Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Syltorian 07-22-07, 06:38 AM	The Wicker Man (Fiend Folio p.189) struck me at first as an ideal match for the Ashbound. It's made from natural material and animated by druidic spells, ties in with traditional druidic rituals of the tales of our world, and it kills by fire. The Ashbound, whose symbol is a fire-scarred tree and who use the ashes of trees destroyed in fire by civilisation to anoint their members would see this as the ideal punishment for defilers of nature. With the Wicker Man, they would have an instrument of revenge and almost poetic justice (in their eyes, at least). They are also the sect most likely to actually have such executions. The Wardens of the Wood do not seem to go in for sacrifices all that much. The Gatekeepers have a different focus. The Children of Winter prefer more insidious methods such as poison and disease and vermin. The Greensingers might do it as poetic justice if someone destroyed a dryad tree, but otherwise would probably be too random to come up with it. The Ashbound have the focus to go through with the ritual, and the wish to employ such a vengeance is what the sect is essentially all about. But I'm hitting a snag here. The Ashbound are also dead-set against unnatural, magical creatures. A Wicker Man is a construct, and as such it is artificial. We are speaking of a sect here which in general eschews even forged weapons or woven clothing. So, would they refuse to have Wicker Man around, much less create them themselves - or would they believe that, since Wicker Men are made of natural materials, and animated by druidic, natural magic, that they carry the spirit of nature and its intent to avenge itself? Could they justify to themselves and the other members of the sect that the creation of Wicker Men does not conflict with their beliefs?
yrogerg 07-22-07, 08:35 AM	But I'm hitting a snag here. The Ashbound are also dead-set against unnatural, magical creatures. A Wicker Man is a construct, and as such it is artificial. We are speaking of a sect here which in general eschews even forged weapons or woven clothing. So, would they refuse to have Wicker Man around, much less create them themselves - or would they believe that, since Wicker Men are made of natural materials, and animated by druidic, natural magic, that they carry the spirit of nature and its intent to avenge itself? Could they justify to themselves and the other members of the sect that the creation of Wicker Men does not conflict with their beliefs? My understanding is that "unnatural magic" refers specifically to arcane and clerical magic, and that a Wicker Man or the like would be considered a creation of Nature itself, as you say. Still, this could really go either way. ::shrugs::
Rechan 07-22-07, 02:54 PM	But I'm hitting a snag here. The Ashbound are also dead-set against unnatural, magical creatures. A Wicker Man is a construct, and as such it is artificial. We are speaking of a sect here which in general eschews even forged weapons or woven clothing. So, would they refuse to have Wicker Man around, much less create them themselves - or would they believe that, since Wicker Men are made of natural materials, and animated by druidic, natural magic, that they carry the spirit of nature and its intent to avenge itself? Could they justify to themselves and the other members of the sect that the creation of Wicker Men does not conflict with their beliefs? Not to give a cheap answer, but zealots and idealists are not immune to hypocracy. "It doesn't count when we do it." Look at the Gatekeepers. They oppose Aberrations, and yet they themselves created Horrid creatures, which are ugly mutations of animals. Heck, you could have a split in the Ashbound on the issue. Some say even this is unnatural and that anyone who instigates it is corrupt, and others say that while it straddles a fine line, it is only via druidic magic, only as a sacrificial and/or siege engine weapon; it is not flippant magic used to defile nature but to protect and punish with the forces of nature.
Demangel 07-22-07, 04:07 PM	I agree with Rechan. Indeed, it could create an interesting dynamic for your PC's who are presumably going to be trying to thwart this, that the PC's actually get aid from some of the Druids who see this as going too far. A classic case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Of course this partnership would only be temporary, and the help given to the PC's might only be minor, and likely even nearly non existent as the PC's druidic ally might not want to risk exposure to his enemies by helping the PC's much. Furthermore, the ally, might be a shrewd person who see's both the PC's and the wickerman project as villainous and is pitting the PC's against the project in the hopes that one or both destroy eachother ridding him of one of his enemies. Thus I agree, the wickerman doesn't have to be something every ashbound Druid has to agree with. Indeed, it makes it that much more interesting if there are those who are against it and create a three way conflict of interest between the PC's the wickerman making ashbound, and the More fundamentalist ashbound.
Syltorian 07-22-07, 04:59 PM	Thanks for the answers. I like the idea that there could be a three-way conflict, possibly even with some in the middle who are not sure as to what they ought to think, or who have not quite understood how it works, and need to be convinced by the other sides to tip the balance. Thanks for the comparison to Horrid creatures too, Rechan. I'd forgotten about those, and that they are in fact creatures of the Gatekeepers. I wonder what the Ashbound think of them (or any of the other druid sects, for that matter). My guess is that most will seek to destroy them and point them out as a misguided attempt to intervene in nature (without being prevented from doing so themselves, as Rechan points out).
yrogerg 07-22-07, 06:51 PM	Thanks for the comparison to Horrid creatures too, Rechan. I'd forgotten about those, and that they are in fact creatures of the Gatekeepers. I wonder what the Ashbound think of them (or any of the other druid sects, for that matter). My guess is that most will seek to destroy them and point them out as a misguided attempt to intervene in nature (without being prevented from doing so themselves, as Rechan points out). Someone once pointed out that the Horrid template seems to add a number of qualities -while not so useful against Outsiders and Aberrations- that are similar to those a Black Dragon possesses, suggesting that Horrid animals have some sort of link to Vvrack. In which case, it's not necessarily an obvious contradiction of the Gatekeepers' philosophy, which largely seems to be to stem off extraplanar invasion by every means at their disposal. However, it *does* almost certainly create division and hostility between the Ashbound and the Gatekeepers, just as the Greensingers' connection to Fey also puts them at odds with the other two, as well. That said, I do see any real division over whether creating a Wicker Man is a violation because it's a construct, despite using druidic magic, being more akin to some Ashbounds' division over someone who runs around assassinating Archmages with a non-magical longsword. Honestly, I kinda picture the Ashbound accepting that, in order to directly combat powerful mages, they do need to rely on more powerful manifestations of nature's fury.
Syltorian 07-23-07, 06:53 AM	Someone once pointed out that the Horrid template seems to add a number of qualities -while not so useful against Outsiders and Aberrations- that are similar to those a Black Dragon possesses, suggesting that Horrid animals have some sort of link to Vvrack. In which case, it's not necessarily an obvious contradiction of the Gatekeepers' philosophy, which largely seems to be to stem off extraplanar invasion by every means at their disposal. Hm, excellent point, that. I had not thought of it, but it makes sense. That said, I do see any real division over whether creating a Wicker Man is a violation because it's a construct, despite using druidic magic, being more akin to some Ashbounds' division over someone who runs around assassinating Archmages with a non-magical longsword. Honestly, I kinda picture the Ashbound accepting that, in order to directly combat powerful mages, they do need to rely on more powerful manifestations of nature's fury. That seems true. They need all the weapons they can get away with.
Badace36 07-23-07, 03:31 PM	Well, the two new druidic created constructs in Monster Manual V (Scouring Slinger and Scouring Stanchion, Pg. 144-147) have in their Eberron specific description that they are created by the Ashbound, so I don't see why the Wicker Man couldn't fall into the same category. On this note, the Wicker Man is awesome. <3
Rechan 07-23-07, 04:20 PM	Well, the two new druidic created constructs in Monster Manual V (Scouring Slinger and Scouring Stanchion, Pg. 144-147) have in their Eberron specific description that they are created by the Ashbound, so I don't see why the Wicker Man couldn't fall into the same category. On this note, the Wicker Man is awesome. <3 THis would assume though that you hold any sort of credible weight to those little blurbs. ;)
Badace36 07-23-07, 04:35 PM	THis would assume though that you hold any sort of credible weight to those little blurbs. ;) Haha. And why not? It seems perfectly logical to me. That said, a game world belongs to whoever happens to be DMing at the time. The Ashbound could create giant flying brick houses with swords that are on lightning laser fire if he wanted.
Rechan 07-23-07, 06:33 PM	Haha. And why not? It seems perfectly logical to me. Simply that the little blurbs and sidebars and stuff often really really suck. So sure, it may be "Canon" because it's in a book somewhere, but in many cases it was handled BADLY. Drow secretly worshipping a version of the Fury who really likes spiders? ;)
Badace36 07-24-07, 01:26 AM	Simply that the little blurbs and sidebars and stuff often really really suck. So sure, it may be "Canon" because it's in a book somewhere, but in many cases it was handled BADLY. Drow secretly worshipping a version of the Fury who really likes spiders? ;) Haha. Oh? What's wrong with that? Fits right in with the idea that the Host and Six simply regard other religions as different versions of themselves, along with the parallel to Lolth going with the idea that EVERYTHING D&D fits into Eberron.
Rechan 07-24-07, 02:05 AM	Haha. Oh? What's wrong with that? Fits right in with the idea that the Host and Six simply regard other religions as different versions of themselves, along with the parallel to Lolth going with the idea that EVERYTHING D&D fits into Eberron. ... If you don't see what's wrong with it, then there's no sense in elaborating. As I said earlier, the assumption of using the blurbs as proof requires one to give credibility to the blurbs. You obviously do. To someone who does not, they do not. It's that simple.
