Post/Author/DateTime	Post
celestialkin 01-20-08, 04:45 PM	After reading the other two selling dragon parts threads I went and dug up my copy of Dragon #332 (did not know it had this article). After looking threw it I couldn't help but feel that this all seems like something I would expect to see in a book like The Book of Vile Darkness. Direct from the book: http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/Celestialdragon100/1-2.png http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/Celestialdragon100/2-1.png http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/Celestialdragon100/7-1.png http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/Celestialdragon100/5-1.png http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/Celestialdragon100/6-1.png Yeah, I'd say butchering sentient babies would be pretty evil. Even if you only cutup/bought chromatic dragon infants they are still innocent sentient infants. Isn't cutting up sentient beings for parts evil regardless of the creature's alignment? Would cutting up enemy orcs, elves, or drow and selling off their body parts for gold be any better?
Seeker95 01-20-08, 05:03 PM	The article does not take into consideration the manner in which the dragon died. How you got them might be alignment-related, but parts is parts.
Vrykolas2k 01-20-08, 05:03 PM	Yep. Evil act, every time...
Awesome_Dude 01-20-08, 05:08 PM	It's a grisly act, but there is no room for sentimentalism in the Great Wheel. Corpses are objects and have only a symbolic value, not a moral one. So ugly, yes. Evil, no.
archerpwr 01-20-08, 05:30 PM	Aren't humans the only creatures on this planet sentimental about what happens to corpses? Once it's dead it's meat like anything else.
celestialkin 01-20-08, 05:55 PM	Aren't humans the only creatures on this planet sentimental about what happens to corpses? Once it's dead it's meat like anything else. There's elephants.
Romtos 01-20-08, 06:28 PM	Hehe, I guess seeing a boat sail like that should upset a dragon or two. :D
archerpwr 01-20-08, 06:30 PM	There's elephants. Wasn't aware elephants cared for their dead. Learn something new every day.
celestialkin 01-20-08, 06:49 PM	Hehe, I guess seeing a boat sail like that should upset a dragon or two. :D Very good point. Wasn't aware elephants cared for their dead. Learn something new every day. It is actually kind of interesting. When one or a group of them come across the skull or bones of a dead elephant they gather around it, carefully inspect it with their trunks in turn, and seem to honor or mourn it's death as a group. It was kind of heartwarming to see (on a documentary) how such huge and powerful animals handled the fragile skull with such gentile care, since their trunks and giant feet could have easily chattered it.
Seeker95 01-20-08, 08:23 PM	Very It was kind of heartwarming to see (on a documentary)They do that to metal pipes too, once you spread peanut oil on them. :devil:
celestialkin 01-20-08, 08:44 PM	They do that to metal pipes too, once you spread peanut oil on them. :devil: True, but when you see it it is more than just an interest in it. Either way, they still put some more meaning to it than just a hunk of meat or a rock, since they still seem to recognize it as a former/once member of their kind. I believe this counts for what archerpwr was asking, but I am confident that others might see it differently.
archerpwr 01-20-08, 08:48 PM	Either way, they still put some more meaning to it than just a hunk of meat or a rock, since they still seem to recognize it as a former/once member of their kind. I believe this counts for what archerpwr was asking, but I am confident that others might see it differently. Close enough. Respect for the body.
Sarella Starshine 01-20-08, 09:37 PM	Look at it from a different angle: why would cutting up a dragon be 'more' wrong than if you cut up a deer (or any other animal with an Int score less than 3)? Is it because they can talk to you? Before you reply, really think about it. We have several organizations in real life that belive strongly in the reverence of ALL forms of animal life, and that the life of an animal is equal in value to the life of a human (PETA for example). In the D&D world, dragons are viewed as animals, abiet highly intelliegent ones at worst. So, cutting up and using its parts would not seem out of ordinary among those people. However, among those that view dragons are almost god-like, it is as bad as wearing a cloak made from human skin. If using a dead dragon's parts to make stuff such as weapons, clothes, or even magical stuff is to be considered 'bad', so should cuttuing up ANY dead animal.
celestialkin 01-20-08, 10:49 PM	Look at it from a different angle: why would cutting up a dragon be 'more' wrong than if you cut up a deer (or any other animal with an Int score less than 3)? Is it because they can talk to you? Before you reply, really think about it. We have several organizations in real life that believe strongly in the reverence of ALL forms of animal life, and that the life of an animal is equal in value to the life of a human (PETA for example). In the D&D world, dragons are viewed as animals, albiet highly intelligent ones at worst. So, cutting up and using its parts would not seem out of ordinary among those people. However, among those that view dragons are almost god-like, it is as bad as wearing a cloak made from human skin. If using a dead dragon's parts to make stuff such as weapons, clothes, or even magical stuff is to be considered 'bad', so should cuttuing up ANY dead animal. You have a good point, and I definitely see where you are coming from. To the average commoner who has probably never seen a dragon he might think of them as simple animals based on the stories and legends they have heard. However, I am guessing many commoners have never seen a creature of another race/species either unless they live in a open minded metropolitan area. I feel the difference between an animal and a dragon in D&D is that odds are the dragon is way smarter than you will ever be. Sure in real life some might argue (including me on occasion) that animals like dolphins and elephants are intelligent and are capable of emotions; however, until we see a dolphin doing calculus and having an actual in-depth conversation with us in our own language they will always be animals. In D&D not only can a dragon talk to you, but odds are he/she will be much smarter than you. In D&D if the average human is a commoner then the average dragon would be able to outwit the average human 90-something% of the time. This is because the average commoner is a simple peasant who might or might not even be able to read, while the average dragon would be the equivalent of sage in comparison, since they could probably reminisce about more things in an hour than 5 generations worth of humans could experience in their lifetimes. This also brings up the moral dilemma of whether it is OK to do the same to other sentient creatures. Wouldn't the average human commoner think of a "barbaric" orc as an animal? So by this logic, would it be OK for a human to eat his fallen orc, gnoll, goblin, elf, halfling, or gnome enemies? Would it be perfectly reasonable for a dwarf to craft leather armor from fallen drow or elf soldiers? This actually came up while playing my latest character. I was playing a copper dragon PC, and both the elf druid and the aasimar favored soul had dragon skin armor on. My PC kindly said he found it offense, they told him to screw off. I then decided I would stuff the dead body of a fallen elf enemy in my bag of holding to have crafted into leather armor/barding afterwards. The DM stopped me mid-action, and threatened to push my alignment towards evil if I continued. For some reason if the dragon wore the skin of one of his party member's race it is evil, but if the rest of the party did the same it does not matter. :rolleyes:
darkdrgon2136 01-20-08, 11:03 PM	Meat is Meat, Bone is bone. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else.
Seeker95 01-21-08, 08:32 AM	I then decided I would stuff the dead body of a fallen elf enemy in my bag of holding to have crafted into leather armor/barding afterwards. The DM stopped me mid-action, and threatened to push my alignment towards evil if I continued.I wouldn't push your alignment to evil. I would, however, talk with you out of game about the alignment you are claiming to be. If you claim to be a Good PC, I would inform you that your decision does not reflect Good. But your action does not mean you are evil. That your PC finds the wearing of dragon armor disdainful is reasonable. That your PC *believes* it is evil is understandable. Neither of these makes it evil any more than a moral vegan's claim that eating meat is murder suddenly makes eating meat an act of murder. For some reason if the dragon wore the skin of one of his party member's race it is evil, but if the rest of the party did the same it does not matter.This sentence is a red herring. A dragon wearing dragon armor is not the same as a human wearing dragon armor.
kelvinaw273 01-21-08, 09:06 AM	Put it this another way: If they were selling books with pages of parchment mad of human skin, and bound in human skin, would it be evil? Different cultures place different values upon the corpse; to some it is just meat, to others it is the immortal throne of the soul. It also depends in part on the alignment of the dragon - in Eberron where dragons are no longer colour coded for convenience a red dragon may not be evil. To kill a good creature purely for their body parts is evil, to use them of an evil creature killed in self defence is probably more acceptable.
