Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Serow 05-01-06, 12:50 PM	Our party has finally :D killed a dragon, leaving the campaign on a cliffhanger just as it died. My question is… What can we do with it :confused: ? What can you make with the bones, scales, heart, eyes, blood… that sort of stuff? It’s an ancient green dragon, and we are an evil party :cool: . Possibilities Anyone?
runestar 05-01-06, 12:57 PM	IIRC, the various body parts are required for the draconic grafts. Other than that, they might fetch some money as spell components. Not too sure...
Derren S. 05-01-06, 01:04 PM	You can do the same with the dragon corpse then what you can do with all other corpses. Raise it as undead if you want, otherwise let it rot. You can get the dragons hide by skinning the corpse and that is the only body part people would give you money for. The other body parts are useless exept for truely exotic things and it is very unlikely that you find a person who practices the trade which uses them. (Just for information, most grafts must come from either an unhatched wyrmling or a living dragon and there are no spell components which come from a dragon and cost money.)
Grievemere 05-01-06, 01:14 PM	Surprising little if you go by the DMG, just one suit of medium sized masterwork half plate, oh and a shield to go with it. The Draconomicon adds dragoncraft armour (slightly better than dragonhide), dragonfang weapons dragonbone bow and an elixir form its blood (+2 strength and suggestion for ten miutes in the case of a green dragon blood). I've always thought that it seemed a missed oportunity and so I've allowed dragon blood to be used in brewing potions, scroll inks (all with various bonuses along the theme of the particular dragon type). Likewise with wands rods and staffs, and I tend to allow a few more suits of armour than the DMG states. Have a chat with your DM and present a few creative ideas.
Derren S. 05-01-06, 01:17 PM	I've always thought that it seemed a missed oportunity. I don't think so. I still don't understand why nearly everyone expects dragon body parts to be special but accept that the corpses of other creatures, even other mighty and magical ones, have no use.
tarkin 05-01-06, 01:22 PM	As the author of a Dragon magazine article originally entiteled 101 uses for a dead dragon, I feel like commenting on this. 1) In general it is a poor idea to have dragon parts grant huge abilities just 'out of the box' 2) Instead it makes FAR more sense to have specific parts useable as either A) Power Components useable instead of XP/gold when making magic items B) Dragoncrafted items. Dragon crafting is described further in the draconomicon, basically it is like making magic items only you use up dead dragon parts.
dragonseth 05-01-06, 01:28 PM	I love that article, it's really handy in our most recent campaign. Nice job on it. But, yeah Dragon 332 has said article in it. You can make a lot of stuff from dragons' corpses. Like my personal favorite: Dragonbone Boat :D
Wyrd Bearer 05-01-06, 03:17 PM	Well, you can use its heart if properly prepared to gain a small chance to do extra damage with the next spell you cast against a good-aligned creature. Or you can sell it to the right buyer for 6 gp. Whoo. Other than that little tidbit from the BoVD, beyond making some armour that maybe a druid would be interested (Hey... my armour is immune to corrosive gases now, but I'm still just as vulnerable) in and earning the emnity of other dragons that get wind of this, there isn't much you can do with a dead dragon. Of course, since you are playing with an evil party, remind the cleric or arcane necromancer of the three Rs; Reduce, Reuse, Reanimate.
Azezel 05-01-06, 03:18 PM	If memory serves - the MM states that old dragons have spent so much time kipping on ther hordes that there is a lot of treasure actually embedded in their hides - so made sure you don't pass this over when looting. And a spellbook bound in dragonhide is very classy.
Ghidorah 05-01-06, 03:42 PM	Our party has finally :D killed a dragon, leaving the campaign on a cliffhanger just as it died. My question is… What can we do with it :confused: ? What can you make with the bones, scales, heart, eyes, blood… that sort of stuff? It’s an ancient green dragon, and we are an evil party :cool: . Possibilities Anyone? There is a video game that I have been putting bits and pieces of into our campaign. One of the very interesting parts of the game is cutting up the slaughtered monster. You then stock up on body parts of monsters and other items you find to make your own armor, weapons, potions, traps, etc.... You carve different parts off of different monsters, respectively. Bones of different sizes make handles for different sized weapons, scales, wing membranes, and hides make armor, plates make some of the best weapons in the game, and some specific monsters give specific parts (fatalis gives eyes, yian-kut-ku gives beak, etc....) As posted above, there is always the blood elixer in dracinomican. As for a heart, in ancient times, some people believed eating a raw dragons heart would increase your lifespan, as well as improve your strength. I will post if i remember any other things I have heard about the uses of a dragons corpse.
Serow 05-01-06, 03:46 PM	Interesting, but, can you carve up the bones into arrows? Bone boat? What is that? How about teeth? Are they treated as daggers? Can a Ranger follow its scent to its treasure cove? Can you eat their meat? Does it have any restoritive powers? If their not so great to make into armour and weapons, then arn't they just large lizards filled with lots of experience points?
Kresalak 05-01-06, 03:59 PM	If their not so great to make into armour and weapons, then arn't they just large lizards filled with lots of experience points? No matter what you do, dragons are just experience points in a lizard shaped container.
Derren S. 05-01-06, 04:37 PM	Interesting, but, can you carve up the bones into arrows? Sure you can. Then you have bone arrows which according to the Arms and Equipment guide get -2 to attack and damage. How about teeth? Are they treated as daggers? No. They are teeth. You maybe could use them as improvised daggers probably with the same penalty like the bone arrows above in addition to the penalties for an improvised weapon.. And a dragoncrafter can make them into real weapons. Can a Ranger follow its scent to its treasure cove? Does this ranger has scent and can track smell through air? Can you eat their meat? Does it have any restoritive powers? Yes and no. If their not so great to make into armour and weapons, then arn't they just large lizards filled with lots of experience points? A creature isn't defined only by what you can craft out of its body. If it would then cows would be the real ruler of the world as their bodies are very usefull and nearly everything else, including humans are just walking XP containers. Just because something is powerfull it doesn't mean that its corpse has special qualities.
Serow 05-01-06, 04:41 PM	Just because something is powerfull it doesn't mean that its corpse has special qualities. Tell that to the dwarf that smoked the demi-lichs ashes... I find that iron and tree leaves make for great armour, but a dragons 45ac turns to nothing after battle? And suddenly there razor sharp teeth are like butter knifes? Nice... Real nice...