Syltorian 07-24-07, 05:54 AM	Well, the two new druidic created constructs in Monster Manual V (Scouring Slinger and Scouring Stanchion, Pg. 144-147) have in their Eberron specific description that they are created by the Ashbound, so I don't see why the Wicker Man couldn't fall into the same category. I haven't got the new monster manual yet, but I am planning to get it. Two new constructs for the Ashbound sound great. Anything more on them? However, like Rechan, I am a bit wary of their little blurbs. Getting Loth in by another name smells just as foul, to me and many others; might as well get the Seldarine in and declare Corellon is really worshipped by some elves and everyone believes he is Aureon. But the worst they came up with is the Dread Blossom Swarms, who were allegedly used by the Elves against their ancient foes, the Orcs. Hello? There is no evidence the two races ever met on anything more than a purely incidental scale; there certainly is no ancestral rivalry between them, or any reason why Aerenal would attack the Shadow Marches.
yrogerg 07-24-07, 07:24 AM	Drow secretly worshipping a version of the Fury who really likes spiders? ;) Well, not *all* the Drow. Just all the Drow that live outside Xen'drik. ...With the strong implication that that's actually most of them :twitch:
Shady314 07-24-07, 05:30 PM	Not to give a cheap answer, but zealots and idealists are not immune to hypocracy. "It doesn't count when we do it." Look at the Gatekeepers. They oppose Aberrations, and yet they themselves created Horrid creatures, which are ugly mutations of animals. Well they're specifically against the aberrations of Xoriat. It's just that that is where the vast majority are from and once you learn to kill aberrations from Xoritat you can kill aberrations from anywhere. But I just want to point out there is nothing hypocritical about gatekeepers and the Horrid template. When we use the word in real life English, it's to say something deviates (usually substantially) from the norm. In DnD it means something more specific. Mutated and weird looking does not an aberration make or Gatekeepers should be duty bound to slaughter half the inhabitants of a fantasy world. :-P There's no hypocrisy there. It turns them into a funky looking badass feral animal but does not turn them into an aberration. As for the Wicker Man I'm not familiar with it's stats but is it really a "Construct" or is that just it's type? If it's just a matter of Type that's just how you treat it mechanically but that doesn't mean flavorwise you have to say it's the exact same as an Iron Golem or anything. If it is some sort of druidic Iron Golem there's still probably no problem because the Ashbound hate arcane magic, Divine Magic is iffier but generally ok and Druidic magic is 100 A-OK. So as long as it doesn't require a wizard or anything overtly arcane most Ashbound will have no problem with it. There are also less fanatical Ashbound that are not as opposed to arcane magic and are willing to use it to achieve good ends. And even the most fanatical are willing to pit arcane magic against arcane magic in the hopes they'll destroy each other. There's a lot of different ways/views one could take that would make this work.
Rechan 07-24-07, 06:32 PM	When we use the word in real life English, it's to say something deviates (usually substantially) from the norm. In DnD it means something more specific. Mutated and weird looking does not an aberration make or Gatekeepers should be duty bound to slaughter half the inhabitants of a fantasy world. :-P There's no hypocrisy there. It turns them into a funky looking badass feral animal but does not turn them into an aberration. Except that they're intentionally mutating the animal. Which is what the daelkyr do on a much larger, drastic scale. It may not be hypocracy in the letter, but it is in the spirit. The horrid creatures are shock troops that the Gatekeepers need. Horrid creatures is certainly not a purist move. It's a practical one.
Shady314 07-25-07, 04:53 PM	Except that they're intentionally mutating the animal. Which is a BAD thing? Breeders do this too you know. Is Vadalis full of evil people because of it? :) I don't think so. Which is what the daelkyr do on a much larger, drastic scale. I suppose if you look at these two things from very far away they seem similar. But you are forgetting the Daelkyr create slaves and inflict unbelievable torment upon the sentient races. For all we know the horrid template is quite pleasant or at least does not inflict pain on the animal. In return the animal becomes stronger and keeps their well I'll say free will but they're animals not sentient races like humans or elves. I suppose you could argue their newfound ferocity is cruel to inflict on them but the template can only be applied to dire animals to begin with so....yeah. And the druid then proceeds to fight alongside them and lead them into battle along with his own animal companion against evil forces like the Daelkyr, whereas a Daelkyr just laughs at your misery and thrusts you out into the world to wreak havoc. Or happily uses you to further his own ends whereas the Gatekeeper does not apply the template to every animal he meets just for fun. He couldn't anyways since it has to be a dire animal. It may not be hypocracy in the letter, but it is in the spirit. Gatekeepers are not against mutation. They took already Dire animals, beefed them up to serve as companions so they could actually have a chance at survival rather than just being cannon fodder, and reluctantly used them to try and save the world.... I'm just not seeing the similarities unless you strip away all the context of the situation and say well Horrid template changes animals and Daelkyr also change animals. Obviously the devil is in the details. Unless using ANY template makes you as horrendous as a Daelkyr? :pbbbtt: The horrid creatures are shock troops that the Gatekeepers need. There's an important word there where as if we were speaking of Daelkyr it would be pleasure. Horrid creatures is certainly not a purist move. It's a practical one. I never said Gatekeepers created them lightly left and right. In fact the template itself suggests otherwise. But I'm not seeing where the hypocrisy comes in. Gatekeeper mission: Keep out all EXTRAPLANAR abominations. Specifically the Daelkyr and any that pose a threat to Eberron. How does this prevent a druid from applying a template to a Dire animal? JUST because it makes the animal look weird? It's still a "natural" mutation using druidic magic. It doesn't give them tentacles or any of the crazy crap Aberrations would get. It improves their natural attacks and toughens their con. makes them immune to acid etc.
Rechan 07-25-07, 05:35 PM	Which is a BAD thing? Breeders do this too you know. Is Vadalis full of evil people because of it? According to the Ashbound, yes. Are you saying that's not a legitimate stance to take? And you're the only one throwing the Evil word around, not me. When you say "Evil", do you mean D&D alignment, or "That it's WRONG"? Are the Daelkyr evil simply because they mutate things? Or because, as you say the Daelkyr create slaves and inflict unbelievable torment upon the sentient races. So if the mutations that one does 1) does not make them a slave and 2) torments, then it's okay? I'm sure the Daelkyr mutated non-sentient creatures in addition to the sentients - many an aberration aren't intelligent. And many an aberration may not be tormented - do you think Illithids, Beholders or Chuuls really mind their state? Or "suffer"? To use a different analogy, the Empty Vessels want the Quori to possess them - they are raised to believe that the possession is an honor and it's a quasi-religious experience. So the Quori havn't enslaved Riedra against their will. And the Riedrians aren't suffering, or mutated into anything with tentacles, so I guess it's okay? Wait, you mean that doesn't matter? Well the Dreaming Dark is doing what it's doing so that their existance, as they know it, isn't drastically changed. They have good intentions. So that should make it okay. so they could actually have a chance at survival rather than just being cannon fodder, and reluctantly used them to try and save the world So ends justify means? Good intentions make great Hell-bound highways. :) Evil can be done for the greater good. Just because the Druids are nice to the horrid animals does not dismiss the potential that it is an Evil Act or that the act is morally questionable - A necromancer can be really nice to the undead he raises and that doesn't make the creation of undead any less evil. And how do you know that the Daelkyr are condescending and cruel to their creations? In fact, much of the information put out on the Daelkyr say that they see their creations as artwork and beautiful. Their actions, to the Daelkyr, are very kind and wonderful. They are freeing their creations from the limitations of their form, and making them better, in the Daelkyr's opinion. From the Daelkyr's POV, they are being kind and nice and loving. Gatekeeper mission: Keep out all EXTRAPLANAR abominations. Specifically the Daelkyr and any that pose a threat to Eberron. So as long as it's not an Aberration from another plane then it's okay. And any aberration on its own does not "pose a threat to Eberron". A lone illithid is not going to destroy the world. But enough Aberrations - any Aberrations - can be a threat to those In Eberron. And that includes "native" aberrations. Khyber spawns them, and I'm sure that the Gatekeepers aren't fond of "native" aberrations either. How does this prevent a druid from applying a template to a Dire animal? JUST because it makes the animal look weird? It's still a "natural" mutation using druidic magic. It doesn't give them tentacles or any of the crazy crap Aberrations would get. It improves their natural attacks and toughens their con. makes them immune to acid etc. I never said that it should prevent the druids from doing it. But if they do it they're hypocrits. And many of the benefits that Aberrations get from their aberrant nature improves them too. Just because they get tentacles and other "Crazy crap" doesn't disqualify that. Hey, I'd say a carrion crawler is way better than any other scavenger with the horrid template. No matter how nice the druids are or what they put the horrid animals to, they are still using the same means as the Daelkyr. That doesn't make it any worse, but it doesn't make it better at the core. All I'm seeing is just split hairs here. "The druids are nice and the monsters aren't crazy looking and they did it to save the world so it doesn't matter that they're mutating things." But the fact remains that they are mutating things, just like the daelkyr. It's like an executioner who says that killing is wrong - he still kills people, it's just that he sees what he does as morally just and doesn't qualify it as "murder". Even if he's really nice to the inmate and goes out of his way to make it not hurt and the government says it's OKAY, EVEN if the person he's executing is a cold blooded mass murder, at its core still it is him taking a life against the will of the person who dies. If he holds the stance that killing is wrong, then to some extent he is a hypocrite. And the same could be said for a soldier.
yrogerg 07-26-07, 12:43 AM	What about Awaken? Doesn't that turn ordinary animals into horrible mutants, too? If not, why not?
Rechan 07-26-07, 01:20 AM	What about Awaken? Doesn't that turn ordinary animals into horrible mutants, too? If not, why not? Well obviously it doesn't because it doesn't give them tentacles or makes them crazy looking so it must be okay. ;) Though really, here you are FORCING sentience on something (since it can't give consent, and must beat a will save). Its type changes from Animal to Magical Beast. That is a drastic change. And I dare say that you might induce suffering on the awakened animal - Ignorance is bliss. Now it must deal with the morals of its actions and be aware of all the imperfections, suffering, opening it up to the potential for dread and depression. It is, after all, a permanent effect.