Seeker95 01-21-08, 11:01 AM	To kill a good creature purely for their body parts is evilThis comment further demonstrates the non-alignment nature of the issue. [Evil] in D&D is objective. However, there are very few inherently [evil] acts (murder, rape, arson) in the game. The vast majority are context-specific, remaining [neutral] in nature until otherwise contextually altered. Using dragon parts (or the parts of any other sentient creature) is [neutral]. There may be [evil] actions required to attain such parts, but that judgment is context-specific. If you come across a good dragon found dead after losing a battle to an opponent, taking its parts and using them for armor, a boat, or just a fancy room carpet is not [evil], no matter how reprehensible an individual may view it.
Vrykolas2k 01-21-08, 11:14 AM	This comment further demonstrates the non-alignment nature of the issue. [Evil] in D&D is objective. However, there are very few inherently [evil] acts (murder, rape, arson) in the game. The vast majority are context-specific, remaining [neutral] in nature until otherwise contextually altered. Using dragon parts (or the parts of any other sentient creature) is [neutral]. There may be [evil] actions required to attain such parts, but that judgment is context-specific. If you come across a good dragon found dead after losing a battle to an opponent, taking its parts and using them for armor, a boat, or just a fancy room carpet is not [evil], no matter how reprehensible an individual may view it. As long as the same holds true for making shirts of elven skin, rope from the beards of dwarves, masks stitched from human faces, neat armour-additions made from the wings of Solar, I'd agree with the twisted objectivity... so long as there isn't any difference in using the "parts" of one sentient creature over the "parts" of another. Double standards are highly unfair.
Seeker95 01-21-08, 12:28 PM	Double standards are highly unfair.Quite true. While these actions may widely be viewed as distasteful, they too are not [evil]. The individual willing to make, sell, or purchase such items is probably not [good], but none of this is sufficient to view the maker, seller, or buyer as [evil]. The individual who acquires such raw materials in the first place, on the other hand...
Toran_A_Sunder 01-21-08, 01:16 PM	It's kind of a tough subject. And Seeker is right: the objectivity of good and evil in the game is all based on context. Here's how I personally would run it. The party kills a black dragon, cuts it up, and sells it to various buyers for the purposes of everything from armor to spell components to culinary delights. The dragon was evil, and so killing it was not an evil act, as per the rules. Making a profit isn't evil either. So I wouldn't think it would affect the good PCs alignments. Now if one of the NPCs were trying to play an Exalted type character, I would advise them against being a part of it, because though it is not evil, it is pushing the envelope just a little bit, in my opinion. Now. The party is strapped for cash after blowing all their hard earned gold on the best equipment, magic and mundane, that money can buy. Knowing the value of certain dragon bits on the black market, they start hunting down newly hatched metallic baby dragons, slaughtering them, and selling them on the black market. In my view, that is an evil and heinous act. They are good creatures, and killing a good creature is an evil act. More specifically, to me that is a blatant disregard for "the dignity and well being of sentient creatures." And these particular creatures are supposed to be the exemplars of goodness in the multiverse. Any party member taking part in that action is going to find himself on a steep slope, sliding down the alignment ladder. Replace the good baby dragons with evil baby dragons. Chromatic wyrmlings are still listed as evil, so it's a rather gray area the way I look at it. A darker shade of gray, but a shade of gray. I wouldn't move them to evil. But any good character involved in slaughtering weak and nearly defenseless (not innocent by any means) baby chromatic dragons, would find himself walking the line between good and neutrality. Neutral characters, though walking a darker shade of gray with this, wouldn't be in jeapordy of an alignment shift. Now keep in mind that all this is in my opinion. In no way am I saying this is how it should be, or how everyone else should do it. This is my own personal take on the situation. Use it or don't. It's just my 2 cps.
Chrono Nexus 01-21-08, 01:55 PM	Is a monster that wears armor made from human remains evil?
Vrykolas2k 01-21-08, 02:20 PM	Is a monster that wears armor made from human remains evil? They're not really bad; they're just drawn that way.
celestialkin 01-21-08, 04:02 PM	I wouldn't push your alignment to evil. I would, however, talk with you out of game about the alignment you are claiming to be. If you claim to be a Good PC, I would inform you that your decision does not reflect Good. But your action does not mean you are evil. That your PC finds the wearing of dragon armor disdainful is reasonable. That your PC *believes* it is evil is understandable. Neither of these makes it evil any more than a moral vegan's claim that eating meat is murder suddenly makes eating meat an act of murder. This sentence is a red herring. A dragon wearing dragon armor is not the same as a human wearing dragon armor. Really, why? A paladin can carry around the dead corpse of one of his people as clothing, yet if he does the same to the paladin's people it is completely different and wrong? Quite true. While these actions may widely be viewed as distasteful, they too are not [evil]. The individual willing to make, sell, or purchase such items is probably not [good], but none of this is sufficient to view the maker, seller, or buyer as [evil]. The individual who acquires such raw materials in the first place, on the other hand... Agreed. However, if the individual who gets the humanoid parts is another matter then I believe the one who gets the dragon parts should be thought of similarly.
Seeker95 01-21-08, 05:20 PM	However, if the individual who gets the humanoid parts is another matter then I believe the one who gets the dragon parts should be thought of similarly.Perhaps. Again, context and circumstances matter. Desecrating a dragon graveyard to get the parts? Bad. Scavenging a dragon corpse you find after the slaughter is done by someone else? No bad. Hunting dragons to harvest their parts? Not good. But not inherently bad. Substitute humanoid in all of the above and the assessments remain the same.
Vrykolas2k 01-21-08, 05:49 PM	Perhaps. Again, context and circumstances matter. Desecrating a dragon graveyard to get the parts? Bad. Scavenging a dragon corpse you find after the slaughter is done by someone else? No bad. Hunting dragons to harvest their parts? Not good. But not inherently bad. Substitute humanoid in all of the above and the assessments remain the same. So a paladin can hunt elves to harvest their parts, and it isn't evil. Kewl.
aotrscommander 01-21-08, 05:50 PM	Another point is that human(oid)s do have a rather self-centric bias. Humans in particular, tend to see the world coloured by their own cultural and racial arrogance...er..preconceptions1. So, to an average human, while using bits of human is Just Not On, some dirty Johnny Foreign-form like Mr Dragon slash demon slash whatever is perfectly fine (culturally), regardless of where he was sentient or not (for a given cultural value of 'perfectly fine'). On the whole though, human(oid) preferences aside, using bits of dead things to do stuff is not by itself evil, just societally unacceptable. Making stuff dead in the first place, is, as Seeker says, contextual. 1Nah, I really do mean arrogance.
celestialkin 01-21-08, 05:59 PM	So a paladin can hunt elves to harvest their parts, and it isn't evil. Kewl. The consensus seems to be no it wouldn't as long as the elf/human/halfling/whatever was evil.
JulesCARV 01-21-08, 06:07 PM	Does Dragon #332 ever claim that this is intended for good characters? I mean, I don't know: I don't have Dragon #332 and haven't read the article, but what's the article's perspective on this? Or is it just silent?