Derren S. 05-01-06, 04:50 PM	Tell that to the dwarf that smoked the demi-lichs ashes... I find that iron and tree leaves make for great armour, but a dragons 45ac turns to nothing after battle? And suddenly there razor sharp teeth are like butter knifes? Nice... Real nice... The 45 AC doesn't turn into nothing. Its still there as a layer of scales over a thick hide and muscle mass. And as you can no men can carry that, not only because of weight but also because of size, encumbrance and really, how does someone wear muscles or a other creature? The best one can do is to cut some protective parts out of the dragon and make it into armor one can wear and there are rules for that in core books. Same for daggers. They are still sharp but unwieldy, so you have to craft them into a suitable weapon first to use them propperly. And why do dragoncrafted daggers not as much damage as the dragons claws and bits? Because the dragon was much stronger then a human and could use his natural weapons in a very different, more efficent way then a human can when wielding a weapon made out of a talon.
dragonseth 05-01-06, 05:13 PM	You can't use the parts on their own, but you can make a lot of fun stuff with em, like Dragonfang weapons, Dragonbone bows... All this is in the Draconomicon.
Keenath 05-01-06, 05:19 PM	Right out of the box, you can use the dragon's scales to make free masterwork "metal" armor that's druid-friendly. Those are core. I happen to feel that those rules are a little underpowered, and don't carry the flavor of the fact that THIS armor is supposed to be red dragon while THAT one is black. So, in my games, I allow that dragonscale armor or shields get a 50% price break on elemental resistance enhancements of the same type the dragon was immune to. So, for example, red dragonscale armor can be enhanced as Improved Fire Resistance for +21,000 gp instead of the usual +42,000 gp. The price break is for creation purposes only; the market price is the normal amount. This strongly encourages adding elemental resistances to dragonscale armor and shields. Beyond that, though... well... I find the Draconomicon's dragoncrafting rather distasteful. Dragonscales, all right, it basically makes sense. But I think it starts getting a bit icky when it gets to looking like the dragon was sold to a chop shop. Heartstrings for X, Teeth for Y, eyes for this, blood for that, and so on and so forth. Ick. Honestly, I'm not even that bothered if you want to make a few parts of a dragon useful as power components. A firey fundament as power component for a wand of fireball or a staff of fire, fine. Disassembling a dragon so you can use every part is gross. Besides, I'm irritated by the idea that a dragon's corpse is worth as much money as his treasure horde. Apart from something like Smaug where his belly IS part of his treasure horde!
Jshock_75 05-01-06, 06:00 PM	Two words: Dragon Jerky.
dengarbountyhunter 05-01-06, 06:04 PM	the funniest thing to do with the big monster you just killed is to stuff it! use shrink object on the corpse, go into town, pay a good taxidermist with a part of the dragon's treasure, get it back in your castle, and un-shrink object it... looks pretty great, even if you do so with only the head! I wonder what would another dragon's reaction be if he saw his stuffed cousin's head above the fireplace :rofl: and for Mephistopheles' sake, here's a turkey: :turkey:
Eragon_seer 05-09-06, 08:38 PM	No actualy I think that being able to use the carcass of a dead creature has more realistic flavor to it I mean even in medival times you didnt just throw away the not so choice cuts. so I think your dm should create his own house rule on this I will post mine but I am not so good Claws a player with profession [Beaster]* can create weapons from some creature’s claws if the claws are 2 categories larger. Than the weapon for light or 3 categories for one handed. If the creature is not magical, the weapons have a normal 2 penalty on attack for being made of bone. Eyes magic beasts eye can be made into lens and the cost to construct a magic lens is decreased by 1/6 Hide if the beast has a natural armor of at least +6 then a set of armor can be constructed from it Meat a creatures body can create a amount of meat from it to create a meal the way to find how much is 2+ the size category above medium Teeth this works just like claws Blood some magic creatures blood can make elixirs only from some magic creatures Organs like blood but can also make power components Wings dragons can be used to make wings of flying at ¼ the cost This is all subjective I may change it all times I am DM!!!!!!!! *this is a skill i made i play a home brewed camp.
reese 05-10-06, 01:33 PM	see the sig
Derren S. 05-10-06, 01:41 PM	Eragon, give me one explanation why dragon body parts should be able to do all this. A dead dragon is like a dead cow. All the magic is gone and the only thing you can use without enchanting it is the hide, thats all. Like reese said you can use dragon body parts to create some items out of it but they won't be any more effective then regular items and in many cases they would be worse except when you enchant them (but you can also enchant normal items with the same effect)
eeen13 05-10-06, 02:46 PM	In reply to derren why cant a dragon hide do this if you can raise people from the dead i dont see why monster in the name of the game cant be a bit special. in reply to the OP your an evil party be imagenitive take the head wear it as a mask and scare some kids throw some of the sticky bits at passers by take trophys (may give bonuses to intimidate) put some of the nastier bits in a bag set it on fire and leave it on a perticularly annoying NPCs door step
Serow 05-10-06, 02:58 PM	Darren, ask not what cow can do for you, but what you can do for cow! Hide armor has always been a favorite for all druids, I find resistance is a must for all armour created this way. Their blood is acidic, and in the campaign the players wents wild coating their blades in the blood, some saturating the teeth for days and making daggers and arrows made in the like this way. Breath weapons can't be taken, but using physics, not magic, we had determined that the breath was expelled via force lungs and methan gas chambers (thank you discovery channel) and basically made a pus bomb out of the innerds. It didn't do much damage, but for 120 feet diamiter, a town made a punk feest out of failed fort. saves. Natural armour is just that. NATURAL. It is not from magic, strength, or age (though they do have a part in it) it is formed from the thickness of skin, scales, and true hardness. I might not know everything in the DMG PHB or the MM's but I can grasp a grip on logic. A list of things (with the dm's help) that we used from the corpse. 1.tendons made excellent glue, uping the tangle bag more ... ummm... tangly 2.Lungs made for great floatation devise (dont ask...) 3.the voice box created great intimidate checks on enemy incampments 4.sinew made excellent cantipults. 5. tungues are fantastic delicasies 6. We actually had a wizard preserve the brain and using a damn lot of time convising the DM, he read the mind and extracked enough knowledge for an extra +1 in int and wiz 7. Sadles made from scales... actually not a good idea, but it was an interesting development their was more, but it skips my mind at the moment. So there! there is more uses than the closed mind will allow. Think outside the book.