Shady314 07-26-07, 06:37 AM	According to the Ashbound, yes. Are you saying that's not a legitimate stance to take? What do Ashbound beliefs have to do with Gatekeeper hypocrisy?! :confused: And you're the only one throwing the Evil word around, not me. When you say "Evil", do you mean D&D alignment, or "That it's WRONG"? Are the Daelkyr evil simply because they mutate things? Or because, as you say I just meant cruel. So if the mutations that one does 1) does not make them a slave and 2) torments, then it's okay? I'm sure the Daelkyr mutated non-sentient creatures in addition to the sentients - many an aberration aren't intelligent. And many an aberration may not be tormented - do you think Illithids, Beholders or Chuuls really mind their state? Or "suffer"? Did Daelkyr create Illithids, Beholders (and Chuuls I'm not familiar with.) Or were they originally residents of Xoriat? I believe they're originally residents of Xoriat. Though there's a theory Beholders are native to Khyber. And I was specifically referring to Dolgrims, believed to be the goblin victims of the Daelkyr. But really you can't be serious. I think you are losing sight of the original point. Is the Horrid Template really hypocritical of the Gatekeeper's teachings? Surely we can both agree the suffering inflicted by the Daelkyr is infinitely beyond any possible horror of a horrid animal? To use a different analogy, the Empty Vessels want the Quori to possess them - they are raised to believe that the possession is an honor and it's a quasi-religious experience. So the Quori havn't enslaved Riedra against their will. And the Riedrians aren't suffering, or mutated into anything with tentacles, so I guess it's okay? Wait, you mean that doesn't matter? Well the Dreaming Dark is doing what it's doing so that their existance, as they know it, isn't drastically changed. They have good intentions. So that should make it okay. ??? Uh that was YOUR original point. I DO consider brainwashing to be evil. But it's the Daelkyr that use it. NOT Gatekeepers.... What is your point here? Where did I say it's the tentacles and stuff that makes it bad? I just pointed out the Horrid Template grants no supernatural abilities beyond immunity to acid (which I think is actually an Ex ability) or the aberration type. This is rather critical if you are going to say Gatekeepers are hypocrites for using the Horrid Template. All it does is enhance the natural lethality of the animal, make them look well Horrid and grant them immunity to acid through their newfound toughness. So ends justify means? Good intentions make great Hell-bound highways. :) Evil can be done for the greater good. Uh yeah what's your point? We're talking about the Gatekeepers teachings/beliefs vs. use of the Horrid template. Let's stay on topic. I merely pointed out selective use of a template to toughen up your animal companions/battle companions when you're fighting a war for your very survival is at least UNDERSTANDABLE. The Daelkyr do what they do for fun. Or at best because it is in their nature and they cannot help it. Against such a force the Gatekeepers would be remiss NOT to enhance their warriors and just let them be cannon fodder. Just because the Druids are nice to the horrid animals does not dismiss the potential that it is an Evil Act or that the act is morally questionable I absolutely agree but I would expect the template to let us know such an important fact. Something like "this process is incredibly painful for the animal in question and is now forbidden" or "this ritual eventually drives the animal insane etc." These would be important points. The fact it doesn't feel the need to let us know there's anything particularly awful about it leads me to believe it's no worse than other forms of magical enhancement like awakening. Now we could argue the morals of awakening but let's first focus on this topic. :) The fact is that druid can talk to this dire animal and recruit him to his cause to stop a force that would warp and destroy the entire world (ie nature) with a magical ritual that will enhance his natural lethality. He did not snatch him up the way the Daelkyr would. Experiment on him without any form of consent and then consign him to a life of servitude or worse. - A necromancer can be really nice to the undead he raises and that doesn't make the creation of undead any less evil. True but the creation of undead is actually spelled out as evil. The horrid template mentions no such restrictions. We are also aware that it is culturally and socially taboo to desecrate the dead in RL and in Eberron. There is no such taboo on horrid animals. And how do you know that the Daelkyr are condescending and cruel to their creations? In fact, much of the information put out on the Daelkyr say that they see their creations as artwork and beautiful. Oh come on. Be serious. The Daelkyr see their cruelty as beautiful. Suffering and everything WE would abhor is what the Daelkyr find wonderful. Are you seriously suggesting the Daelkyr would treat their mutated subjects nicely (the way WE would define it) while the Gatekeeper DRUIDS are treating their animals cruelly...? :rolleyes: Their actions, to the Daelkyr, are very kind and wonderful. They are freeing their creations from the limitations of their form, and making them better, in the Daelkyr's opinion. From the Daelkyr's POV, they are being kind and nice and loving. Excellent, but this has to do what with Gatekeeper hypocrisy? So as long as it's not an Aberration from another plane then it's okay. :rolleyes: I said specifically aberrations from Xoriat. The Gatekeepers fight all aberrations but threats from Xoriat come first THEN native aberrations. That's their mission statement. I only brought it up since it's integral to the entire discussion. And any aberration on its own does not "pose a threat to Eberron". A Gatekeeper would obviously disagree! A lone one could shatter a Dimensional Seal and then all of Eberron is f-ed. :) They can also do this annoying breeding thing. Or this annoying killing innocent people/animals thing. Then there's the abstract philosophical argument that an aberrations very unnatural existence is bad for life and nature. ;) A lone illithid is not going to destroy the world. But enough Aberrations - any Aberrations - can be a threat to those In Eberron. And that includes "native" aberrations. Khyber spawns them, and I'm sure that the Gatekeepers aren't fond of "native" aberrations either. UH Rechan? It's not like you to only half read a post. Please go back where I mentioned they fight aberrations with a particular (NOT SOLE) emphasis on threats from Xoriat. I never said that it should prevent the druids from doing it. But if they do it they're hypocrits. You've utterly failed to make that point. And many of the benefits that Aberrations get from their aberrant nature improves them too. Just because they get tentacles and other "Crazy crap" doesn't disqualify that. Hey, I'd say a carrion crawler is way better than any other scavenger with the horrid template. This is all wonderful to know what YOU feel about aberrations Rechan but you have not ONCE shown how a Gatekeepers fellings on the matter would be hypocritical when creating a Horrid animal! A Gatekeeper DOES see a difference between an animal or magical beast that has had their own natural abilities enhanced vs. an aberration that has had "unnatural" augmentations they could never have gained elsewhere. You can argue Gatekeeper beliefs are stupid but that's not our original point. No matter how nice the druids are or what they put the horrid animals to, they are still using the same means as the Daelkyr. That doesn't make it any worse, but it doesn't make it better at the core. Only if you are going to generalize two separate actions so broadly that you lump them all under the word "change." Heck by this logic they're hypocrites for shapeshifting. :rolleyes: If you actually bother to look at context they are radically different. All I'm seeing is just split hairs here. "The druids are nice and the monsters aren't crazy looking and they did it to save the world so it doesn't matter that they're mutating things." But the fact remains that they are mutating things, just like the daelkyr. :banghead: No the Daelkyr do not MUTATE! They WARP you! There is nothing about a dolgrim that is goblinish. They have utterly twisted and warped their experiments into horrors! The Gatekeepers took already badass dire animals and let nature further evolve them into badass Horrid ones. They get natural attacks, and an increased CON etc. AND they keep their own mind! They literally suffer NO drawbacks except for a weird appearance. The Gatekeepers mission statement is not to keep things from looking ugly! It's like an executioner who says that killing is wrong - he still kills people, WHAT?????? It's nothing like that at all. The Gatekeepers are not against natural evolution and mutation of plants and animals. it's just that he sees what he does as morally just and doesn't qualify it as "murder". Even if he's really nice to the inmate and goes out of his way to make it not hurt and the government says it's OKAY, EVEN if the person he's executing is a cold blooded mass murder, at its core still it is him taking a life against the will of the person who dies. If he holds the stance that killing is wrong, then to some extent he is a hypocrite. And the same could be said for a soldier. 1) You have wandered SO far off point. 2) It is entirely possible, even likely, that hippie druids that can talk to animals are not doing it against the will of the animal. 3) The Gatekeeper's teachings do NOT prohibit it. It is like an executioner that believes murderers should be punished and has a specific definition of murder he does not believe execution falls under. Therefore he is not a hypocrite. We can argue morals till the end of time but it has nothing to do with the original point.
Shady314 07-26-07, 06:48 AM	Well obviously it doesn't because it doesn't give them tentacles or makes them crazy looking so it must be okay. ;) The strawman is annoying Rechan. I never said that. Nor do I think any Gatekeepers have. I'd say so long as you do not gain the aberration type or detect as an aberration the Gatekeepers have no particular problem with any creature or magic such as awakening an animal. It should never be for fun or frivolity though. it must serve an important purpose. A displacer beast for example while having tentacles does not bother a Gatekeeper at all. Though really, here you are FORCING sentience on something (since it can't give consent, and must beat a will save). Its type changes from Animal to Magical Beast. That is a drastic change. And I dare say that you might induce suffering on the awakened animal - Ignorance is bliss. Now it must deal with the morals of its actions and be aware of all the imperfections, suffering, opening it up to the potential for dread and depression. It is, after all, a permanent effect. Awakening is a serious deal. That's why druids don't wander around casting it every chance they get every day. It's not an automatically evil action though I'd make it evil if a character ever undertook it lightly. It's interesting you'd immediately assume Awakening is bad for an animal though. The will save can easily be seen as the animals base instincts attempting to overcome the new thoughts and intelligence of awakening. I'd see a successful will save as more of a failure of the caster than a success for the animal. It'd all be shocking at first certainly and many things maybe terrifying. But ultimately you've GRANTED sentience to a lifeform (do you curse your mother for making you leave the womb? ;) Or if you could grant a mentally handicapped person an average IQ would you think to yourself "ignorance is bliss?") that before was a creature of base instinct. Ignorance is bliss... very interesting. I'm sure that's how the Quori feel about Riedrans. :P I think ultimately awakening is a good thing for the animal. I never viewed it as a curse where the animal yearns to be human but is stuck as a wolf and lives a tortured existence. It becomes an animal that has awakened to a higher level of conscious thought. It still has the desires and feelings of a wolf or whatever though so it can still be happy while gaining a greater control over it's own destiny. Still it is somewhat outside the natural order of things so druids do use it sparingly.
yrogerg 07-26-07, 08:38 AM	The strawman is annoying Rechan. I never said that. Nor do I think any Gatekeepers have. I'd say so long as you do not gain the aberration type or detect as an aberration the Gatekeepers have no particular problem with any creature or magic such as awakening an animal. It should never be for fun or frivolity though. it must serve an important purpose. In that case.... WHAT ABOUT HORRID ANIMALS MAKES THEM A CASE OF GATEKEEPER HYPOCRISY? They're magical beasts, after all. Same as Awakened animals. And as I suggested earlier, their abilities likely derive from a connection to Vvrack, making them far more "natural" than your average abberration.
Shady314 07-26-07, 08:40 AM	In that case.... WHAT ABOUT HORRID ANIMALS MAKES THEM A CASE OF GATEKEEPER HYPOCRISY? They're magical beasts, after all. Same as Awakened animals. And as I suggested earlier, their abilities likely derive from a connection to Vvrack, making them far more "natural" than your average abberration. What the...? You do know I am the one saying it is NOT hypocritical right? My name is not Rechan.
yrogerg 07-26-07, 09:00 AM	What the...? You do know I am the one saying it is NOT hypocritical right? My name is not Rechan. Dur. :embarrass ::re-reads:: Wait, that means Rechan's saying that casting Awaken is a horrible thing that Druids would never do? And he's not being sarcastic? Poor, mistreated Oalian, I guess.
Shady314 07-26-07, 09:08 AM	I don't think he really believes that. He just likes to play Devil's Advocate.