Sarella Starshine 01-21-08, 06:50 PM	The article basicly has the stance: 'you just killed a dragon now what are you going to do with that carcass?' Celestial: Yes a dragon can talk to someone. I never said that it can't. However rangers/druids (and the like) can claim the very same thing about deer and other animals commonly hunted for meat and skin. Also: as a minor nit pick, the term 'sentience' is not the correct term. 'Sapience' more accurately describes what you are thinking about. Every animal in D&D is sentient in some form (basicly anything with a Wis/Cha score (not sure which) is considered sentient, sapience is those with an Int above 3). I think that Aotrs (got it right this time) has it correctly why we feel that the dragon is 'less' than a human, dispiste them having more intelligence in thier prosterior than most do in thier entire body, is the fact that they don't 'look' like us. They look like a giant animal. Orcs, Elves, and other humanoids do not have the same issues since, well, they 'look' like us (and by "look' I mean they both have 2 legs, 2 arms, hands, feet, head with orifices in the right places).
sblaxman 01-21-08, 08:08 PM	Thus why I use 2e good/evil (subjective vs objective)
JulesCARV 01-21-08, 09:43 PM	Thus why I use 2e good/evil (subjective vs objective) Could you tell us more about that, or, barring that, link to a website that does so?
sblaxman 01-21-08, 10:34 PM	Could you tell us more about that, or, barring that, link to a website that does so? I don't know any websites, but I have the 1e and 2e handbooks... from the 2e PHB: page 64: chapter 4: alignment ""the characters' alignment is a guide to his basic moral and ethical attitudes towards others, society, good, evil, and the forces of the universe in general. Use the chosen alignment as a guide to provide a clearer idea of how the character will hand moral dilemmas. Always consider alignment as a tool, not a straitjacket that restricts the character. Although alignment defines general attitudes, it doesn't prevent a character from changing his beliefs, acting irrationally, or behaving out of character" on good and evil, page 65 "Good characters are just that. They try to be honest, charitable, and forthright. People are not perfect, so few are good all the time. there are always occasional failings and weaknesses. A good person, however, worries about his errors and normally tries to correct any damage done" MAJOR DIFFERENCE HERE: "Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil" on evil: "Evil is the antithesis of good and appears in many ways, some overt and others quite subtle. Only a few people of evil nature actively seek to cause harm or destruction. Most simply do not recognize that what they do is destructive or disruptive. People and things that obstruct the evil character's plans are mere hindrances that must be overcome. If someone is harmed in the process... well that is too bad. Remember that evil, like good, is interpreted differently in different societies." There is a lot more, but my fingers are tired. In general, alignment is determined by the society, not divinely ordained. In the case before us (skinning a dragon and hauling it's parts to sale)... it would depend on the culture.... A country that says that the body is sacred will say that is evil for sure... a country that feels that dragons are not "creatures" but "monsters" might have no problem with it, they don't consider "monsters" having the same rights as "creatures" therefore no taboo is being broken. Very few cultures would consider someone wearing a elf or dwarfs skin anything but evil (unless they are drow maybe).
JulesCARV 01-21-08, 10:38 PM	Of course, the mummified hands of humans and elves are used to form two of the game's core wondrous items. Hmm.... of course, the hand of glory has animate dead as a spell prerequisite. It isn't noted as having an aura of evil, but it's not something that a good cleric can easily craft either.
sblaxman 01-21-08, 11:07 PM	Depends on how the hands are viewed... modern equivalent... if I was carrying some guys finger around... I've be considered evil.... Different guy (venerated saints) finger in a church... a holy relic... Having a finger isn't as important as the who/why... Though I'm pretty sure the hand of vecna is a pretty evil item anyway, so thats moot
Barbadosx 01-22-08, 02:37 AM	Now, on the subject of the post. To directly answer it: Yes, it is bordering on evil. And it's pretty safe to say that most people agree that while it depends on the situation, it is generally not evil to make money off of dead critters. Once upon a time there was no money, and dead critters was part of how you payed for things. Besides, it's perfectly possible to go both ways. Native Americans had a huge amount of respect for the animals they killed, and they cut them up and used all of their parts for things too. Furthermore they saw these animals as great spirits, and above themselves in many ways. It's a tricky bit, to be true, and I particularly enjoyed the discussions on vs. human skinning, etc. I suppose we can go one of two ways: by the books, or by the brain. By the books: Dragons are not animals. If they were, they would be in appendix two or whatever, and not under 'D.' As such, they are not neutral and fall into the two catergories (with regards to 3E,) of various evil and various good. Killing the good ones is an act of evil, and killing the evil ones is an act of good. The body is part of the loot, and while some particularly spiritual characters may desire to say a prayer or some such, there's nothing evil in the act of skinning a dragon. If there was a market for human hair, bones, etc, then the same rules would apply. Killing a good human (elf, dwarf, etc) is evil, and killing an evil one is good. The body is part of the loot. Unfortunatley, the market for the parts of humans, etc. isn't nearly as lucrative as dragons, and mostly it involves unsavory sorts of people with nefarious types of plans. You can bet that if Dwarf beard-hair bows turned out to be fan-friggin-tastic and a full dwarven beard was worth twenty gold, that whenever you killed a dwarf you'd probably take his beard to sell before you burned the bodies or whatever. So, by the brains - comes down to culture, as most previously stated, and in that becomes perhaps a question of not so much good or evil, but of law and chaos? Suppose dragons are a protected creature, worshipped or something, in this region. Thus, their bones are littered here and there, as it is a great crime to disturb them. If so, a lawful person probably wouldn't grab a few bones to sell later, but a chaotic person might, good or not. A perfect example of this is right in the PHB: It claims Mal Reynolds of Firefly / Serenity (which I LOVE) is a CG character. I can definately see that, and I don't think Mal would have a problem scavenging some dragon bones for profit later, even if the authorities say 'no,' and even if Book disagrees with the idea of disturbing the dead. I do agree that very very few societies would accept wearing the skin of humanoids. Let me rephrase... very few humanoid societies would accept it. Similarly, no dragon societies would accept wearing dragon hide. I suppose dragon societies might be ok with wearing human(oid) hide if it was good for anything and had any value. Thanks for reading, have a great day!
Naderion 01-22-08, 07:26 AM	The consensus seems to be no it wouldn't as long as the elf/human/halfling/whatever was evil. It's not evil when you'd do it after he was dead, but it would be evil to kill them BECAUSE you want to do it. Also, killing because something is evil, is also evil.
Aurapolis 01-22-08, 11:25 AM	I think that part of what is at issue here is the evolution of the Dragon. There was a similar article way back when about what to do with Dragon parts. However, this article was published during first edition AD&D--as such, not all the dragons were that smart (White Dragons are pretty stupid actually in 1e), evil monsters were evil monsters (period) and certainly none of the PCs were dragons. As for my tastes in D&D, I prefer this old school humano-centric perspective. Mostly because it's just easier to deal with. Druids value and protect nature, but they recognize that animals are part of a cruel world--they protect the system not individual animals. On the other end of the spectrums, monsters are monsters and if they're evil--fair game. I've played games in other systems and used moral complexity as part of those games--but I think that moral complexity is incompatible with hack and slash. In such games, I would think that several combats over the course of a campaign/story arc would be more appropriate since even coming to blows with another human being is a moral decision not to be taken lightly.
Zombie_Babies 01-22-08, 11:30 AM	It is not evil. This is more of a cultural issue than anything else. There are cultures today that respect their dead by eating them. Are they evil? There is a need for the materials as well. There's no Wal-Mart or Home Depot or whatever to buy the things you need to live. Using every part of a slain enemy makes perfect sense. So does hunting for those parts. It may be a humanoid vs non-humanoid issue. It's ok to wear dragon armor but not elven armor (cultural beliefs aside) or whatever. The last thing to consider is that dragons eat humanoids. Since this is true what's the problem with eating them?
