assumed that they were twisted Eagles (poor Eagles T.T), but since they appear to be mammalian (bat-wings), that doesn't really work.

On the other hand, if they're a reptilian species, that makes a lot more sense, since birds are descended from reptiles. But then again, if Eagles are the servants of Manwë, could you even do that to them? I've always been sort of confused as to their status--are they living creatures who just happen to be considered representative of Manwë and are occasionally messengers, or are they some sort of spirit-avatar-thing and not actually a sentient species? I'd think they'd get a mention in the Ent song, if that were true, unless it's being specist. Of course only the humanoid species get a song...

...Yeah. The Eagles confuse me.

3 points... by Edward Wilder on 2010-07-20 13:37:00 UTC Reply

Maybe the Ents don't know about the Eagles? They didn't know about hobbits, so it's not implausible.

Sentience. You keep using that word. I'm not sure you know what it means.

And the word is speciesist, dammit! (I apologize, but that's a particular pet peeve of mine.

3 replies... by Eclectus on 2010-07-20 15:42:00 UTC Reply

That was my thought. But if, like I said, the Eagles are instruments of Manwë, they seem like they'd be quite a bit more well-known than the very inconspicuous, culturally-antisocial, almost-totally-non-traveling hobbits.

Long philosophical discussion GO.

Sentience? I've been using it to mean self-aware. No one's ever corrected me, but now that I look, it seems I've been using the science fiction definition (and there appear to be several others). To quote Wikipedia, "Sentient characters typically display desire, will, consciousness, ethics, personality, insight, and many other human qualities."

I probably wasn't quite accurate in saying that my philosophy is that "life brings sentience"--at least, for my definition. It's hard to believe that, for example, frogs and chickens possess sentience, and as for insects... I have some hope for ants (and to a lesser extent, bees), given as they have a complex society and even agriculture, but the rest... Meh.

So that's what I call sentience--not exactly, but I'm a thinker, and my definitions of just about everything are very complicated... What's yours?

Ah, okay! ^.^ No problem, I've got similar little twitch factors. I wasn't aware that there was actually a word for it; Specist is a word I made up, though it doesn't seem that implausible that anyone else has invented it as well. Parallel evolution...