Rechan 07-26-07, 09:16 AM	Did Daelkyr create Illithids, Beholders (and Chuuls I'm not familiar with.) Or were they originally residents of Xoriat? I believe they're originally residents of Xoriat. Though there's a theory Beholders are native to Khyber. And I was specifically referring to Dolgrims, believed to be the goblin victims of the Daelkyr. ECS, page 302: Beholders Most of the Aberrations of Eberron are creations of the Daelkyr, sinister lords of Xoriat. Beholders are no exception[b]. The likely creator of the Beholders was Daelkyr obsessed with eyes. However, you are right about Illithids, and while I can't find anything on Chuuls, I think I have read somewhere they were native to Xoriat. (Tangent unrelated to the argument at hand: I do wonder if "native to Xoriat" means that they evolved there "naturally", or if the illithi ancestors were created by the daelkyr in Xoriat itself. You could say that dolgaunts/chokers/dolgrims are "native" to Eberron because they were created here, so couldn't you say the same about the Aberrations from Xoriat?) But really you can't be serious. I think you are losing sight of the original point. Is the Horrid Template really hypocritical of the Gatekeeper's teachings? Surely we can both agree the suffering inflicted by the Daelkyr is infinitely beyond any possible horror of a horrid animal? Yes, I am serious. No, we can't agree. The suffering is merely a by-product, an after effect, of one thing: mutation. That is the issue here. The act of mutation and then the hard stance against the Daelkyr, who mutate. Uh that was YOUR original point. I DO consider brainwashing to be evil. But it's the Daelkyr that use it. NOT Gatekeepers.... What is your point here? My original point was that the ends do not justify the means - just because the Gatekeepers did what they did to save the world does not excuse it. You are saying that because they saved the world and they're nice to the animals that's excusable. You said this: the Daelkyr create slaves and inflict unbelievable torment upon the sentient races. beefed them up to serve as companions so they could actually have a chance at survival rather than just being cannon fodder, and reluctantly used them to try and save the world I take what you said and apply it to the Quori: To use a different analogy, the Empty Vessels want the Quori to possess them - they are raised to believe that the possession is an honor and it's a quasi-religious experience. So the Quori havn't enslaved Riedra against their will. And the Riedrians aren't suffering, or mutated into anything with tentacles, so I guess it's okay? Wait, you mean that doesn't matter? Well the Dreaming Dark is doing what it's doing so that their existance, as they know it, isn't drastically changed. They have good intentions. So that should make it okay. Simply put: the Empty Vessels are not suffering, and they're not "enslaved" in the literal sense; it's a cultural belief, not a compulsion or mental intrusion that makes them accept the possession. And the Quori are doing what they're doing so they can "survive" as they know it. There is also no cruelty towards the Riedrians from the Quori. So using the criteria in the first statement (the Daelkyr enslave and cause torment so they're bad), the Quori aren't bad. Where did I say it's the tentacles and stuff that makes it bad? I just pointed out the Horrid Template grants no supernatural abilities beyond immunity to acid (which I think is actually an Ex ability) or the aberration [b]type. Well, here is the particular passage about the tentacles: JUST because it makes the animal look weird? It's still a "natural" mutation using druidic magic. It doesn't give them tentacles or any of the crazy crap Aberrations would get. I don't know - What is your point about the tentacles and crazy crap? If you're okay with horrid animals looking weird... then why was it brought up? We're talking about the Gatekeepers teachings/beliefs vs. use of the Horrid template. Let's stay on topic. You said this: beefed them up to serve as companions so they could actually have a chance at survival rather than just being cannon fodder, and reluctantly used them to try and save the world To which I replied: So ends justify means? Good intentions make great Hell-bound highways. Evil can be done for the greater good. You are trying to excuse the actions of the Gatekeepers by saying they tried to save the world. I am disputing that by saying that ends do not justify means. If me disputing a part of your argument is somehow off topic, then that part of your argument is off-topic. I merely pointed out selective use of a template to toughen up your animal companions/battle companions when you're fighting a war for your very survival is at least UNDERSTANDABLE. The Daelkyr do what they do for fun. Or at best because it is in their nature and they cannot help it. Against such a force the Gatekeepers would be remiss NOT to enhance their warriors and just let them be cannon fodder. And I never said it wasn't understandable. I merely pointed out that the Gatekeepers can't mutate these animals and then turn around and say "Oh yeah aberrations are bad the Daelkyr are evil because they make Aberrations, m'kay" without being hypocrits. They created monsters of their own. I absolutely agree but I would expect the template to let us know such an important fact. Something like "this process is incredibly painful for the animal in question and is now forbidden" or "this ritual eventually drives the animal insane etc." These would be important points. The fact it doesn't feel the need to let us know there's anything particularly awful about it leads me to believe it's no worse than other forms of magical enhancement like awakening. Except that just because it's not painful or makes them insane doesn't make it right. Especially when you're on a soap box against an enemy that does the same thing. The book doesn't say that Dolgaunts or Dolgrims or Chokers are in pain or are insane or that the mutating process of the Daelkyr is painful. The fact is that druid can talk to this dire animal and recruit him to his cause to stop a force that would warp and destroy the entire world (ie nature) with a magical ritual that will enhance his natural lethality. He did not snatch him up the way the Daelkyr would. Experiment on him without any form of consent and then consign him to a life of servitude or worse. Because I'm certain that the dire animal understood completely what the druid was going to do. True but the creation of undead is actually spelled out as evil. The horrid template mentions no such restrictions. We are also aware that it is culturally and socially taboo to desecrate the dead in RL and in Eberron. There is no such taboo on horrid animals. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We are not told that what the Daelkyr did is spelled out as evil, either. Oh come on. Be serious. The Daelkyr see their cruelty as beautiful. Suffering and everything WE would abhor is what the Daelkyr find wonderful. Are you seriously suggesting the Daelkyr would treat their mutated subjects nicely (the way WE would define it) while the Gatekeeper DRUIDS are treating their animals cruelly...? :rolleyes: No. I am merely saying that to a Daelkyr, what they are doing is nice. They are not cackling maniacally and saying "Ha ha you are hurting and tormented, you suck, be gone now." They are caressing the aberration and cooing to it, telling how pretty its new slime-coated tentacles are, and will now go send it to play with the Dhakanni. Here, page 278 from the ECS: [T]heir manner of thinking is almost impossible for mortals (or even other outsiders) to understand. For the daelkyr, destroying worlds appears to be a form of art ... Some are poets, musicians, or sculptors, although their works are invariably bizarre and alien to human senses. Excellent, but this has to do what with Gatekeeper hypocrisy? No, it has to do with you claiming that the Daelkyr are evil cruel monsters and the Gatekeepers are good because they are nice to their animals. I'll put it very plainly. How the Gatekeepers treat the horrid animals or the Daelkyr treat the abberations after the fact has Nothing to Do with Anything.. The act of making the horrid animal and then getting on a soap box about the Daelkyr is the hypocrisy. The rest is just rebuffing your arguments. If you think the above is off-topic, then stop making the comment for me to respond to. UH Rechan? It's not like you to only half read a post. I read your post multiple times to select the parts that I wanted to peel apart and respond to. Please go back where I mentioned they fight aberrations with a particular (NOT SOLE) emphasis on threats from Xoriat. Which wasn't my point. I did not say the Gatekeepers gave a free pass to natural Aberrations. My point was that as long as the monstrous mutation didn't come from out of this world, that somehow makes its creation acceptable. That because they made Horrid animals on Eberron that's somehow excusable. I could've phrased that paragraph a little more clear. A Gatekeeper would obviously disagree! A lone one could shatter a Dimensional Seal and then all of Eberron is f-ed. I don't think that Dolgrims, chokers or chuuls have the intelligence or resources to break ancient, powerful artifacts. Illithids and dolgaunts, yes. They can also do this annoying breeding thing. Or this annoying killing innocent people/animals thing. Then there's the abstract philosophical argument that an aberrations very unnatural existence is bad for life and nature. I could say the same about horrid animals. Here you have this big dire animal that's given even more destructive power, acid teeth, and upped aggression, and it's not going to attack innocent people and animals? And they are going to breed. You've utterly failed to make that point. Maybe to you. I feel that I have presented that point well. You have demonstrated that the Gatekeepers hate Aberrations, I have pointed out that the horrid animal is a mutated creation. You say they're different, I say at the core that they are the same, no matter the details, and explained how. Just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean that the point has failed. I'm not here to convince you. This is all wonderful to know what YOU feel about aberrations Rechan but you have not ONCE shown how a Gatekeepers fellings on the matter would be hypocritical when creating a Horrid animal! Sure I have. A Gatekeeper DOES see a difference between an animal or magical beast that has had their own natural abilities enhanced vs. an aberration that has had "unnatural" augmentations they could never have gained elsewhere. Quote me where it says that the horrid template is natural. Are you saying that the Horrid template is somehow sped up evolution? Because I really don't see animals evolving to the point where they have acid dripping from their teeth any time soon. You can argue Gatekeeper beliefs are stupid but that's not our original point. You're right, that's not our original point - where did it come from, exactly? Because I never said that the Gatekeeper's views were stupid. Just hypocritical. Only if you are going to generalize two separate actions so broadly that you lump them all under the word "change." Heck by this logic they're hypocrites for shapeshifting. No, they are not seperate actions. Both of them permanently change something else. I don't understand how logic goes from "Something else" to "self". If you actually bother to look at context they are radically different. I have looked at the context. And just because I have a different opinion on it doesn't mean that you should take a condescending tone. They get natural attacks, and an increased CON etc. AND they keep their own mind! They literally suffer NO drawbacks except for a weird appearance. What drawbacks do the dolgrims suffer, exactly? Or the dolgaunts? Chokers? The Daelkyr gave them some natural attacks and modified stats and new abilities. The Gatekeepers are not against natural evolution and mutation of plants and animals. What the Gatekeepers did was not natural. What the Daelkyr did was not natural. 1) You have wandered SO far off point. By responding to your arguments and using analogies to back them up. 3) The Gatekeeper's teachings do NOT prohibit it. Never said the teachings did prohibit it. The fact that they don't is the very issue. It is like an executioner that believes murderers should be punished and has a specific definition of murder he does not believe execution falls under. Just because he believes it doesn't mean that it isn't. Hey, I can say to you "You can't do that, but I can," and even if I believe it, I am still a hypocrit. I have been very civil. I havn't said that you only read half the comment. I have not said you are off topic, I have not criticized you for MAKING an argument just criticized the argument itself. I have not said that you have not read the content. I have not said you are off topic, I have not criticized you for responding to any of my comments. Nor have I packed my comments with eye-rolling or raspberrying emoticons. I would appreciate it if you didn't do those things in the future. You also seem to be really upset, and I havn't said anything that should have upset you.