Dog_O_War 01-22-08, 11:57 AM	I don't think sentient/non-sentient has a whole lot to do with it. It's more of a man versus beast thing IMO. While an Orc is not human, it is clearly similar to a human (thus humanoid), and we see a kinship there. we'd mutilate said body of an orc to show disrespect, but wearing one would be pointless. There is no prestige in slaying what might be seen as an equal (or lesser), therefore wearing one would give no status to a person's power. Dragons are big scary beasts, and to wear one is akin to saying "I am more powerful than a beast!" It becomes a mark of prestige and honor, as well as power to parade around in a garb made from something considered very powerful. This is why hunters seek the largest game, or the most wily. Rabbits offer little to be proud of, but they have another more obvious reason to wear their pelts (the softness of the fur). Also elephants; very interesting (the whole respect for the dead thing). What intelligence do they rank? 4th? 5th? I know dolphins and primates are 1st & 2nd, but I'm unsure as to where the others that would be considered top 10 fit (whale, shark, elephant, I believe rat is somewhere in there, unsure of the others).
Selgard 01-22-08, 12:20 PM	To me the question is "Why did you kill the dragon?" Even by today's standards, with modern hunting and whatnot- it is considered "bad" to just kill (for instance) a deer, take the rack, and leave the boxy. You are expected to use some/all of the kill even if you also take your trophy. And a deer is "just an animal" compared to the intelligence of a creature such as a dragon. Thus, we move into motives. I. "The X dragon is cavorting the countryside, eating our sheep and cattle. Please go slay the beast! We have little to pay you with ourselves, but whatver X has you may keep as your own". *10 days later, as the PC's look over the corpse of X* Well, i bet we could make a set of armor out of his hide.. How about a boat? II. "Hmmm. we need a new boat. I bet a dragon head would look good on the prow.. How about it guys?" _________ The difference in the two scenarios is, to me at least, fairly clear. Killing an intelligent, living creature simply because you want his femur for a bow, tooth for a sword, or hide for a suit of armor would decidedly be evil. Making bow, tooth, sword, or armor after having /good/ cause to slay the dragon is a different experience entirely. just my $.02
archerpwr 01-22-08, 12:26 PM	I don't think sentient/non-sentient has a whole lot to do with it. It's more of a man versus beast thing IMO. While an Orc is not human, it is clearly similar to a human (thus humanoid), and we see a kinship there. we'd mutilate said body of an orc to show disrespect, but wearing one would be pointless. There is no prestige in slaying what might be seen as an equal (or lesser), therefore wearing one would give no status to a person's power. Dragons are big scary beasts, and to wear one is akin to saying "I am more powerful than a beast!" It becomes a mark of prestige and honor, as well as power to parade around in a garb made from something considered very powerful. This is why hunters seek the largest game, or the most wily. Rabbits offer little to be proud of, but they have another more obvious reason to wear their pelts (the softness of the fur). This is an excellent explanation.
aotrscommander 01-22-08, 12:27 PM	Also: as a minor nit pick, the term 'sentience' is not the correct term. 'Sapience' more accurately describes what you are thinking about. Every animal in D&D is sentient in some form (basicly anything with a Wis/Cha score (not sure which) is considered sentient, sapience is those with an Int above 3). Noted... I think that Aotrs (got it right this time)... Also noted......has it correctly why we feel that the dragon is 'less' than a human, dispiste them having more intelligence in thier prosterior than most do in thier entire body, is the fact that they don't 'look' like us. They look like a giant animal. Orcs, Elves, and other humanoids do not have the same issues since, well, they 'look' like us (and by "look' I mean they both have 2 legs, 2 arms, hands, feet, head with orifices in the right places). Yeah. It basically boils down to the good old 'us' and 'them'. I.e., what's acceptable behavior towards 'us' is totally different and not as heinous as what you're allowed to do to 'them'. Regardless of what kind of being 'them' constitues, so long as it's differnt from yours. Humanoids, in their own shapish, self-centric attitudes define anything on two legs and probably mammalian as 'us', and anything else as 'them'. You can go as far as easily seeing a place where it's fine to wear lizardfolk skin leather armour, for example, because as filthy non-mammals, lizardmen also fall into the 'them' category. (On a tangential note, that's why it's perfectly acceptable to have excessive violence and death meted out to invertebrates and technologicals even in cartoons but blood is a no-no. Hardly fair, is it?)
JulesCARV 01-23-08, 06:05 PM	I'm just thinking, under what circumstances is using human body parts acceptable? I think that there seem to be two main guidelines I can think of off hand: 1) The strongest rule is that the person whose body parts are being used must consent. Organ donors must sign their driver's licenses. Blood donors have to sign big ol' consent forms. Donating long hair requires informing the barber, etc. The People's Republic of China, I believe, takes organs from the prisoners it executes regardless of consent, but this is widely considered to be a violation, and the Chinese government officially denies this. 2) A somewhat weaker rule is that the donated body part is generally "supposed" to serve a purpose close to its original function. For example, using someone's blood to replace the blood of someone who has bled heavily is acceptable. Using blood as paint in an avant guard art project is likely to provoke some consternation or disgust, although probably not violent outrage. Transplanting a heart to someone with heart disease is fine, but turning the skin into leather for lampshades and wallets isn't. For example, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk is going to be turned into edible nuggets on her death, but in doing so she's willfully transgressing social norms/trolling.
pigknight 01-23-08, 08:22 PM	I feel that chromatic dragons are free game when it comes to wearing them, metallic dragons are a no-no (in a evil culture flip chromatic and metalic). Also elephants; very interesting (the whole respect for the dead thing). What intelligence do they rank? 4th? 5th? I know dolphins and primates are 1st & 2nd, but I'm unsure as to where the others that would be considered top 10 fit (whale, shark, elephant, I believe rat is somewhere in there, unsure of the others). Pigs are 4th.
Mock26 01-23-08, 08:31 PM	Bah. Evil babies ARE evil. That means that not are they fair game, but they should in fact be actively sought out and killed. Dead evil babies means that they don't grow up to be evil adults. And, if you can get additional benefit out of killing sentient evil beings, then so be it. I seriously doubt that anyone would question a dwarf who was using an old orc skull as a drinking cup, so why question a knight wearing a baby red dragon skull on his head?
Seeker95 01-23-08, 10:35 PM	so why question a [k]night wearing a baby red dragon skull on his head?'Cause you gotta go really bad, and he looks like he knows where the nearest bathroom is. :P
Hakar_Kerarmor 01-24-08, 04:55 AM	The last thing to consider is that dragons eat humanoids. Since this is true what's the problem with eating them? "Gentlemen! There will be no bombs, and no grenades. The giants will not be harmed." "But Your Majesty! They are monsters. They eat children!" "That does not mean we should follow their example."
Zombie_Babies 01-24-08, 10:21 AM	"Gentlemen! There will be no bombs, and no grenades. The giants will not be harmed." "But Your Majesty! They are monsters. They eat children!" "That does not mean we should follow their example." We are not talking about cannibalism here. We are talking about one species killing and eating another (giants and humans are close enough). Sometimes bears eat people. Sometimes we eat them. This is just a giant talking lizard. It eating our babies (or adults) is in no way the same as us doing it ourselves. Us eating it's babies (or adults) is equally dissimilar. The two species (human/elf/dwarf/etc vs dragon) are so different that a comparison to cannibalism is invalid. Since we do not have giant talking lizards (or bears, for that matter) in real life it is hard to find a more realistic example. D&D is not real so we do not need to. Eat the lizards. They taste good. Dragons are also usually smarter and wiser than even the smarter men/elves/dwarves/ect in the game. Even the evil ones. They still eat humanoids. Apparently this crisis of conscience is not too important to them. If, in their generally superior intellect and wisdom, they cannot find a reason not to eat us then how could we be expected to find one not to eat them? It's fair game. If I went out hunting dragons I would be fully prepared to be eaten in loss. Even if I was hunting a metallic, goody-goody dragon. Why? Eaten men can't fight back. Digested men are harder to bring back. And, if I were a dragon, humanoids are tasty.