Derren S. 05-10-06, 03:00 PM	In reply to derren why cant a dragon hide do this if you can raise people from the dead i dont see why monster in the name of the game cant be a bit special. Counter question, why should it? Why should every body part of a dragon have magical abilities and parts of other monsters don't? Why should players be even more rewarded by killing a dragon then with a big hoard? So there! there is more uses than the closed mind will allow. Think outside the book. Translated that means "I made all this stuff up so that I am right. Nothing of it has the basis in the game. Just because I make up on the spot that if you eat the left toe of a Mind Flayer you grow a third arm doesn't make it reasonable but that is exactly what you are doing. Making things up.
Serow 05-10-06, 03:04 PM	Why must it always be aboutthe DM? Why cant the players have fun? Reward them for killing a dragon or a terresque, only if it is the only dragon they come across. for those who always come across a dragon every secsion, then fine, no reward, but don't dumn down the fun for the players to appease the anger towards the last DM who did'nt let you carve up the last monster...
Derren S. 05-10-06, 03:09 PM	Why must it always be aboutthe DM? Why cant the players have fun? Reward them for killing a dragon Ah. And what is the huge hoard and the fame the PCs will get? Apparently not an reward for you.
Dessirris 05-10-06, 03:20 PM	Two words: Dragon Grafts. Gotta work quick though, if the parts required for the graft donation have been removed from the dragon for more than 7 days, they lose their ability to be grafted. Draconomicon has rules for dragoncraft weapons, armor, etc. The reason dragon remains have more innate power than animal remains is simple: Older dragons are walking repositories of arcane and elemental power. It's like magical radiation, when you've been exposed to so much for such a long time, it lingers in the remains. Not obviously, but subtly. Dragonfang weapons deal a point of elemental damage, for example, dragoncraft armors grant minor elemental resistances. Dragonhide armor makes for wonderful druid armor, etc.
Keenath 05-10-06, 03:33 PM	Okay, I figured out why I think it's creepy. Dragons are people. No matter how evil, you normally don't go around making clubs out of your humanoid enemies' legs and disassembling their bodies for parts. I have no particular issue with decorations involving cows' horns or trophy animals (though the latter are, I admit, creepy). I don't even mind taking a dragon's scales for armor. But treating a formerly intelligent creature as a major source of raw materials? That just rubs me the wrong way. The fact that it has four legs and lacks a humanoid face doesn't mean it's less of a person and undeserving of respect in death. Edit: All of this, of course, is variable based on your class and alignment; many necromancers do EXACTLY that. It's personally creepy to me to treat a dragon the way a necromancer would treat a human corpse, though, and I think it's bizarre that otherwise LG characters will happily take a dead dragon to a chop shop, file off the IDs, and put their parts in fourteen different cars.
Derren S. 05-10-06, 03:43 PM	Two words: Dragon Grafts. Gotta work quick though, if the parts required for the graft donation have been removed from the dragon for more than 7 days, they lose their ability to be grafted. All grafts except 1 or 2 require parts from unborn wyrmlings. SO dragonslaying won't get you that grafts. The reason dragon remains have more innate power than animal remains is simple: Yes it is. They don't. Its just that players want more loot and go on to make up things or ask around where they can find optional / third party rules which support their point.
Elthbert 05-10-06, 04:02 PM	Okay, I figured out why I think it's creepy. Dragons are people. No matter how evil, you normally don't go around making clubs out of your humanoid enemies' legs and disassembling their bodies for parts. I have no particular issue with decorations involving cows' horns or trophy animals (though the latter are, I admit, creepy). I don't even mind taking a dragon's scales for armor. But treating a formerly intelligent creature as a major source of raw materials? That just rubs me the wrong way. The fact that it has four legs and lacks a humanoid face doesn't mean it's less of a person and undeserving of respect in death. Edit: All of this, of course, is variable based on your class and alignment; many necromancers do EXACTLY that. It's personally creepy to me to treat a dragon the way a necromancer would treat a human corpse, though, and I think it's bizarre that otherwise LG characters will happily take a dead dragon to a chop shop, file off the IDs, and put their parts in fourteen different cars. Well your just not hanging out with the right evil people. Necromancers regularly make their fallen enemys into weapons, Pale masters wear one armour etc--- and people does not mean human-- one of the things I have had to explain to people inthe game is that it isn't cannibalism if it isn't your species. A lizardman eating a human isn't a cannibal likewise a human making a bow from a dragons thighbone is just using a superior material--- a dragon is just a big lzard with a personality. Now making stuff from the skin of the enemies war dog now that is a problem. ;)
Keenath 05-10-06, 04:47 PM	Well your just not hanging out with the right evil people. Necromancers regularly make their fallen enemys into weapons, Pale masters wear one armour etc---Uh, yeah. Read the note at the bottom of the text that you quoted. That's how evil characters act, and when they do it, it's creepy! That's the point of playing a necromancer! and people does not mean human-- one of the things I have had to explain to people inthe game is that it isn't cannibalism if it isn't your species. A lizardman eating a human isn't a cannibal likewise a human making a bow from a dragons thighbone is just using a superior material--- a dragon is just a big lzard with a personality.Did I mention cannibalism? It's not a question of being HUMAN or not! That's the whole point I'm making! It's a question of how you treat intelligent beings. It's disrespectful of the dead, whether you're making a flesh golem or disassembling dragons for parts. Your comment suggests that you believe only human(oid)s are worthy of such respect.