Rechan 07-26-07, 09:20 AM	I'd say so long as you do not gain the aberration type or detect as an aberration the Gatekeepers have no particular problem with any creature or magic such as awakening an animal. Thank you for that clarification. You hadn't said anything about type in your earlier post. And the fact that the Gateekeepers don't have a problem with it is part of the whole point of this disagreement. I see the fact that they don't have a problem with it as an issue of consistency. Awakening is a serious deal. That's why druids don't wander around casting it every chance they get every day. The frequency of Awaken being cast might have something to do with Awaken being a 5th level spell, costing XP, and having a limited level of application. Especially in Eberron where characters of 9th level or over are really infrequent. It's not an automatically evil action though I'd make it evil if a character ever undertook it lightly. By D&D alignment standards, that would be a chaotic act, not an evil one. There's nothing inherently evil in doing anything frivolously; there's just no lawfulness or neutrality to it. It's interesting you'd immediately assume Awakening is bad for an animal though. The will save can easily be seen as the animals base instincts attempting to overcome the new thoughts and intelligence of awakening. I'd see a successful will save as more of a failure of the caster than a success for the animal. It'd all be shocking at first certainly and many things maybe terrifying. [quote]But ultimately you've GRANTED sentience to a lifeform (do you curse your mother for making you leave the womb? Or if you could grant a mentally handicapped person an average IQ would you think to yourself "ignorance is bliss?") that before was a creature of base instinct. You're making it sound really cut and dry "It's good that you're doing this to them". It's only good depending on your perspective. You obviously think sentience is good. For instance, if I had the power, I could grant that 5 year old's wish to be 21 years old. And in a lot of ways his life is better - not only does he have the freedom to do what he wants, but now has the ability to do many things that a 5 year old could not. Yet I have robbed him of the experience of growing up, stunted the natural development of his emotional and mental wellbeing, and subtracted 16 years from his life. Weither this is a good or bad change for him purely depends upon his priorities. To the priorities of a 5 year old, that's GREAT. To the priorities of a 21 year old, they have been hurt. If I had the attitude of a nihilist, or believed that existance itself was suffering, torment, disappointment, and then death, then yes, I would certainly curse my mother. I also could say that when I kill you, I am GRANTING you rest from a life full of pain and suffering. Sure, the wolf now can contemplate its existance and choose its actions with rational thought, but it also has to deal with the fact that said Awakened Wolf is now intellectually alone amid its kind. There are no other wolves to share its thoughts with. Its pack are beasts that can only communicate as beasts. If it wishes to mate, it must mate with a beast that cannot share the fully aware emotions and thoughts like the awakened wolf can. And the wolf is now aware of its limits and what it cannot have, and the things that it cannot improve. Depending on the priorities of the wolf, this stuff may not matter - but they may matter a whole lot. Ignorance is bliss... very interesting. I'm sure that's how the Quori feel about Riedrans. I also imagine the Riedrians, were they aware of it, would feel the same way - purely because they have no power to resist the Quori. They go from unaware to "OH MY GOD WE ARE BEING OPPRESSED BY MIND CONTROLLING MONSTERS AND WE CAN'T STOP THEM!". It would be a far crueler world if cattle knew they were going to slaughter.
Rechan 07-26-07, 09:22 AM	Doublepost.
Rechan 07-26-07, 09:23 AM	Okay, I had a bit of an accident. I tried to make multiple edits on my response to Shady, but when I did this, I apparently hit the wrong button and for every Edit I made, I made a post instead. :embarrass
Rechan 07-26-07, 09:25 AM	Wizards boards need a button that lets you delete your own post.
Rechan 07-26-07, 09:25 AM	I also spent three hours responding to two of Shady's posts. I need a life.:surrender Or possibly just a less argumentative streak.
Rechan 07-26-07, 09:27 AM	One more.
Rechan 07-26-07, 09:28 AM	Momento.
Shady314 07-26-07, 10:28 AM	You could say that dolgaunts/chokers/dolgrims are "native" to Eberron because they were created here, so couldn't you say the same about the Aberrations from Xoriat?) No a gatekeeper would not say Dolgrims are natural just because their unnatural creation from an extraplanar source took place here. Yes, I am serious. No, we can't agree. The suffering doesn't matter. Any suffering is a side-effect of the core issue: mutation. Suffering doesn't matter? I have to disagree that of course the suffering matters. And NO, Mutation does not automatically equal suffering. Evolution IS mutation and some mutation is actually beneficial. Horrid is wildly beneficial to an animals survival. Also if we must argue the morality of the Gatekeepers intent is obviously critical when dissecting morally dubious matters. My original point was that the ends do not justify the means - just because the Gatekeepers did what they did to save the world does not excuse it. You are saying that because they saved the world and they're nice to the animals that's excusable. Ok well it's beside the point anyways. I apologize if I brought it up. I didn't really mean too. Simply put: the Empty Vessels are not suffering, and they're not "enslaved" in the literal sense; Enslavement doesn't have to be literal. I already said brainwashing IS evil. it's a cultural belief, not a compulsion or mental intrusion that makes them accept the possession. And the Quori are doing what they're doing so they can "survive" as they know it. AHA! That's not true. The Quori are doing what they are doing to survive longer than they are supposed to. They are more like a wizard pursuing lichdom than a grizzled Gatekeeper fighting for the sanctity of his world. There is also no cruelty towards the Riedrians from the Quori. So using the criteria in the first statement (the Daelkyr enslave and cause torment so they're bad), the Quori aren't bad. :D Except of course for the total oppression and total worhtlessness their lives have to the Quori. Wonderful chaps those Quori. I don't know - What IS your point about the tentacles and crazy crap? If you're okay with horrid animals looking weird, is there any point in bringing up the tentacles and crazy crap? (Sigh) The crazy tentacles and crap was just a poor attempt at a concrete example of the somewhat logical mutation the Horrid template employs (and as yrogerg brought up the Green Dragon connection) vs. the random alien nature of the Daelkyr's experiments. You are trying to excuse the actions of the Gatekeepers by saying they tried to save the world. I am disputing that by saying that ends do not justify means. I'm not trying to excuse any actions. I'm not really interested in a morality argument I'm just trying to show there was no hypocrisy in using Horrid animals. I veered into moral territory and I'm sorry for that. If me disputing a part of your argument is somehow off topic, then that part of your argument is off-topic. Agreed so we can now abandon it. And I never said it wasn't understandable. I merely pointed out that the Gatekeepers can't mutate these animals and then turn around and say "Oh yeah aberrations are bad the Daelkyr are evil because they make Aberrations, m'kay" without being hypocrits. They created monsters of their own. Okae here's where we get into the real issue. Yay! 1) Gatekeepers didn't turn around and say Daelkyr were bad JUST because they warped creatures against their will in sick experiments. That's just part of it and the secular side of things. 2) This is DnD. The definitions of words are going to get very important so let's be clear. An aberration is something VERY specific to a Gatekeeper. It does not mean "weird looking," "mutated," or even "monstrous." Gatekeepers after all were Orcs. ;) Therefore we must abandon this fallacious assertion that Gatekeeper philosophy has anything specifically against the transformation of animals and hates anything that looks freaky. After all that'd make their own druidic shapechanging rather untenable. They'd have to kill themselves. ;) 3) Let's remember how the Gatekeepers started. Vvaraak. And what was Vvaraak's ultimate goal? Spread good and stop evil? No. It was close those damn portals to Xoriat! This is where the unnatural came from. It was an extraplanar threat that did not belong in our world. It doesn't matter what the hell the Daelkyr want to do here or if you want to argue moral relativism that the Daelkyr aren't evil because they don't see themselves as evil. The fact is, this is our world and the Daelkyr had no right to lay claim to it. Obviously in time this position is going to lend itself to a fight against all aberrations since there's just not a lot of Khyber native aberrations. The overwhelming majority are native to Xoriat. Except that just because it's not painful or makes them insane doesn't make it right. It certainly helps though. :) And if it did cause pain or drive them insane it would OBVIOUSLY be wrong. Like what the Daelkyr were doing to the goblins on their own sovereign soil. Especially when you're on a soap box against an enemy that does the same thing. The book doesn't say that Dolgaunts or Dolgrims or Chokers are in pain or are insane or that the mutating process of the Daelkyr is painful. This is going to go nowhere if you honestly want to argue the Horrid Template is the exact same thing the Daelkyr do. It is not. Saying so reduces every single detail and complexity of the entire conflict. It's like saying the Sov Host and Silver Flame are exactly the same because both believe in higher powers than humanity. It's a gross simplification that ignores the intricacies of each faith's individual positions. Well what we have in the Gatekeeper's and Daelkyr are two competing faiths and you can't just boil both groups down to nothing. Because I'm certain that the dire animal understood completely what the druid was going to do. Well if they awakened it first. And it understood enough. There's a threat to the entire world that you know. Not just this forest but every forest is in danger! I can make you even stronger and tougher. More feral and heal faster. Will you fight alongside me? These are simple concepts for a predator to understand. Especially a pack animal like a wolf. Defend your territory, protect your pack, kill threats to your safety etc. I guess I give the animal-druid relationship a little more substance than you do. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We are not told that what the Daelkyr did is spelled out as evil, either. They invaded another world, another plane of reality, for fun. With no thought to whether they had any right whatsoever to do so and then proceeded to do whatever they wanted even if sentient, innocent races were hurt. True it never says bluntly This was evil... but the subtext is there. No. I am merely saying that to a Daelkyr, what they are doing is nice. They are not cackling maniacally and saying "Ha ha you are hurting and tormented, you suck, be gone now." They are caressing the aberration and cooing to it, telling how pretty its new slime-coated tentacles are, and will now go send it to play with the Dhakanni. No, it has to do with you claiming that the Daelkyr are evil cruel monsters and the Gatekeepers are good because they are nice to their animals. What the? I brought up that the way they treated their experiments definitely plays a part on discerning the hypocrisy of their actions since obviously if they treated their animals exactly as the Daelkyr did your argument would be strengthened. Anyways I will even give you point that the Daelkyr "love" their creations. But a druid treats his horrid animal (which was according to the ECS usually their animal companion) as an equal. Would a Daelkyr EVER do that? I'll put it very plainly. How the Gatekeepers treat the horrid animals or the Daelkyr treat the abberations after the fact has Nothing to Do with Anything.. Well actually you did make a good point in that the Gatekeepers did believe the Daelkyr were an evil, corrupting force in the world. And you've also tried to say that they employed the same methods as each other vis a vis Horrid animals and Husks of Infinite Worlds so establishing their treatment of the creations of these methods actually IS relevant. It goes to establishing the differences between them. The act of making the horrid animal and then getting on a soap box about the Daelkyr is the hypocrisy. The rest is just rebuffing your arguments. If you think the above is off-topic, then stop making the comment for me to