Vrykolas2k 01-24-08, 10:38 AM	Bah. Evil babies ARE evil. That means that not are they fair game, but they should in fact be actively sought out and killed. Dead evil babies means that they don't grow up to be evil adults. And, if you can get additional benefit out of killing sentient evil beings, then so be it. I seriously doubt that anyone would question a dwarf who was using an old orc skull as a drinking cup, so why question a knight wearing a baby red dragon skull on his head? Hmmm... Back in 2nd edition, I had a ranger who raised a baby green dragon to be Lawful Neutral (Good). Don't know if the rules supported it, but I guess it's one of those "nature vs. nurture" arguements...
Dog_O_War 01-24-08, 01:05 PM	Bah. Evil babies ARE evil. That means that not are they fair game, but they should in fact be actively sought out and killed. Dead evil babies means that they don't grow up to be evil adults. And, if you can get additional benefit out of killing sentient evil beings, then so be it. I seriously doubt that anyone would question a dwarf who was using an old orc skull as a drinking cup, so why question a knight wearing a baby red dragon skull on his head? Actually, that "a dwarf who was using an old orc skull as a drinking cup" comment sparks a point of interest. While it is still considered "barbaric" to take the skull of an enemy, it is still a point of prestige to do so with a very powerful enemy leader. It's kinda like an ultimate clan or family shaming to the fallen foe's (clan or family). (Drinking cup), banner cap, staff pommel, thone-arm end, and possibly a couple more (that I cannot think of) are the most common uses.
Mock26 01-24-08, 01:36 PM	Hmmm... Back in 2nd edition, I had a ranger who raised a baby green dragon to be Lawful Neutral (Good). Don't know if the rules supported it, but I guess it's one of those "nature vs. nurture" arguements... Well, just like "Drizzit" there are always exceptions to the rule. But, those exceptions are rare and until they pop up we, as stout hearted adventurers, must kill evil baby monsters. Afterall, the more babies we kill now the easier it will be when we get older. :D
Ikyotojin 01-24-08, 02:00 PM	In my games the taking of trophies is something almost every group does. Orcs have elven skin stretched over their shields, humans have "monster" skulls on pikes at their borders, gnomes have hanging door-to-door salesmen corpses at their crossroads... It's all in how you look at the critters you are fighting against. The dragons in my game often have helms with heads still in them as decorations. How do you think they got all that treasure???
Vrykolas2k 01-24-08, 02:52 PM	Well, just like "Drizzit" there are always exceptions to the rule. But, those exceptions are rare and until they pop up we, as stout hearted adventurers, must kill evil baby monsters. Afterall, the more babies we kill now the easier it will be when we get older. :D As I've pointed out before though... Drizzt is not, and never was, original. Therefore, there's not actually a "Drizzt-clone". The point was, you can take an "evil" youngster and raise it to be otherwise.
celestialkin 01-24-08, 03:52 PM	Well, just like "Drizzit" there are always exceptions to the rule. But, those exceptions are rare and until they pop up we, as stout hearted adventurers, must kill evil baby monsters. Afterall, the more babies we kill now the easier it will be when we get older. :D This kind of makes me think of that failed African slave revolt here in the US. Some black slaves managed to escape their plantations and banded together to free other slaves from rich white American plantation owners in the US south (this was a bit before the Civil War). They went from plantation to plantation and freed other black slaves; however, they killed the "evil" slave owners, and in a couple reported cases even killed their little infants while they were still in their cribs. I believe their leader said something on the same lines as you did about the babies growing up to kill/own/enslave more of their kind. By today's standards, and even most American Caucasians' standards, those southern plantation owners would be considered extremely evil (see roots or some accurate documentaries if you doubt it). Therefore, was killing those infants in their cribs not an evil act? I am pretty sure there was a "them vs. us" mentality, and neither side considered the other (although both were humans) to be like them in any way.
Vrykolas2k 01-24-08, 04:16 PM	This kind of makes me think of that failed African slave revolt here in the US. Some black slaves managed to escape their plantations and banded together to free other slaves from rich white American plantation owners in the US south (this was a bit before the Civil War). They went from plantation to plantation and freed other black slaves; however, they killed the "evil" slave owners, and in a couple reported cases even killed their little infants while they were still in their cribs. I believe their leader said something on the same lines as you did about the babies growing up to kill/own/enslave more of their kind. By today's standards, and even most American Caucasians' standards, those southern plantation owners would be considered extremely evil (see roots or some accurate documentaries if you doubt it). Therefore, was killing those infants in their cribs not an evil act? I am pretty sure there was a "them vs. us" mentality, and neither side considered the other (although both were humans) to be like them in any way. What about the black slave-owners in the south? Were they evil? Or the blacks who captured the slaves to begin with? Or were they just... misunderstood? Also, many slave-owners were actually quite kind to their slaves. You're also leaving out what those escaped slaves did to the women and some of the older children... Yes, I'd consider what they did to be evil and vile acts.
Mock26 01-24-08, 04:46 PM	As I've pointed out before though... Drizzt is not, and never was, original. Therefore, there's not actually a "Drizzt-clone". The point was, you can take an "evil" youngster and raise it to be otherwise. Ah, but you'll notice I never said that Drizzt was original! To me, in the realm of D&D, the original exception to the rule was a Lizardman character played by one of the original creators of the game (Arneson?) that appeared in the very first Rogue's Gallery publication.
Mock26 01-24-08, 04:49 PM	By today's standards, and even most American Caucasians' standards, those southern plantation owners would be considered extremely evil (see roots or some accurate documentaries if you doubt it). Therefore, was killing those infants in their cribs not an evil act? I am pretty sure there was a "them vs. us" mentality, and neither side considered the other (although both were humans) to be like them in any way. But there is something monumentally wrong with taking today's standards and super-imposing them on the past. We have to remember that way back then slavery was legal in this country, therefore owning slaves really cannot be an evil act. Slavery existed for thousands of years in various forms in various cultures. Wrong, maybe. Evil, no. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the "evil" acts that some slave owners inflicted upon there slaves, because there were evil slave owners, but it wasn't owning of slaves that made them evil.
Zombie_Babies 01-24-08, 05:01 PM	But there is something monumentally wrong with taking today's standards and super-imposing them on the past. We have to remember that way back then slavery was legal in this country, therefore owning slaves really cannot be an evil act. Slavery existed for thousands of years in various forms in various cultures. Wrong, maybe. Evil, no. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the "evil" acts that some slave owners inflicted upon there slaves, because there were evil slave owners, but it wasn't owning of slaves that made them evil. Legality has nothing to do with Good and Evil. It was legal to exterminate Native Americans as well, remember? Somehow introducing smallpox-laden blankets to a group of men, women and children for the sole reason of "shutting them up" and taking their land strikes me as a tad on the Evil side of things. Legal or not. As for slavery, slaves were property and therefore could be "legally" beaten, raped and killed. Sounds "Good" to me. Opium dens were also legal in this country. So was beating your wife. It was also perfectly legal to hire someone on the basis of race or to fire your secretary because she didn't put out. In short: Legal != Good. Also of note: Legal != Not Evil.