Eragon_seer 05-10-06, 06:46 PM	hea this is my idea but it is all about the players and DM in question let them decide we cant make there decitions and for the disrespect thing think about it once the spirit leaves the body there is only that a body I think for game purpose that a spirit would be content if his body was used to help another person even if he is evil but again it is about opinion
Elthbert 05-10-06, 08:23 PM	Uh, yeah. Read the note at the bottom of the text that you quoted. That's how evil characters act, and when they do it, it's creepy! That's the point of playing a necromancer! Did I mention cannibalism? It's not a question of being HUMAN or not! That's the whole point I'm making! It's a question of how you treat intelligent beings. It's disrespectful of the dead, whether you're making a flesh golem or disassembling dragons for parts. Your comment suggests that you believe only human(oid)s are worthy of such respect. Not at all I said it woud be awful if you did this to dogs---- they are not humanoid. Seriously, you are determining a creatures worth by it's intellegence which may or may not be relevent-- an idiotic human who cannot even feed himself has human value, intellegence is not an overwelming arguement. Now within the context of the Game, this has to do with all sorts of things, what are the religious beliefs of the Characters. I have played evil characters which would have been offended by this and good characters which would have had no problem with it at all. I played a neutral animistic character who concided himself at war with Lizard( the Spirit itself-- as I said animist) who hunted intellegent reptilians with religious ferver, he had no trouble eating dragons or butchering them for parts--- they were the embodiment of Lizard and deserved whatever they got, wearing their parts was simply a effecient method of trophy taking, which he did from most of his challenging opponants. Dragons are not human(oid) and are not necessarly intitled to such respect. Agian remember that in the premodern world desecration of the villianous dead was pretty standard practice, and a dragon of opposing Alignment pretty much fits right into that catagory.
Darth_Azalin 05-10-06, 11:21 PM	There was a dragon magazine (for sure 1.0) that talked about what you can all get.. And basically you upgrade it too 3.5 and your styling.. they had things like plant the teeth and you get warlords and such.. when Im not as busy I would print more of this article or even tell which it is in...
Derren S. 05-11-06, 01:16 AM	Seriously, you are determining a creatures worth by it's intellegence which may or may not be relevent It is very relevant, or more specifically it is relevant if it is sentient or not (Int 3). That is the border between animal and sentient beeing which is a huge difference. But a lot of people don't understand (or don't want to understand that) and believe that when it is in the MM you can do whatever you want. For example your "neutral "lizard killing shaman was in fact evil. Just exchange Lizard with Humanoid in ask yourself if you would still be good when you kill every intelligent humanoid (human) you come across and wear parts of their bodies.
Elthbert 05-11-06, 09:34 AM	It is very relevant, or more specifically it is relevant if it is sentient or not (Int 3). That is the border between animal and sentient beeing which is a huge difference. But a lot of people don't understand (or don't want to understand that) and believe that when it is in the MM you can do whatever you want. For example your "neutral "lizard killing shaman was in fact evil. Just exchange Lizard with Humanoid in ask yourself if you would still be good when you kill every intelligent humanoid (human) you come across and wear parts of their bodies. First animals are sentient so I don't really know where you are going with that if killing sentients and wearing their parts is evil then leather is definently out. No, but you can't put Humanoid in place of lizard, they are not even remotely corralative, this is particularly true in the case of dragons. Dragons are bound to an elemental force; furthermore, they are bound to an alignment far more than most other creatures. Dragons could be compared to Outsiders but not to humaniods. Agian connection between intellegence and dignity is not compelling, Intellect doesn't mean that much--- the idea that it does is a modernist perspective and one which I don't think has much place in D&D. My Neutral animist( he was actually a fighter who later became a druid) was just that-- Neutral --he approched life like an animal would, he killed his enimies without mercy but took no particular pleasure in doing so, they were simply the enemy and had to be destroyed. Coyotes kill for fun and they kill for practice does that make them evil--- no it makes them nothing more than a coyote.
Keenath 05-11-06, 09:40 AM	Not at all I said it woud be awful if you did this to dogs---- they are not humanoid.Meaningless. People are often more moved by violence against animals than the same or worse done to humans. Seriously, you are determining a creatures worth by it's intellegence which may or may not be relevent-- an idiotic human who cannot even feed himself has human value, intellegence is not an overwelming arguement.The most mentally disabled human on the planet has INT 3, unless he's somehow taken intelligence drain or a Feeblemind spell. Since I'm clearly distinguishing between animal intelligence and INT 3 or higher, this comment has nothing to do with anything. Now within the context of the Game, this has to do with all sorts of things, what are the religious beliefs of the Characters.So what? The fact that it's a religious belief doesn't change the fact that it's disrespectful and probably evil. Even in our own human history, there have been many religions who did terrible things, from Mayan human sacrifice, to the Inquisition and witch-burnings, to flying fully loaded aircraft into the World Trade Center. "It's a religious belief" is no excuse for doing horrific things. ...they were the embodiment of Lizard and deserved whatever they got...Fine, then that's an evil character, who also happens to be racist. Congrats. For the record, it's possible to be racist without being evil; you might just hate those ____s without actually commiting, well, atrocities against them. Dragons are not human(oid) and are not necessarly intitled to such respect.Sigh. From that comment, I doubt we can go anywhere with this discussion. Agian remember that in the premodern world desecration of the villianous dead was pretty standard practice, and a dragon of opposing Alignment pretty much fits right into that catagory.I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure whatever was done to an admittedly evil person didn't involve cutting off bits and making them into jewelry.
Elthbert 05-11-06, 09:53 AM	Meaningless. People are often more moved by violence against animals than the same or worse done to humans. The most mentally disabled human on the planet has INT 3, unless he's somehow taken intelligence drain or a Feeblemind spell. Since I'm clearly distinguishing between animal intelligence and INT 3 or higher, this comment has nothing to do with anything. So what? The fact that it's a religious belief doesn't change the fact that it's disrespectful and probably evil. Even in our own human history, there have been many religions who did terrible things, from Mayan human sacrifice, to the Inquisition and witch-burnings, to flying fully loaded aircraft into the World Trade Center. "It's a religious belief" is no excuse for doing horrific things. Fine, then that's an evil character, who also happens to be racist. Congrats. For the record, it's possible to be racist without being evil; you might just hate those ____s without actually commiting, well, atrocities against them. Sigh. From that comment, I doubt we can go anywhere with this discussion. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure whatever was done to an admittedly evil person didn't involve cutting off bits and making them into jewelry. Well taking some truly horrific groups like the Aztecs out no it did not involve wearing them as jewlery but it often involved putting there heads on pikes for display, ripping their bodies apart and sending those parts out for viewing etc. And what about those who have been subject to feeblemind spell are they suddenly not human anymore just because they are no longer gifted with superior intellect? Edit: This really isn't the place for debate about real world religions but the Inquisition --- where it was conducted legally--- was hardly horrific.