respond to. You keep SAYING it's a hypocrisy. You also keep trying to actually make the Gatekeepers sound bad for saying "Hey! Invading other worlds/planes of existence and warping it to be like your own is wrong!" And this is ultimately my point. The Gatekeepers opposed the Daelkyr coming into Eberron and remaking it into their image. Eberron to the Gatekeepers is already Eberron's image. And Druidic magic is almost literally Eberron's force of will. If druidic magic allows something like the Horrid Template I don't see how their own beliefs could possibly be against it. I read your post multiple times to select the parts that I wanted to peel apart and respond to. I believe you and I do apologize for sounding like I thought you had put no thought into it. I know you did. I was actually trying to say it's not like you to miss something I said (because I assumed you to read it closely actually) since it certainly seemed to me like you had thought I said only extraplanar aberrations are bad. Which wasn't my point. I did not say the Gatekeepers gave a free pass to natural Aberrations. My point was that as long as the monstrous mutation didn't come from out of this world, that somehow makes its creation acceptable. That because they made Horrid animals on Eberron that's somehow excusable. I could've phrased that paragraph a little more clear. I could definitely have been clearer also. I am trying to say that "monstrous mutation" is not monstrous and mutation is not (automatically) bad in Gatekeeper's eyes. Gatekeepers feel Khyber aberrations belong in Khyber and Xoriat aberrations belong in Xoriat. I bet if it had been possible they'd much rather have kicked the Daelkyr back to Xoriat than locked them in Khyber. That's why they still try to exterminate the remnants even in Khyber. They don't belong there. According to the Gatekeepers anyways. I don't think that Dolgrims, chokers or chuuls have the intelligence or resources to break ancient, powerful artifacts. Illithids and dolgaunts, yes. If they killed enough Gatekeepers the seals would not be maintained: Bad. Also when you are talking about a solitary Dolgrimm after every other aberration has been expunged from Eberron then you'd still have the abstract philosophical belief of the Gatekeeper. Eberron is not where that creature belongs. I could say the same about horrid animals. Here you have this big dire animal that's given even more destructive power, acid teeth, and upped aggression, and it's not going to attack innocent people and animals? And they are going to breed. Apparently it didn't. So long as it's druid accompanied it. The ECS entry on them basically says the wild ones you may encounter were the result of the animals losing their druidic leader, disseminating into the wild and breeding. Maybe to you. I feel that I have presented that point well. You have demonstrated that the Gatekeepers hate Aberrations, I have pointed out that the horrid animal is a mutated creation. You say they're different, I say at the core that they are the same, no matter the details, and explained how. I still don't see how you could possibly think that at the core they are the same. We have the benefit of OOC knowledge and the world's mechanics at our fingertips. We know there IS a difference between an animal with a template, a magical beast and an aberration. Your views could certainly make for interesting in character argument with druids but between two DMs it's at best a houserule. Just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean that the point has failed. I'm not here to convince you. It's not that I'm not convinced. You just aren't presenting the Gatekeepers I feel in a very canonical fashion. You're also ignoring the ingame mechanics that do separate an animal with a template retaining the animal type and an aberration. Quote me where it says that the horrid template is natural. It's not natural in the "you find them in the wild without the template sort of way." It's natural in the, not only does this template not make you a magical beast, it let's the creature remain an animal. Are you saying that the Horrid template is somehow sped up evolution? More like magically enhanced mutation/evolution. Because I really don't see animals evolving to the point where they have acid dripping from their teeth any time soon. SOON? Of course not. But with the assistance of druidic magic? Yes. Also remember this is Eberron. Displacer beasts and all sorts of other fantastical beasts are "natural" here. In that world there's nothing mind-blowing about an animal so venomous it has an acid attack. No, they are not seperate actions. Both of them permanently change something else. I don't understand how logic goes from "Something else" to "self". The Gatekeepers are not against permanent change.... I have looked at the context. And just because I have a different opinion on it doesn't mean that you should take a condescending tone. I'm sorry I didn't mean to take a condescending tone. But if you have indeed accepted the context how can you continue to think the Gatekeepers were against "change?" In fact by it's very existence the Horrid template shows Gatekeepers were not against change. What drawbacks do the dolgrims suffer, exactly? They are no longer the creature they once were. Not at all. Most importantly in their mind. The only mental change that happens to a Horrid animal is increased ferocity. Not a huge leap since the template requires a Dire animal. Or the dolgaunts? Chokers? The Daelkyr gave them some natural attacks and modified stats and new abilities. And a new brain to go with it. What the Gatekeepers did was not natural. What the Daelkyr did was not natural. Define natural... To druids that can cast magic in a world where magic IS natural.... what is natural to us is not natural to them. Never said the teachings did prohibit it. The fact that they don't is the very issue. ....? If your teachings don't prohibit it how in the world can you be hypocritical. Your not doing anything against your beliefs! Just because he believes it doesn't mean that it isn't. Okae... this is true. Someone can think they're not a hypocrite and be a hypocrite. But by my example the man was not a hypocrite. He had a specific belief on how to punish murderers and a narrow interpretation he faithfully followed on what a murderer was. By the definition of hypocrite he would not be one. He can still be immoral. And he could be a hypocrite about other things. But not about that. Hey, I can say to you "You can't do that, but I can," and even if I believe it, I am still a hypocrit. Not quite. If you can give logical reasoning behind why you can do something and I can't then you're not a hypocrite. For example, if you said I could not drive your car but you could because it's yours there's no hypocrisy there. I have been very civil. You have. I havn't said that you only read half the comment. I accidentaly implied that. Again sorry I didn't meant too. I have not said you are off topic, It's very possible you should have. I have not criticized you for MAKING an argument just criticized the argument itself. I've only critcized your argument. I have not criticized you for responding to any of my comments. I guess that depends how you define criticize. Some people think disagreement is. :) I don't. Nor have I packed my comments with eye-rolling or raspberrying emoticons. Whoa the eye rolling I do to keep the mood light. And this :P emoticon is harmless. :pbbbtt: That is the mean one. No offense was directed at your person. I would appreciate it if you didn't do those things in the future. I can't guarantee I won't use the harmless raspberry. You also seem to be really upset, and I havn't said anything that should have upset you. I promise you I am very very far from upset. I hope the same is true for you.
Shady314 07-26-07, 10:31 AM	I also spent three hours responding to two of Shady's posts. I need a life.:surrender Or possibly just a less argumentative streak. HEHE you're just unlucky. I've had a life recently and was away from the boards. I'm currently enjoying my new but sure to be short lived lack of one. Sorry you had to end up suffering for it. :D
Shady314 07-26-07, 11:07 AM	Thank you for that clarification. You hadn't said anything about type in your earlier post. Whoa! Stop right there and look again. I even bolded it... I swear on what little honor I have I did not just edit that in btw. And the fact that the Gateekeepers don't have a problem with it is part of the whole point of this disagreement. I see the fact that they don't have a problem with it as an issue of consistency. Why? The frequency of Awaken being cast might have something to do with Awaken being a 5th level spell, costing XP, and having a limited level of application. Especially in Eberron where characters of 9th level or over are really infrequent. That TOO but Oalian could cast it all the time. I think he doesn't. By D&D alignment standards, that would be a chaotic act, not an evil one. There's nothing inherently evil in doing anything frivolously; there's just no lawfulness or neutrality to it. So if I frivolusly murder someone for fun? Or If I continue a course of action knowing innocents will suffer consequences they shouldn't have to? I didn't say I'd immediately make their character sheet say evil. But just going "Hey there wolfie eat this reality altering, life changing spell! HAHAH Such fun!" As they walk away seems to be prety evil. Chaotic goes without saying. You're making it sound really cut and dry "It's good that you're doing this to them". It's only good depending on your perspective. You obviously think sentience is good. Actually my point was that it is so NOT cut and dry. You showed the view of how you could see it as a forceful act then I brought up the view on how it could be a kind one. For instance, if I had the power, I could grant that 5 year old's wish to be 21 years old. And in a lot of ways his life is better - not only does he have the freedom to do what he wants, but now has the ability to do many things that a 5 year old could not. Yet I have robbed him of the experience of growing up, stunted the natural development of his emotional and mental wellbeing, and subtracted 16 years from his life. Weither this is a good or bad change for him purely depends upon his priorities. To the priorities of a 5 year old, that's GREAT. To the priorities of a 21 year old, they have been hurt. Wait are you talking about using awaken or some power of the wish spell? Awaken won't steal 16 years of his life or rob him of his childhood. He'd just be a boy genius. If I had the attitude of a nihilist, or believed that existance itself was suffering, torment, disappointment, and then death, then yes, I would certainly curse my mother. I also could say that when I kill you, I am GRANTING you rest from a life full of pain and suffering. Good neither of us are. Sure, the wolf now can contemplate its existance and choose its actions with rational thought, but it also has to deal with the fact that said Awakened Wolf is now intellectually alone amid its kind. There are no other wolves to share its thoughts with. Its pack are beasts that can only communicate as beasts. If it wishes to mate, it must mate with a beast that cannot share the fully aware emotions and thoughts like the awakened wolf can. And the wolf is now aware of its limits and what it cannot have, and the things that it cannot improve. Depending on the priorities of the wolf, this stuff may not matter - but they may matter a whole lot. That's one way to look at it. But that's the tortured human stuck inside a wolf idea rather than the way you usually see it presented in modules and things. Which is merely a wolf that is still a wolf first but is capable of rational thought. They don't live a tortured existence they live a good existence as paragons of their kind. Their awakened state let's them be the best damn pack leader ever and they still desire the company of wolves and the thrill of the hunt. The tortured human in wolf's clothing idea has it's placefor certain in a horror campaign. Otherwise it up for debate. I think Oalian despite being a lvl 20 druid (with shapechange) and leader of a druid sect is actually very happy putting his roots down in soil, feeling the wind in his leaves etc. despite his unbelievable mental scores and FoE backs this up as Oalian spends more and more time as a tree. I also imagine the Riedrians, were they aware of it, would feel the same way - purely because they have no power to resist the Quori. They go from unaware to "OH MY GOD WE ARE BEING OPPRESSED BY MIND CONTROLLING MONSTERS AND WE CAN'T STOP THEM!". It would be a far crueler world if cattle knew they were going to slaughter. Riedrans do have the power to resist. Stop spewing that Quori propaganda! :-P HEHE but seriously of course Riedran's can resist. Some do. That's part of the reason the Path(I can't remember what the organization is called that guides dissidents into asylum in Adar so I went with Path.) exists.