Mock26 01-24-08, 06:22 PM	Legality has nothing to do with Good and Evil. It was legal to exterminate Native Americans as well, remember? Somehow introducing smallpox-laden blankets to a group of men, women and children for the sole reason of "shutting them up" and taking their land strikes me as a tad on the Evil side of things. Legal or not. As for slavery, slaves were property and therefore could be "legally" beaten, raped and killed. Sounds "Good" to me. Opium dens were also legal in this country. So was beating your wife. It was also perfectly legal to hire someone on the basis of race or to fire your secretary because she didn't put out. In short: Legal != Good. Also of note: Legal != Not Evil. I only brought up the issue on slavery being legal because someone else used it as an example of something being evil. They were implying that slavery was evil when compared to today's standards. But, by the standards of the time it was not considered evil by a lot of people simply because it was legal. And, a lot of times, good and evil can be a matter of perception. Personally I do not see anything evil about owning your fellow human beings. Wrong, yes. Evil, no.
Ikyotojin 01-24-08, 06:43 PM	Post historical revisionism is one of the greatest egocentric things done. True history is not to be judged by the later generations, but learned from. From the perspective of the future there are sure to be huge numbers of things that we do on a regular basis as a matter of course that will be seen as stupid, short sighted and "evil". Seen from the perspective of the owners, slavery was not evil, it was economics. Our society has changed and evolved. Now - back to the OT... There is a post earlier that illustrated the point incredibly well. Killing a creature that is a threat and then harvesting usable parts is not evil. Killing a creature JUST to harvest it's parts is. But from the intelligent creature's points of view, the heros are the evil ones, aren't they? ;)
Seeker95 01-24-08, 07:41 PM	Real world good and evil is not the same as fantasy world archetypes. In D&D, killing evil is not an evil act, period. In the real world, such a black-and-white statement is not possible.
JulesCARV 01-24-08, 11:03 PM	If you want to go with the "if there exists a society anywhere in history in which practice P is acceptable to that society, then P is not evil-aligned" line of reasoning, then either essentially no one will be evil, or the DM has to be really creative in coming up with something new that's evil. Elvis Costello said there's no such thing as an original sin. I think that perhaps there might be, but it's pretty hard to come up with one.;)
Zombie_Babies 01-25-08, 10:35 AM	I only brought up the issue on slavery being legal because someone else used it as an example of something being evil. They were implying that slavery was evil when compared to today's standards. But, by the standards of the time it was not considered evil by a lot of people simply because it was legal. And, a lot of times, good and evil can be a matter of perception. Personally I do not see anything evil about owning your fellow human beings. Wrong, yes. Evil, no. If you were a slave owned by another human being I think your tune may change a bit. You also forget that slavery was seen as evil by an awful lot of people - the slaves themselves. That is, of course, unless you do not consider slaves to be people...
Zombie_Babies 01-25-08, 10:40 AM	There is a post earlier that illustrated the point incredibly well. Killing a creature that is a threat and then harvesting usable parts is not evil. Killing a creature JUST to harvest it's parts is. But from the intelligent creature's points of view, the heros are the evil ones, aren't they? ;) Now the question here is are we talking about intelligent, fictitious D&D creatures or is this to be applied outside as well? If yes, then we are all evil as we all kill something for the sole purpose of harvesting it's parts. Hell, even hunting/fishing shows/magazines have started to euphemise with that word: Harvest. Harvesting, in most cases, is killing.
Azuelle 01-25-08, 11:04 AM	After reading the other two selling dragon parts threads I went and dug up my copy of Dragon #332 (did not know it had this article). After looking threw it I couldn't help but feel that this all seems like something I would expect to see in a book like The Book of Vile Darkness. Direct from the book: http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/Celestialdragon100/1-2.png http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/Celestialdragon100/2-1.png http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/Celestialdragon100/7-1.png http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/Celestialdragon100/5-1.png http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e189/Celestialdragon100/6-1.png Yeah, I'd say butchering sentient babies would be pretty evil. Even if you only cutup/bought chromatic dragon infants they are still innocent sentient infants. Isn't cutting up sentient beings for parts evil regardless of the creature's alignment? Would cutting up enemy orcs, elves, or drow and selling off their body parts for gold be any better? monsters and worlds really made me excited to see 3.5 come to an end i mean that book touched on everything I was looking for (except races of stone) even truename magic and if they can translate all the 3.5 stuff to some new beginning and make my job as dm easier i'm all for a new version Personally I don't think there will be a 4.5 becuase 3.0 and 3.5 were mechanic changes and 4.0 is a phalosopy change - write me - Azuelle:confused:
JulesCARV 01-25-08, 11:55 AM	Y'know, I try not to bring up animal rights/animal welfare issues, but if we're going to use arguments by analogy -- say, "we do this to rabbits, so therefore we can do it to dragons and it isn't evil" -- shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who want to use that analogy that humanity's typical treatment of non-human animals isn't a disgraceful mark against us as a species? I'm not arguing that our conduct is evil in this regard: I'm just saying that those who want to make these analogy-based arguments should either demonstrate that it isn't evil or use different arguments, since, if killing elephants for ivory (or whatever) isn't evil, it at least requires a nontrivial argument to demonstrate that this is the case.
Zombie_Babies 01-25-08, 12:27 PM	In D&D (and in life) killing and eating goes both ways. Am I evil if I eat a shark? What if the shark eats me? Is it evil? No. Eating is a function of life. So is death. The rub here is that Dragons are intelligent. That's where all these hang-ups come from. Even so, in D&D, we eat Dragons and they eat us. So what? Is the Paladin who eats a White dragon steak evil? What of the Gold dragon that eats a human that entered his lair and attacked him? No.
Dog_O_War 01-25-08, 01:17 PM	In D&D (and in life) killing and eating goes both ways. Am I evil if I eat a shark? What if the shark eats me? Is it evil? No. Eating is a function of life. So is death. The rub here is that Dragons are intelligent. That's where all these hang-ups come from. Even so, in D&D, we eat Dragons and they eat us. So what? Is the Paladin who eats a White dragon steak evil? What of the Gold dragon that eats a human that entered his lair and attacked him? No. I wonder how tender dragon meat would actually be? Given that they usually died fighting, it means they'll be pretty tense; this could lead to a tough chew. Also, eating carnivores (like dragons) offers the least amount of neutrients, as well as the poorest taste (fish seem to be the exception). Eating one just would not be high on my list of priorities. Blood-drinking, maybe. Finally, only ecoterrorist druids abhore the killing and eating of animals. Given that they are often a party's antagonist at some point, it is a safe bet that killing one to ensure you get your belly full of animal meat. Hell, if they've shape-shifted, you might get a belly full of them too; the question at that point is, "Is it cannibalism to eat a druid wild-shaped into a chicken?" Hopefully the response is finger-licking good.:)
Mock26 01-25-08, 02:07 PM	If you were a slave owned by another human being I think your tune may change a bit. You also forget that slavery was seen as evil by an awful lot of people - the slaves themselves. That is, of course, unless you do not consider slaves to be people... Evil, in the real world, is often a matter of opinion. Slavery had been a commonly practiced and accepted practice for thousands of years. It is only as societies have evolved that it has been come to be perceived as being evil. An awful lot of peole in the world did NOT see slavery as evil 300 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 1,000 years ago. And, slaves are not people, because if they were people they wouldn't be slaves. /sarcasm.