Serow 05-11-06, 11:37 AM	I left for a day... this is how the rest of the day went. me. opinion darren:opinion against me,calling me a lier (btw, evil party 'ello! no valor or gusto for us. not liked in towns!) dassirriss: (obviously the nega darren) opinion on grafts. Keeneth: Creaped out on necro fatalities darren: opinion on grafts. rule mongering begins... Elthbert: fighting for the dark side (coooo... kieeee) Keeneth: feeling nausiuos on the necro point of view. Eragon: puts his two cents in Elthbert: defending dogs. Explaining dead animals are no longer smart and have no int darth. two cents again Darren: proving elthberts point, being dead to opinions and making his own heard above all else. Alignment talk. Elthbert: defending puppies. saying lizards with the lisp have a reason to kill. alignment save. Keeneth: growing some 8's fighting everyones opinion for the last eight opinions. not relivent alignment speach. Elthbert: adopt a kitten. Ending the religous speach, properly giving the book of exalted deeds it most coveted adults only label oh! me again! the OP This was the god damn funniest thing I have ever read. Darren. Plan and simple, you are and will always be bias against the chopping of dragons. Your frigen sig says it all! Well, to tell you I IM the cannibal dragon. get a hobby... one that you like At least Keeneth has a resinible excuss, not, you cant do that cause its not in the book. He's actually afraid of the dark... er um. I ment necros. Elthbert, i love ya to death for supporting me, and those are neat ideas, thank you. I got a lizard today, but i think my cat/dog ate it... Eragon, it was a nice try. I love the book though, mad due to the delay for the 3rd book. Did you know they are making a movie? yeah! and Christifer will be there! Darth, their is one, and I lost it. the number is 332 in dragon, still on its best sellers list. (get the idea yet darren, people actually like to make stuff out of the dragons. people at DRAGON magazine got the idea...) Well, done rambling. thank you for all your support, and to those who kick out the legs, nah nah nah nah nah na! those items work, home brewed, but work. I think the thread will die now, my thoughts being said. bye bye
Derren S. 05-11-06, 01:47 PM	First animals are sentient so I don't really know where you are going with that if killing sentients and wearing their parts is evil then leather is definently out. In D&D there is a clear distinction betwen sentience and non-sentience and that is the Int 2-3 barrier. Int 2 or less = Animal with the rights of an animal and for the most part execludet from the alignment system Int 3 or more = Sentien being with rights of sentient beings and part of the alignment system. That meanst that every creature with int >2 counts the same in teh alignment system. Killing a dragon because of its race and shape has the same alignment implications then killing a human because of his race and shape. The same is true for wearing body parts. When it is descecration to skin a human corpse to make armor out of his skin then it is also descecration to do this to a dead dragon.
Serow 05-11-06, 02:42 PM	Ok... you win Darren... I will find the next humanoid, may it be a human or something else. Kill it and strip it, wearing the skin as armour just to justify your acute morbid wants and disires, killing all hope for a normal life in the D&D realm.
Elthbert 05-11-06, 03:26 PM	In D&D there is a clear distinction betwen sentience and non-sentience and that is the Int 2-3 barrier. Int 2 or less = Animal with the rights of an animal and for the most part execludet from the alignment system Int 3 or more = Sentien being with rights of sentient beings and part of the alignment system. That meanst that every creature with int >2 counts the same in teh alignment system. Killing a dragon because of its race and shape has the same alignment implications then killing a human because of his race and shape. The same is true for wearing body parts. When it is descecration to skin a human corpse to make armor out of his skin then it is also descecration to do this to a dead dragon. Do you know the definition of the word sentient? I don't mean that as an insult, it is really hard to have a discussion with people when your definitions are differant. Sentient means having sensory awareness, animals are sentient. And killing a human because he is in the way and not acknowledged by you to be a being worthy of respect is not evil--- D&D has made that distinction quite often-- Elementals and various other creatures simply do not see humans as anything more than ants, that doesn't make them evil just cold. And the correct term would be Form not shape, and killing things based on there form is not necessarly evil.
Elthbert 05-11-06, 03:28 PM	I left for a day... this is how the rest of the day went. me. opinion darren:opinion against me,calling me a lier (btw, evil party 'ello! no valor or gusto for us. not liked in towns!) dassirriss: (obviously the nega darren) opinion on grafts. Keeneth: Creaped out on necro fatalities darren: opinion on grafts. rule mongering begins... Elthbert: fighting for the dark side (coooo... kieeee) Keeneth: feeling nausiuos on the necro point of view. Eragon: puts his two cents in Elthbert: defending dogs. Explaining dead animals are no longer smart and have no int darth. two cents again Darren: proving elthberts point, being dead to opinions and making his own heard above all else. Alignment talk. Elthbert: defending puppies. saying lizards with the lisp have a reason to kill. alignment save. Keeneth: growing some 8's fighting everyones opinion for the last eight opinions. not relivent alignment speach. Elthbert: adopt a kitten. Ending the religous speach, properly giving the book of exalted deeds it most coveted adults only label oh! me again! the OP This was the god damn funniest thing I have ever read. Darren. Plan and simple, you are and will always be bias against the chopping of dragons. Your frigen sig says it all! Well, to tell you I IM the cannibal dragon. get a hobby... one that you like At least Keeneth has a resinible excuss, not, you cant do that cause its not in the book. He's actually afraid of the dark... er um. I ment necros. Elthbert, i love ya to death for supporting me, and those are neat ideas, thank you. I got a lizard today, but i think my cat/dog ate it... Eragon, it was a nice try. I love the book though, mad due to the delay for the 3rd book. Did you know they are making a movie? yeah! and Christifer will be there! Darth, their is one, and I lost it. the number is 332 in dragon, still on its best sellers list. (get the idea yet darren, people actually like to make stuff out of the dragons. people at DRAGON magazine got the idea...) Well, done rambling. thank you for all your support, and to those who kick out the legs, nah nah nah nah nah na! those items work, home brewed, but work. I think the thread will die now, my thoughts being said. bye bye Your welcome.