Rechan 07-26-07, 11:41 AM	AUGH. I think that we are picking apart each sentence is making the posts longer and getting further from the point because each paragraph is an argument unto itself. I would like to dispute every single sentence of your post, as I disagree with every one of them, but I feel that if I continue, then this will just bloviate into 5,000 word responses and go no where. So let me boil it down to its base form: The Daelkyr created weapons of war out of the Dhakanni, and the Druids created weapons of war out of dire animals. I don't care about the details. I don't care that the Druids were doing it to save the world and the Daelkyr were doing it as a summer vacation. At the end of the day, an action is an action no matter if it was done in desperation or patient calculation. I care not if druidic magic or alien magic or popsickle sticks and glue was used; the Gatekeepers did what was natural for druid magic, and the Daelkyr did what was natural to their very existence. Who was right and who was wrong does not matter to me. The simple fact remains that both deliberately altered living creatures with magic to use them to fight. That is all that matters. That act that both did was the same. The Gatekeepers then take the stance that the Daelkyr were evil and that the creatures the Daelkyr made were abominations. Yet, they are guilty of using similar methods to fight their war against the Daelkyr. The stance the Gatekeepers are taking is, "It's okay when I do it." Of course the Gatekeepers are going to see a difference between horrid animals and aberrations - no one ever openly admits they are a hypocrit or admits the sins of the past when fighting a war. They're not going to say what they did is wrong because they feel justified and it's been engrained that the horrid animals are right and acceptable. The Gatekeepers are on a mission to fight the Daelkyr, and they're not going to undercut their ability to do so, or their sense of righteousness. But I am not a Gatekeeper, and thus I can. The Gatekeepers did the same as the Daelkyr. Then they said that the Daelkyr were bad for doing it and the horrid animals are acceptable. If the Gatekeepers said "Yeah, it wasn't fair to the dire animals and we were doing similar to the Daelkyr, but it was one of the few options we had," then it would be different. If you think that's not canon, not logical, or not hypocrisy, Okay that's your perogative. But that's my stance and I'm sticking to it. I have very specific feelings about evil and morality especially when it comes to D&D - I feel that an adventuring group going into a dragon's lair and killing it for the express purposes of that dragon's hoard and XP is evil, no matter the color of the dragon, so I don't expect you to agree with me. :) I've spent four hours just today responding to three posts - I'm done. No hard feelings, Shady, but I respectfully disagree. I feel that I have adequately argued my point, and that is all I can do. After your next response, I will agree to disagree.
Shady314 07-26-07, 07:37 PM	AUGH. I think that we are picking apart each sentence is making the posts longer and getting further from the point because each paragraph is an argument unto itself. I would like to dispute every single sentence of your post, as I disagree with every one of them, but I feel that if I continue, then this will just bloviate into 5,000 word responses and go no where. So let me boil it down to its base form: The Daelkyr created weapons of war out of the Dhakanni, and the Druids created weapons of war out of dire animals. I don't care about the details. I don't care that the Druids were doing it to save the world and the Daelkyr were doing it as a summer vacation. At the end of the day, an action is an action no matter if it was done in desperation or patient calculation. I care not if druidic magic or alien magic or popsickle sticks and glue was used; the Gatekeepers did what was natural for druid magic, and the Daelkyr did what was natural to their very existence. Who was right and who was wrong does not matter to me. The simple fact remains that both deliberately altered living creatures with magic to use them to fight. That is all that matters. That act that both did was the same. Why do you keep trying to act like an incredibly complicated issue is a simple black and white one? It's not nearly so simple as you are pretending. Of course methods, and intent and results all matter and differentiate actions from each other. Unless killing in self-defense is the EXACT same as killing for fun. Hey at the end of the day someone's dead. That's ALL that matters right? I'd say no. The Gatekeepers then take the stance that the Daelkyr were evil and that the creatures the Daelkyr made were abominations. Yet, they are guilty of using similar methods to fight their war against the Daelkyr. The stance the Gatekeepers are taking is, "It's okay when I do it." THANK YOU! You finally said similar methods. ;) But again I must point out the Gatekeepers did NOT fight the Daelkyr because they were evil. NOR did they demonize the Daelkyr solely because they created aberrations. They are NOT an organization dedicated to stopping evil. They are dedicated to preserving Eberron from extraplanar horrors like the Daelkyr that wished to come and change Eberron into a twisted version of their own reality it is NOT meant to be! Of course the Gatekeepers are going to see a difference between horrid animals and aberrations - no one ever openly admits they are a hypocrit or admits the sins of the past when fighting a war. They're not going to say what they did is wrong because they feel justified and it's been engrained that the horrid animals are right and acceptable. The Gatekeepers are on a mission to fight the Daelkyr, and they're not going to undercut their ability to do so, or their sense of righteousness. Of course they see a difference because one is an aberration and one is just a weird looking animal! This is fact Rechan. This cannot be argued. There IS a difference. They have different TYPES! But I am not a Gatekeeper, and thus I can. You can certainly CALL another group hypocritical because they don't conform to your expectations of what they should be. But you can't by the very definition of the word hypocrite say Gatekeepers were hypocrites for using a process that does NOT create aberrations! There is nothing about a Horrid animal that violates the core beliefs of the Gatekeepers. The Gatekeepers did the same as the Daelkyr. Then they said that the Daelkyr were bad for doing it Again this is incorrect. This is not the same as what the Daelkyr did. The Daelkyr created Aberrations and the Gatekeepers did NOT. They took animals and made them stronger through magic. The type did not change. That's rather integral. The Gatekeepers did NOT oppose the Daelkyr because they warped animals. They opposed them because they didn't belong in Eberron but they invaded our world to turn Eberron into Xoriat! That is what was unnaceptable to them. The horrors of Xoriat belong IN XORIAT not Eberron. and the horrid animals are acceptable. If the Gatekeepers said "Yeah, it wasn't fair to the dire animals and we were doing similar to the Daelkyr, but it was one of the few options we had," then it would be different. We've never heard the official stance Gatekeepers have on them. Since they don't appear to create them anymore then I feel it likely their creation in something only done in war. Just like Awakening an animal isn't "bad" but it is somewhat out of the regular order of things and should only be done for an important reason. If you think that's not canon, not logical, or not hypocrisy, Okay that's your perogative. But that's my stance and I'm sticking to it. I have very specific feelings about evil and morality especially when it comes to D&D - I feel that an adventuring group going into a dragon's lair and killing it for the express purposes of that dragon's hoard and XP is evil, no matter the color of the dragon, so I don't expect you to agree with me. :) ??? :confused: I do agree about the Dragon. How in the world is that what the Gatekeepers did? That's what the Daelkyr did! Eberron=dragon's lair Daelkyr=adventuring party Inhabitants of Eberron= phat lewt ;) Dragon=Vvaraak ;) I've spent four hours just today responding to three posts Thanks! I had a blast! :) - I'm done. No hard feelings, Shady, Same here! but I respectfully disagree. Again same here! :) I feel that I have adequately argued my point, and that is all I can do. After your next response, I will agree to disagree. I'm getting what you're saying now. Changing any creature is the same no matter why, how, when or who you do it to. That's where I also respectfully disagree. Especially the HOW is rather critical to the question of Gatekeeper hypocrisy. But seriously you've been great. I don't know many that would have taken that kind of time. We put up some impressive walls of text and thoroughly dragged this off-topic. My hat is off to you. :)
yrogerg 07-26-07, 08:31 PM	SOON? Of course not. But with the assistance of druidic magic? Yes. Also remember this is Eberron. Displacer beasts and all sorts of other fantastical beasts are "natural" here. In that world there's nothing mind-blowing about an animal so venomous it has an acid attack. Aren't Fleshrakers Animals? They have acid attacks.
ArcTan 07-26-07, 08:56 PM	Of course the Gatekeepers are going to see a difference between horrid animals and aberrations - no one ever openly admits they are a hypocrit or admits the sins of the past when fighting a war. They're not going to say what they did is wrong because they feel justified and it's been engrained that the horrid animals are right and acceptable. The Gatekeepers are on a mission to fight the Daelkyr, and they're not going to undercut their ability to do so, or their sense of righteousness. There is an inherent difference, though. The Daelkyr created Aberrations with the purpose in mind of scouring of all other life and having them replaced by Aberrations, and so all Aberrations do, in fact, seem to exist in an ecosystem separate from the normal one, and have a direct enmity for ordinary life. Aberrations' instinct is to destroy ordinary living things and replace them. Horrid Animals, by contrast, seem to blend in just fine with the other animals. They're more powerful than other animals, but for whatever reason -- despite the fact that the Gatekeepers have won the war and are letting the Horrid Animals roam free -- ordinary animals far outnumber them. They're naturally self-limiting. They don't take over. The Daelkyr *intended* for Aberrations to take over. They didn't create Aberrations in self-defense, or even solely as weapons of war. They created them because they thought them beautiful. They came to Eberron for the *purpose* of creating as many Aberrations as they could and eventually turning Eberron into a completely different biosphere with a new set of species completely invented by them. The Gatekeepers only created Horrid Animals in *response* to Aberrations, as a weapon of war, and only created as many as they needed to win the war. Not the same action. Not the same thing. It's like saying that a country that invades another country is on equal moral ground with the second country if that country shoots back, because both are guilty of causing deaths. There isn't a moral equivalence between offensive acts and defensive acts, I'm sorry. Especially offensive acts taken *for their own sake* -- for the "art form" of destroying the world of Eberron and replacing it with something else -- and defensive acts that solely stop the offensive acts without doing anything else. (The Gatekeepers haven't even made any bid to seize power on Eberron. They exist solely as a reactive force, arguably unlike organizations like the Silver Flame.)
mhacdebhandia 07-26-07, 09:49 PM	THis would assume though that you hold any sort of credible weight to those little blurbs. All criticisms of the often-sloppy "X in Eberron" entries aside, the scouring constructs fit perfectly: In Khorvaire, scouring constructs are a creation of the Ashbound, and the druids of this militant sect are the only ones who know the secret of such magical construction. On the fringes of the Towering Wood, whole settlements have been wiped from the map. Terrified survivors speak of rapacious plant creatures and scorpionlike terrors with a thirst for blood. The folk of neighbouring settlements are fleeing the Reaches in droves, but what the Ashbound's ultimate goals are, none can say. I don't see anything wrong with the Ashbound using druid-only constructs like these.