Mock26 01-25-08, 02:08 PM	I wonder how tender dragon meat would actually be? Given that they usually died fighting, it means they'll be pretty tense; this could lead to a tough chew. Which is why you should only use bludgeoning weapons when attacking monsters you plan on eating. It tenderizes the meat while killing the monster.
Zombie_Babies 01-25-08, 02:39 PM	Evil, in the real world, is often a matter of opinion. Slavery had been a commonly practiced and accepted practice for thousands of years. It is only as societies have evolved that it has been come to be perceived as being evil. An awful lot of peole in the world did NOT see slavery as evil 300 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 1,000 years ago. And, slaves are not people, because if they were people they wouldn't be slaves. /sarcasm. We are simply arguing different sides of perception. All I am saying is that though a lot of people didn't see it as Evil, a lot did. We cannot discount that fact. You were looking at one side of the coin (and I am not arguing with the fact some did see it as ok) and I am merely trying to say we need to keep both sides in mind.
Zombie_Babies 01-25-08, 02:47 PM	I wonder how tender dragon meat would actually be? Given that they usually died fighting, it means they'll be pretty tense; this could lead to a tough chew. Also, eating carnivores (like dragons) offers the least amount of neutrients, as well as the poorest taste (fish seem to be the exception). Eating one just would not be high on my list of priorities. Blood-drinking, maybe. Finally, only ecoterrorist druids abhore the killing and eating of animals. Given that they are often a party's antagonist at some point, it is a safe bet that killing one to ensure you get your belly full of animal meat. Hell, if they've shape-shifted, you might get a belly full of them too; the question at that point is, "Is it cannibalism to eat a druid wild-shaped into a chicken?" Hopefully the response is finger-licking good.:) I remember reading somewhere that dragon steaks were some of the most expensive and delectible cuts of meat to be found. In all games that we have run this has always been the case, however, so it may just be an "our group" thing. We even had a game that involved us being dragon steak suppliers. It was a lot of fun. As far as a wildshaped Druid goes I'd have to call cannibalism on that one. At least with my current PC, a LG Crusader of Bahamut. Hmm. Guess he won't eat dragons either. We do like to play with odd foods in our group, though. We've had everything from rat tacos to full blown accepted cannibalism. You could go into a tavern and order up a cut of elf. Good times. Thinking about it, a druid wildshaped as a chicken would put a little water in my mouth. Or maybe a bison. Nothin' beats bison for flavor. Hmmm. I think my next character may be a druid hunter... :devil:
Seeker95 01-25-08, 02:50 PM	Please try to keep real life examples of the perception of subjective evil out of the discussion of fantasy game examples of objective evil. It will be less helpful than explosive.
Awesome_Dude 01-25-08, 05:06 PM	Evil, in the real world, is often a matter of opinion. Slavery had been a commonly practiced and accepted practice for thousands of years. It is only as societies have evolved that it has been come to be perceived as being evil. An awful lot of peole in the world did NOT see slavery as evil 300 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 1,000 years ago. It didn't make it okay back then and it doesn't make it okay now. And, slaves are not people, because if they were people they wouldn't be slaves. /sarcasm. You get some props for delicious sarcasm, though.
Mock26 01-25-08, 07:37 PM	It didn't make it okay back then and it doesn't make it okay now. I never said it was Okay. In fact, I did in fact say that it was wrong. I merely said that it wasn't evil.
Vrykolas2k 01-25-08, 08:45 PM	I never said it was Okay. In fact, I did in fact say that it was wrong. I merely said that it wasn't evil. I think it's okay. In the proper context.
Awesome_Dude 01-25-08, 09:23 PM	I never said it was Okay. In fact, I did in fact say that it was wrong. I merely said that it wasn't evil. I'm pretty sure there's a direct correlation between what is wrong and what is Evil. The two (Almost?) invariably overlap. And slavery is indeed Evil. It's oppression, one of the key traits of Evil.
Lokiyn 01-26-08, 06:23 AM	I'm pretty sure there's a direct correlation between what is wrong and what is Evil. The two (Almost?) invariably overlap. And slavery is indeed Evil. It's oppression, one of the key traits of Evil. Except in Dnd, that would be more Law than Evil Which once again illustrates why you should Never attempt to apply real world Anything to Dnd. It's like arguing that momentum is conserved with teleport, its not, shrink item doesn't accelerate boulders, and evil things can be killed with impunity, since in dnd, killing evil always equals good.
Awesome_Dude 01-26-08, 01:49 PM	Except in Dnd, that would be more Law than Evil No, really, oppression is Evil. op·pres·sion /əˈprɛʃən/ –noun 1. the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. 2. an act or instance of oppressing. 3. the state of being oppressed. 4. the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc. Also, "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Oppression is not typical Lawful behavior. Law has never been about taking away someone's free will and dignity. In fact, without it being a matter of choice, being Lawful means absolutely nothing.
Mock26 01-26-08, 03:14 PM	And slavery is indeed Evil. It's oppression, one of the key traits of Evil. So says you.
Awesome_Dude 01-26-08, 03:36 PM	So says reality. Fixed it for you.
Mock26 01-26-08, 06:39 PM	Fixed it for you. Nope, you didn't fix it. So says you. There is no proof that oppression is one of the key traits of being evil. Nor is there any proof that slavery is in fact evil. Evil is a matter of perception, a perception that has changed over time. Just because we think something by our current standards is evil does not in fact make it evil. Unfortunatly, good and evil are abstracts. They are not absolutes. As such, there is no single way to define them or anything that can be attributed to them. As an aside I find it interesting that the Bible actually condones slavery. Here is one passage: However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Dam_Eht-karp 01-26-08, 06:58 PM	I wonder how tender dragon meat would actually be? Given that they usually died fighting, it means they'll be pretty tense; this could lead to a tough chew. this is what marination and tenderization are for.
Sarella Starshine 01-26-08, 07:13 PM	While it *is* interesting to note the comparisons of 'is slavery evil' to 'is hunting things for parts evil' it should be noted that the rather long, and rather tedious (as well as over done) disccusion on slavery being evil should belong in an entirely different thread and most likely in a totally different area of the board. That being said: I want to address the comment that someone tossed out: (to paraphrase) killing something for the purpose of 'harvesting' thier parts is evil (as opposed to killing something because it was a threat or the like *then* 'harvesting' thier parts). If that is the case, then every time we kill a chicken, a pig, a cow (and so forth), for the express purpose of cutting them up and eating thier meat (which is to be considered harvesting) should be *just* as evil as killing a dragon to use thier skin to make a boat. A dragon is really, when one gets right down to it is nothing more than an animal. It may be a really really smart one that, if you catch them in just the right mood, will talk to you (assuming anyways you have anything to say that would even be even remotely interesting to a dragon).
Awesome_Dude 01-26-08, 08:41 PM	Nope, you didn't fix it. So says you. There is no proof that oppression is one of the key traits of being evil. Nor is there any proof that slavery is in fact evil. Did we at some point stop discussing D&D? "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Evil is a matter of perception, a perception that has changed over time. Just because we think something by our current standards is evil does not in fact make it evil. Unfortunatly, good and evil are abstracts. They are not absolutes. As such, there is no single way to define them or anything that can be attributed to them. There is one way to define morality: Reality. Reality is objective, immutable and an utterly nondemocratic process. Evolution has made us for the purpose of procreation. Slavery decreases or eliminates the possibility of procreation for the slaves and thus is wrong.