Derren S. 05-11-06, 03:47 PM	Do you know the definition of the word sentient? I don't mean that as an insult, it is really hard to have a discussion with people when your definitions are differant. Sentient means having sensory awareness, animals are sentient. You can argue about definitions all you want, the fact that there is a difference between Int 0-2 and 3+ concerning alignment remains And killing a human because he is in the way and not acknowledged by you to be a being worthy of respect is not evil--- D&D has made that distinction quite often-- Elementals and various other creatures simply do not see humans as anything more than ants, that doesn't make them evil just cold. Then show me those creatures in the MM (together where it says that they regulary kill humans without reason) which are neutral. And the correct term would be Form not shape, and killing things based on there form is not necessarly evil. Yay, I can kill everything medium sized which has two arms and two legs and not become evil. Do you now realize how stupid your arguments are?
Jimbo19 05-11-06, 03:50 PM	wierdos
Elthbert 05-11-06, 05:03 PM	You can argue about definitions all you want, the fact that there is a difference between Int 0-2 and 3+ concerning alignment remains Then show me those creatures in the MM (together where it says that they regulary kill humans without reason) which are neutral. Yay, I can kill everything medium sized which has two arms and two legs and not become evil. Do you now realize how stupid your arguments are? Well from a philosophical point of view an Orc and an elf would not have the same Form so killing everything with 2 arms and 2 legs would be killing many many differant forms of things. As for the other I will make sure to give you what you ask for as soon as I get home.
Derren S. 05-11-06, 05:13 PM	Well from a philosophical point of view an Orc and an elf would not have the same Form so killing everything with 2 arms and 2 legs would be killing many many differant forms of things. As for the other I will make sure to give you what you ask for as soon as I get home. Orcs and elves are much more similar then dragons and lizards yet when you claim that those two are similar enough to making killing them not evil then orcs, elves and all other humanoids are similar enough to monkey so that one can kill all humanoids he come across and not be evil because he is fighting against "The Monkey". And yes, take your time. You will need it.
Elthbert 05-12-06, 10:15 AM	Orcs and elves are much more similar then dragons and lizards yet when you claim that those two are similar enough to making killing them not evil then orcs, elves and all other humanoids are similar enough to monkey so that one can kill all humanoids he come across and not be evil because he is fighting against "The Monkey". And yes, take your time. You will need it. Sorry about the delay, I had unexpected visitors last night--- plus apparantly my MM is with my PH at a friends house --- so I will have to do this off the top of my head. But one of the creatures which are listed as neutral yet make a practice of killing human(oid)s regularly are the Slaadi-- the kill humanoids in order to reproduce--- they are nto evil they simply are Slaadi.
Derren S. 05-12-06, 11:04 AM	That is hardly whitout reason. Also as far as I can remember (Don't have the books with me and the SRD don't has slaads) they can lay eggs into any creature not only humans. So Slads can reproduce by using animals. Nothing says thatt hey hunt humans for that. Look at www.d20srd.org, maybe you can remember a other monster which fits better.
Elthbert 05-12-06, 11:35 AM	That is hardly whitout reason. Also as far as I can remember (Don't have the books with me and the SRD don't has slaads) they can lay eggs into any creature not only humans. So Slads can reproduce by using animals. Nothing says thatt hey hunt humans for that. Look at www.d20srd.org, maybe you can remember a other monster which fits better. I never said without reason--- being at war with something is as valid a reason--- furthermore the MM makes it very clear that they target humanoids for such treatment. Additionally, it doesn't even imply that they hunt animals for such a purpose or can even use animals for such a purpose ,if that were the case they wouldn't even need to hunt they could simply raise cows for reproduction. It fit wonderfully, it just doesn't fit what you want it too so you are saying it doesn't fit. I also seem to remember the discussion of Elementals treating all of the life on the Prime Material as completly meaningless, but I can't swear that was in the MM.
Elthbert 05-12-06, 11:38 AM	And just as a note Blue slaad give a disease to thier victim they do not lay eggs. And if you are right and they can lay eggs or disease any animal then it makes their doing so of Humanoids unnecessary, i.e. without reason.
Derren S. 05-12-06, 12:22 PM	It would probably be best to continue this discussion when we both have acces to out books again.
Keenath 05-12-06, 05:14 PM	Sentient means "capable of sensing". Animals are sentient, plants are not. The word you're looking for is sapient, that is, the ability to act with judgement; to be aware of one's own thought process. Self-awareness. Don't worry; people get that one wrong all the time. Star Trek got it wrong, on a regular basis. Well taking some truly horrific groups like the Aztecs out no it did not involve wearing them as jewlery but it often involved putting there heads on pikes for display, ripping their bodies apart and sending those parts out for viewing etc.Yes. Is that disrespect to the dead? ABSOLUTELY! It's meant to be, as part of the punishment. I'm not defending that sort of action. I would, however, tend to see some difference between defacing a body as part of a display of punishment and defacing a body because you really would like to wear its teeth on a necklace. Still, I (and any good character, I think) would be angered by putting heads on pikes as an example. That's a marginally evil act, I would think. And what about those who have been subject to feeblemind spell are they suddenly not human anymore just because they are no longer gifted with superior intellect?Obviously they were sapient at one time, and can be again with the proper treatment. They are of a sapient species, and as such should be treated with respect. And before you bring it up, yes, I think Awakened animals should be treated similarly, though it's more forgivable if somebody makes a coat out of an awakened deer because they didn't bother to chat with it first. If somebody knowingly killed and skinned an awakened animal, yes, that's bad. Edit: This really isn't the place for debate about real world religions but the Inquisition --- where it was conducted legally--- was hardly horrific.I assume you mean the Spanish Inquisition, since that's what everyone means when they use the word (there have been several inquisitions), widely known because it WAS so brutal, and because it was well documented (unusual in such a campaign). Certainly most of the inquisition consisted of grabbing heretics (read: non-Christians) and threatening torture unless they admitted heresy and took penance -- which is hardly "horrific", though it's bad. Torture to gain a confession was admittedly somewhat rare, but it did happen, and occasionally got bad enough that the Spanish citizen protested! There were no actual trials to determine guilt; the inquisitors collected information, made a decision, and tried to extract confession if they thought you were guilty. You don't GET a defense! Minor heresy was punished by "mere" public humiliation or lashing, and by far the most common. Yes, there weren't as many burnings as we used to think -- but they happened enough to be recorded over and over. If you confessed, they'd be nice and strangle you before the fire was lit. I'm interested as to why you think this isn't horrific. Does "it didn't happen as much as we thought" reduce the evilness of the act? It's okay to commit murder a couple of times, just so you don't make a habit of it?