Rechan 07-26-07, 11:11 PM	Mhacd, the quoted passage is "Terrified survivors speak of rapacious plant creatures and scorpionlike terrors with a thirst for blood." Do the constructs look like plants, or are these inaccurate descriptions of confused and terrorized locals, or what? I see nothing objectionable on the blurb, but I'd have to see the monster. :)
Shady314 07-26-07, 11:36 PM	All criticisms of the often-sloppy "X in Eberron" entries aside, the scouring constructs fit perfectly: In Khorvaire, scouring constructs are a creation of the Ashbound, and the druids of this militant sect are the only ones who know the secret of such magical construction. On the fringes of the Towering Wood, whole settlements have been wiped from the map. Terrified survivors speak of rapacious plant creatures and scorpionlike terrors with a thirst for blood. The folk of neighbouring settlements are fleeing the Reaches in droves, but what the Ashbound's ultimate goals are, none can say. I don't see anything wrong with the Ashbound using druid-only constructs like these. I don't see it. This is the Children of Winter's bag. And what's with the being on-topic!? GRRR.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 02:16 AM	Not to give a cheap answer, but zealots and idealists are not immune to hypocracy. "It doesn't count when we do it." I'm going to just point straight back at what started this whole mess and say that using the tools of your enemies is not necessarily hypocrisy (nor is it "hypocracy"). I can regret the fact that I kill people. I can say that killing is bad, and honestly say I wish I didn't have to kill people. However, it may be that I *still have to kill people to decrease the total amount of killing in the world*. That's the point of being a cop or a soldier. It's the way of the world that when people do bad things you have to do the same kind of thing to stop them. The critical difference is that they do bad things *for their own sake*. If you just let a serial killer keep on killing they wouldn't stop until they'd left a heap of bodies behind them. If you let a militaristic power keep on invading countries they won't stop till everyone's under their thumb. So you kill *them*, so that at the end of the day only they -- who deserve to die -- die, and the killing is stopped and does not multiply. Sometimes this is hypocrisy. Sometimes people lie and use "He did it first" as a convenient excuse to simply multiply their own crimes without consequence. BUT IT ISN'T ALWAYS. If it were *always* the case, there wouldn't be a single good cop or good soldier in the world, which I refuse to accept. If it were *always* the case, that would mean that resisting invading armies or trying to stop murderers would be pointless -- that the total number of people killed in the world never changed, even despite what the good guys attempted. I do not believe this in real life. And it's definitely not true in Eberron. If the Daelkyr had stood unresisted, *every living thing in Eberron would now be an Aberration*. If the Gatekeepers really were exactly the same as the Daelkyr, *every animal in Eberron would now be a Horrid Animal*. This is clearly not the case. Just like if the Ashbound were exactly like the people they despised, they would be creating little cities for themselves where the greatest spellcasters among them were waited on hand and foot by Wicker Men. They would be making Wicker Men for no reason but to do experiments on them and try to understand the fundamental secret at the heart of all life. There might even be a group of them making huge armies of Wicker Men designed to fight wars whom they sell to the highest bidder. They aren't. It isn't the same thing. They make as many Wicker Men as they have to in order to kill the civilizeds, and no more, and they don't use them for any purpose except killing civilizeds, not to make their own lives easier. People who accuse groups like this of "hypocrisy" often misunderstand their goals. The Ashbound are not an ascetic order who view it as a personal sin to come in contact with magic. They are a militant activist group who view the large-scale use of magic by *society* as the real sin. Their real enemy isn't "magic" or "technology" but *civilization*, the former of which are merely civilization's tools. Nothing else matters as long as in the long run civilization is taken down -- just as the Gatekeepers' only real concern is making sure that in the long run the 99.9% of animals they *didn't* turn into Horrid animals get to live free of mutation, which is certainly not what would've happened had they sit back and let the Daelkyr win.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 02:19 AM	Sure, the wolf now can contemplate its existance and choose its actions with rational thought, but it also has to deal with the fact that said Awakened Wolf is now intellectually alone amid its kind. There are no other wolves to share its thoughts with. Its pack are beasts that can only communicate as beasts. If it wishes to mate, it must mate with a beast that cannot share the fully aware emotions and thoughts like the awakened wolf can. And the wolf is now aware of its limits and what it cannot have, and the things that it cannot improve. Depending on the priorities of the wolf, this stuff may not matter - but they may matter a whole lot.t would be a far crueler world if cattle knew they were going to slaughter. ...Which is why you don't Awaken frivolously and if you have no other pressing reason to do it, but at the same time doesn't make Awakening a horrid crime that's a bad thing to do. Sentience is a mixed bag, sometimes good and sometimes bad -- sure, animals sometimes seem more carefree than humans, but I don't see the majority of humans viewing the idea of turning into feral apes with much pleasure or anticipation. The main thing is that you don't just Awaken somebody and walk away -- if you Awaken a creature, it's your responsibility to provide that creature with a home, with education and socialization and a sense of purpose, rather than leave it wandering around with no guidance (which is not only cruel to the animal, but dangerous to everyone else). A version of the responsibilities that go with having a child -- since, effectively, creating a child is what you've just done.
mhacdebhandia 07-27-07, 07:04 AM	Mhacd, the quoted passage is "Terrified survivors speak of rapacious plant creatures and scorpionlike terrors with a thirst for blood." Do the constructs look like plants, or are these inaccurate descriptions of confused and terrorized locals, or what? Yes, the two creatures are the scouring slinger - a tangle of roots and branches which launches small plantlike constructs shaped like scorpions - and the scouring stanchion - which looks like a large stump swarming with beetles. Both the beetles and the scorpions are oversized and clearly artificial. I don't see it. This is the Children of Winter's bag. They're not really insects - and the Ashbound are the sect who would be destroying settlements in the Eldeen Reaches.
Rechan 07-27-07, 08:57 AM	Thank you, Mchad. :)
Shady314 07-27-07, 06:25 PM	They're not really insects - But they look like them. even if they're clearly fake they're following the aesthetic apppeal of the CoW. and the Ashbound are the sect who would be destroying settlements in the Eldeen Reaches. The Ashbound don't have a monopoly on hating civilization and destroying things. The Children of Winter are working/waiting for a coming apocalypse to scour the entire world and they also don't have any particular hatred/fear/aversion to arcane magic and things like constructs. Ashbound do. Hmmm small insect like creatures that scour all life and destroy civilization. I'm still seeing the CoW more than the Ashbound. Not that both couldn't use them.
mhacdebhandia 07-27-07, 10:08 PM	But they look like them. even if they're clearly fake they're following the aesthetic apppeal of the CoW. I simply don't see this as significant.
Shady314 07-28-07, 12:34 AM	I simply don't see this as significant. That they follow the visual design and purpose of the CoW is not significant at all? :rolleyes:
mhacdebhandia 07-30-07, 06:25 PM	I think you're overestimating the whole "visual design" idea, and I disagree that these creatures represent the purpose of the Children of Winter better than the Ashbound. Attacking villages and razing them to the ground are the tactics of the Ashbound. I think that if the Children of Winter wanted to destroy a village, they'd use plagues and natural catastrophes like floods, forest fires, and storms. Of course, it's one paragraph in a non-Eberron supplement. If you like the idea of the Children of Winter using them rather than the Ashbound, no-one can stop you - but I think it makes good sense as written.
Shady314 07-31-07, 04:08 AM	I think you're overestimating the whole "visual design" idea, and I disagree that these creatures represent the purpose of the Children of Winter better than the Ashbound. Attacking villages and razing them to the ground are the tactics of the Ashbound. It's the tactics of both of them. But the Ashbound are more likely to target a town because it harbors some sort of arcane magic, for example the raincallers guild is there bolstering the crops, whereas the CoW would attack ANY town to help bring about the coming apocalypse. I never meant to say the Ashbound make NO sense though. It's just the CoW make a little more sense (to me) since they are constructs (as constructs are vaguely arcane-ish) and also follow the visual design of the CoW. To sum up the CoW and Ashbound might both like the results but hardcore Ashbound would probably be leary of constructs in general and the CoW is more likely to want to use something that looks like vermin. I think that if the Children of Winter wanted to destroy a village, they'd use plagues and natural catastrophes like floods, forest fires, and storms. That's what the Ashbound would do too. Of course, it's one paragraph in a non-Eberron supplement. If you like the idea of the Children of Winter using them rather than the Ashbound, no-one can stop you - but I think it makes good sense as written. Sure. Again let me point out I never said the Ashbound didn't make any sense. Just that the CoW make a little more sense to me for the reasons I stated.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 07:50 PM	It's the tactics of both of them. But the Ashbound are more likely to target a town because it harbors some sort of arcane magic, for example the raincallers guild is there bolstering the crops, whereas the CoW would attack ANY town to help bring about the coming apocalypse. I've never really seen the overall guiding principle of the Ashbound to be hating arcane magic, itself, so much as arcane magic as the technology that powers large-scale civilization. Just like the thing modern Luddites hate is not actually computers or electricity, but the fact that computers and electricity enable corporations and modern nation-states. If you replaced the computers and electricity with Babbage analytical engines and steam, but kept the great tottering edifice of humanity locked in bureaucratic structures, they wouldn't like it any more. The Children of Winter, by contrast, don't hate civilization, they hate *life*. Even if the Dragonmarked Houses fell and the Five Nations broke up and everyone became hippies living in communes, they'd probably still feel the need to blow it all up.
Shady314 08-01-07, 04:07 AM	I've never really seen the overall guiding principle of the Ashbound to be hating arcane magic, itself, so much as arcane magic as the technology that powers large-scale civilization. Just like the thing modern Luddites hate is not actually computers or electricity, but the fact that computers and electricity enable corporations and modern nation-states. If you replaced the computers and electricity with Babbage analytical engines and steam, but kept the great tottering edifice of humanity locked in bureaucratic structures, they wouldn't like it any more. Well I'm just going by the ECS pg. 75. They do have a philosophical hatred toward any magic that is not druidic. It's not just a matter of the industry of Khorvaire being based on it. Even a wizard living at one with nature is no good to them if he ever uses arcane magic. It even goes on to say Ashbound go out of their way to target ranches and farms that confine and cultivate nature. Raincallers guild thus equals the most abominable thing ever. It also says Ashbound prefer not to kill, but rather force their targets to abandon their "unnatural ways." One of these unnatural ways being arcane magic. Scouring life as a scourging construct does kind of goes against this idea. The Children of Winter, by contrast, don't hate civilization, they hate *life*. Even if the Dragonmarked Houses fell and the Five Nations broke up and everyone became hippies living in communes, they'd probably still feel the need to blow it all up. Which was my point.