Dam_Eht-karp 01-26-08, 09:25 PM	Did we at some point stop discussing D&D? There is one way to define morality: Reality. Reality is objective, immutable and an utterly nondemocratic process. Evolution has made us for the purpose of procreation. Slavery decreases or eliminates the possibility of procreation for the slaves and thus is wrong. that is the first time I've seen slavery argued wrong from a biological stand point... you win the internet. however, I think that's really only true with "american-style" slavery, the greeks and romans treated their slaves rather well, actually.
sblaxman 01-27-08, 06:49 PM	A dragon is really, when one gets right down to it is nothing more than an animal. It may be a really really smart one that, if you catch them in just the right mood, will talk to you (assuming anyways you have anything to say that would even be even remotely interesting to a dragon). I'd disagree with that... unless you define an elf or a human as "nothing more than an animal" and ok to kill and eat. If you define all creatures as animals, regardless of self-awareness and intelligence, then yes, dragons are just animals. In that case, there is no moral problem with killing your neighbor and eating him, because he's just an animal and killing animals is ok. Dragons (and many monsters in d&d) are not just animals. They are sentient, self aware beings. Whether killing a given being is evil or not, that is a different argument (and I would argue, in d&d terms, that killing an evil being is ok), but i disagree that they are just animals
Sarella Starshine 01-27-08, 07:32 PM	sblax: To better understand the view behind what I wrote: try to view it from the aspect of someone who lives in a world with dragons in it (it also helps to have the classifications in the MM be a metagame construct and not acctually how monsters are classified in the D&D world). It is obvious that a dragon is not a human. (I *hope* I do not need to list the differences.) It is also very obvious that a dragon is also not human-like (aka humanoid). It looks most like an overgrown lizard (though, much much smarter than one). Also it was done to counter the entire 'its evil because they are smart' arguement. Because, really, a druid (or even a ranger) can make the exact same arguement conserning true animals (such as deer, rabbits, and the like). Yes, there is a double standard (the entire since its not human or human looking, it can be treated differently), but its a double standard that one must have, especially if one likes to eat meat.
Polarbeast 01-27-08, 08:47 PM	I have to consider dragons not as mere animals, due to their intelligence, magical ability, ability to mate (albeit magically) with other intelligent races, etc. To deem them animals can only be because we're thinking on a "bipedal is superior" stance. Therefore, on the level of "is it evil to kidnap, kill, dismember dragons for parts to sell rather than because it has been a threat," then yes, I consider it so. But, if you've just slain an evil black dragon who's been terrorizing the towns of the delta, and you've got a carcass on your hands, it's very easy to want to do something useful (and profitable) with it. I usually don't deal with the alignment issues as such, because of the stickier issue of alignment in D&D, nature vs. nurture, is evil always evil, etc. Is slaughtering red dragon babies okay because they're going to be evil? Maybe. I prefer to take a consequence-related stance. What do the dragons themselves think? Would a copper dragon hate a green dragon, and shrug nonchalantly when he/she sees green dragon armor on someone? Or is all dragon flesh sacred, even across the chromatic/metallic divide? In any case, with the Dragon article, I would imagine that if a dragon, dragonborn, dragon shaman, etc., discovered a business like the first picture, it would wreak considerable havoc on that business and maybe the city surrounding it for daring to sell such things. If a dragon sees a boat made of another dragon, even an enemy, that dragon must surely think, "if that humanoid would make a boat out of dragonskin, I doubt it would pause at making something out of my skin. It's gotta go." As for eating, hmm... I wonder how the different breeds would taste... more acidic, bitter, spicy... :)
sblaxman 01-27-08, 09:00 PM	It is obvious that a dragon is not a human. (I *hope* I do not need to list the differences.) It is also very obvious that a dragon is also not human-like (aka humanoid). It looks most like an overgrown lizard (though, much much smarter than one). Also it was done to counter the entire 'its evil because they are smart' arguement. Because, really, a druid (or even a ranger) can make the exact same arguement conserning true animals (such as deer, rabbits, and the like). Yes, there is a double standard (the entire since its not human or human looking, it can be treated differently), but its a double standard that one must have, especially if one likes to eat meat. No, you don't, I wouldn't venture to argue they have anything to do w/ humans... they are dragons, totally different, no argument there. I was disagreeing with them being animals. I would place them in the same group as centaur, mind flayer, thri-kreen, etc... intelligent beings with their own culture (though, of course the level/degree of that depends on the DM)... Maybe it's the druid in me :D
Zombie_Babies 01-28-08, 10:33 AM	This hasn't been brought up yet, so... What about awakened animals? Is eating them evil? I say no. And I'd love to be able to tell an awakened cow just how tasty she was going to be right before I cooked her and for her to understand. It seems that would make it more... yummy. Yes, yummy. Again with the eating dragons stuff. They eat humanoids. The are smarter/wiser than humanoids. They cannot find a reason to not eat humanoids. Why would humanoids be expected to find one to not eat them? Even goody-goody gold dragons will eat an attacker. Why? As I mentioned earlier: Dead enemies cannot harm you. Digested enemies are harder to bring back from the dead. And again, I would fully expect to be eaten myself if I did not survive a battle with a dragon- of any color. If it didn't devour me I'd actually be quite offended.
sblaxman 01-28-08, 01:52 PM	Again with the eating dragons stuff. They eat humanoids. The are smarter/wiser than humanoids. They cannot find a reason to not eat humanoids. Why would humanoids be expected to find one to not eat them? Even goody-goody gold dragons will eat an attacker. I'd say it's culture dependant... some cultures would say it's a-ok to eat a dragon, others would poo-poo it... Some (say a natural/hunter culture) may think it's proper to eat the flesh of a slain monster, no need to waste it, or it may bring honor to consume it... Another (say high civilization, city culture) will say that eating the flesh of an intelligent creature is horrid, discusting act and completly evil...
Zombie_Babies 01-28-08, 02:11 PM	I'd say it's culture dependant... some cultures would say it's a-ok to eat a dragon, others would poo-poo it... Some (say a natural/hunter culture) may think it's proper to eat the flesh of a slain monster, no need to waste it, or it may bring honor to consume it... Another (say high civilization, city culture) will say that eating the flesh of an intelligent creature is horrid, discusting act and completly evil... The culture issue was brought up earlier- and ignored. I agree with this assesment but it seems to be less than enough for this thread. After all, once we see that culture is enough of a variable to make everyone "right" with at least one of their points, then no one can "win". Hence my less than sincere commentary on awakened animals and their extra tastiness. Sometimes it just doesn't pay to try. My last point (the restated one) was an attempt at identifying a type of cultural rationalization. It was also an attempt to homogenize cultural differences by providing an across the board reasoning for eating dragons. Basically the issue at hand comes down to positions and opinions that we cannot possibly comprehend. There are no dragons. There are no animals with that degree of intellect. We cannot know the proper "answer" here. There is none. In the games I play it is perfectly acceptible to eat dragons. Sometimes (when we play an evil game- though not always) it is also perfectly acceptible to eat an elf. Even if you are an elf. Other people do not see it this way. That's fine. So if there was to be an "answer" to this thread would it be culture? Yes. Yes it would. Cultural differences between races in the game itself and "cultural" differences between gaming groups themselves will provide the "answer" here. Some will allow it and others will say that it's evil. Is this an "answer" that will be accepted? No. No it will not. People do not come here to agree. That's fine, too.
sblaxman 01-28-08, 05:23 PM	I think we agree... how things work in your campaign is up to you.. I'm a proponent of custom campaigns, and I wouldn't ever venture to tell someone how to run theirs. I think my opinion is that there is no 'answer', just opinion on this topic. There shouldn't be answers for every question, that would just be boring and bland, and every game would be the same. I'm all for us all running it our own way, and "that's how I run it" is the final answer for me :) (see, some people can come to agree)