Elthbert 05-12-06, 06:08 PM	Sentient means "capable of sensing". Animals are sentient, plants are not. The word you're looking for is sapient, that is, the ability to act with judgement; to be aware of one's own thought process. Self-awareness. Don't worry; people get that one wrong all the time. Star Trek got it wrong, on a regular basis. Yes. Is that disrespect to the dead? ABSOLUTELY! It's meant to be, as part of the punishment. I'm not defending that sort of action. I would, however, tend to see some difference between defacing a body as part of a display of punishment and defacing a body because you really would like to wear its teeth on a necklace. Still, I (and any good character, I think) would be angered by putting heads on pikes as an example. That's a marginally evil act, I would think. Obviously they were sapient at one time, and can be again with the proper treatment. They are of a sapient species, and as such should be treated with respect. And before you bring it up, yes, I think Awakened animals should be treated similarly, though it's more forgivable if somebody makes a coat out of an awakened deer because they didn't bother to chat with it first. If somebody knowingly killed and skinned an awakened animal, yes, that's bad. I assume you mean the Spanish Inquisition, since that's what everyone means when they use the word (there have been several inquisitions), widely known because it WAS so brutal, and because it was well documented (unusual in such a campaign). Certainly most of the inquisition consisted of grabbing heretics (read: non-Christians) and threatening torture unless they admitted heresy and took penance -- which is hardly "horrific", though it's bad. Torture to gain a confession was admittedly somewhat rare, but it did happen, and occasionally got bad enough that the Spanish citizen protested! There were no actual trials to determine guilt; the inquisitors collected information, made a decision, and tried to extract confession if they thought you were guilty. You don't GET a defense! Minor heresy was punished by "mere" public humiliation or lashing, and by far the most common. Yes, there weren't as many burnings as we used to think -- but they happened enough to be recorded over and over. If you confessed, they'd be nice and strangle you before the fire was lit. I'm interested as to why you think this isn't horrific. Does "it didn't happen as much as we thought" reduce the evilness of the act? It's okay to commit murder a couple of times, just so you don't make a habit of it? As I said this is not the place to discuss real world religion however the "horrors" of the Spanish inquisition where largely made up English Protestant propaganda which is part of what is known amoung historians as the "Black Legend" The "Spanish" Inquisition actually had very little torture of any kind and in the main simply required that you ask forgiveness and promise not to preach heresy anymore-- only reoffenders ever got serious punishment. As to whether there were in fact several Inqusitions well as I said this is not really an appropriate place for such a discussion-- If you would like to really have such a discussion I will happly PM you regardig a place more appropriate for such a discussion. EDIT: just as a note the Inquisition never attackedor tried or harrassed non-christians in anyway the non-chirstian was not within it's juristiction and nowhere did it attempt to overcome this restriction. So for example Jews where never, ever, questioned by the Inquisition, in Spain Torquemada did go after Conversos (Converted Jews) who had not sincerly convert but continued to practice Judaism. Torquemada was himself a converted Jew so perhaps that explains his tenacity in that area.
feartheinvinceblehamster 05-12-06, 06:21 PM	Make spines into daggers, horns into shortswords, teeth into longswords or greatswords, Skull into a hammer.
Kresalak 05-12-06, 07:19 PM	I failed my Will save vs. Compulsions. The Spanish Inquisition was so horrible because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Elthbert 05-12-06, 08:33 PM	I failed my Will save vs. Compulsions. The Spanish Inquisition was so horrible because nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! I was waiting for that--- don't feel bad someone had to fail their save.
dengarbountyhunter 05-12-06, 08:47 PM	Oh gosh. Enough of that alignement discussion. If you want one, go one one of these 153812 paladin threads. If you're Good or Neutral and want to stay like that, don't wear dragon (wear similidragon?) If you're Evil, go for it. Now that it has been sorted out, I'd like to know, as Serow first ask, what dragon parts (except for the 6gp thing in BoVD and the masterwork suit of armor) could be used to craft items/cast spells. Doesn't need to be useful, could just be cool (like the previously mentioned spellbook binded in dragon skin). IF IT TROUBLES YOU SO MUCH THAT SOMEBODY COULD USE DRAGON PARTS FOR THIS KIND OF USE, CONSIDER THEM TO BE REMORSELESS BBEGS WHO HAVE NO INTEREST IN ETHICAL DEBATES. But please post any cool ideas anyway.
Kothardarastrix 05-12-06, 10:42 PM	There is a video game that I have been putting bits and pieces of into our campaign. One of the very interesting parts of the game is cutting up the slaughtered monster. You then stock up on body parts of monsters and other items you find to make your own armor, weapons, potions, traps, etc.... You carve different parts off of different monsters, respectively. Bones of different sizes make handles for different sized weapons, scales, wing membranes, and hides make armor, plates make some of the best weapons in the game, and some specific monsters give specific parts (fatalis gives eyes, yian-kut-ku gives beak, etc....) Someones 'Monster Hunter' Nerd (Not meant as insult) is showing... :P
Darth_Azalin 05-12-06, 11:59 PM	Darth, their is one, and I lost it. the number is 332 in dragon, still on its best sellers list. (get the idea yet darren, people actually like to make stuff out of the dragons. people at DRAGON magazine got the idea...) Well your missing the boat there Serow Dragon # 98 June 1985 page 11-12 talks about what to do with Teeth of the dragon Dragon # 180 April 1992 page 14-16 again how to make dragon into swords.. Dragon # 196 August 1993 page 83 - 92 3 wizards (elm, mord , and dal talk shop) Dragon # 205 May 1994 page 94-96 Undead dragon hunter and stuff Dragon # 218 June 1995 page 25-30 part 1 of the dragon parts and stuff to make with them Dragon # 230 June 1996 page 42-47 part 2 stuff to make with dragon parts Dragon # 238 August 1997 page 28-32 stuff to make with dragon parts Dragon # 249 June 1999 page 24-28 stuff to do with dragon parts.. examples of like bathing in the blood does this, using the eyes does this... Now I did find 8 issues alone that have stuff to do with dragons.. and probably having near a 100 things you can do with them... So anyone that says a dead dragon is just like another creature is well uneducated in D&D... Derren S. You have stated that theres nothing you can do with a dead dragon.. as you can see theres a ton of stuff you can do with it.. withjust over a half dozen issues.. my question is how do you eat crow?
Zathyr 05-13-06, 12:36 AM	Sentient means "capable of sensing". Animals are sentient, plants are not. One quick pedantic note before I get into the meat of my argument: most plants are at least able to sense the direction of the sun. Some, like the venus flytrap, have a definate sense of touch. Now that said, I don't see why cutting up a dead body is necessarily evil. Heck, we do it all the time in today's culture - harvesting organs for the benefit of others. How would this necessarily be any different? Different cultures have different attitudes towards dead bodies. You can respect the dead and still get away with any number of things. Heck, you could even say that making an axe out of your grandfather's hipbone was a sign of respect. If anyone complains: "Eat grandpappy's hip, heathen!" ;) Nearly all my games have turned into "Alien Autopsy" at one point or another. Be it for our equiment, experiments, spells, to sell off, or (on rare occasions) just for fun. We've collected blood from dragons, demons, all kinds of things, as well as harvested claws, horns, teeth, and occasionally other organs we thought were cool (or we thought other people would think were cool). And let's face it, people think dragons are cool, but it's not limited to dragons. If we kill a basilisk, someone's sure to cut out its eyes because, at the very least, somewhere someone is bound to be willing to pay money for them. Sure we may need to keep a Gentle Repose prepped for a while, but eventually the gather information check will succeed. wierdos And how! :D
scienceman47 05-13-06, 12:38 AM	Speak with dead, find its hoard, gain fair warning about cursed items, secret stash, etc. Whatever you could acquire by mutilating its corpes is not nearly as good as the info you could get while speaking to it.
Derren S. 05-13-06, 04:39 AM	You have stated that theres nothing you can do with a dead dragon.. as you can see theres a ton of stuff you can do with it.. withjust over a half dozen issues.. my question is how do you eat crow? Correction, thre was tons of stuff about it. All those issues are second edition. But as Dragonhide armor doesn't give you the AC of the dragon anymore so do they don't work anymore.
Darth_Azalin 05-13-06, 11:27 AM	Correction, thre was tons of stuff about it. All those issues are second edition. But as Dragonhide armor doesn't give you the AC of the dragon anymore so do they don't work anymore. No reason to believe that you couldnt bring 1.0 or even 2.0 stuff too 3.5 remember what they said about 3.0 rules.. If it didn't change we will not be rewriting or reprinting it.. (look at stronghold builders guild is a perfect example) and another would be MM2 and Fiend Folio all they did was update damage reduction and a few other items.. no need to reprint a 30-35 buck book... And theres a handbook on how to update 2.0 too 3.0 and then you use there other handbook to go from 3.0 to 3.5 the rules are just there you have to be able use them... Common sense isnt common if you don't recongize it or use it right?
dengarbountyhunter 05-13-06, 04:18 PM	well, as for the speak with dead question, nothing refrains you to speak with the corpse and then use its parts! plus, it allows a Will save and if the DRAGON (good Will saves) succeeds it, you cannot try again for a week!
Derren S. 05-14-06, 03:45 PM	I never said without reason--- being at war with something is as valid a reason--- furthermore the MM makes it very clear that they target humanoids for such treatment. I have read the MM entry for them and nowhere it says or even suggests that slaad hunt humanoids for reproducing. There goes your theory.
Keenath 05-14-06, 04:27 PM	One quick pedantic note before I get into the meat of my argument: most plants are at least able to sense the direction of the sun. Some, like the venus flytrap, have a definate sense of touch.It's not considered a sense of touch (or sight) in the case of those plants, because it's not linked to any central nervous system. Stimulating the cells around the base of a trigger-hair causes a sudden release of chemicals that cause high-speed osmosis in the cells around the base of the 'trap'. There's no nerve involved or brain/ganglion cluster, so it's not really a 'sense' of touch. As I understand it, the term 'sentience' is generally taken to require a nervous system. Now that said, I don't see why cutting up a dead body is necessarily evil. Heck, we do it all the time in today's culture - harvesting organs for the benefit of others. How would this necessarily be any different?Taking organs for transplants is basically respectful, outside of the doctors who are under a very strict time limit before everything 'goes bad'. I don't have particular issue with, for example, a player whose dragon companion dies, and the player uses the scales to make armor so that his friend can protect him from beyond the grave. Or maybe he takes a tooth as a momento, or whatever. Even if it's a foe, that doesn't really upset me. It's the idea that a dead dragon is suddenly car parts that bugs me.
Elthbert 05-15-06, 10:57 AM	I have read the MM entry for them and nowhere it says or even suggests that slaad hunt humanoids for reproducing. There goes your theory. No wear does it even suggest? You are joking right--- so exactly howmany arcane spell casters in the form of say a goat have you met? You must not have read very closely because the entire higher portion of thier spiecies is dependent on the consumption of Arcane spell casters to exist. So is it that they hunt dragons-- hmmm I guess there arn't that many slaad because the everage dragon is going to stomp a slaad, not to mention it could just fly away. What MM where you looking in anyway, or do you know of some form of non-sapiant arcane spell caster? Edit: so they are a Neutral creature which specifically hunts sapiant creatures, which is what you claim is inherintly evil.
Elthbert 05-15-06, 11:00 AM	It's not considered a sense of touch (or sight) in the case of those plants, because it's not linked to any central nervous system. Stimulating the cells around the base of a trigger-hair causes a sudden release of chemicals that cause high-speed osmosis in the cells around the base of the 'trap'. There's no nerve involved or brain/ganglion cluster, so it's not really a 'sense' of touch. As I understand it, the term 'sentience' is generally taken to require a nervous system. Taking organs for transplants is basically respectful, outside of the doctors who are under a very strict time limit before everything 'goes bad'. I don't have particular issue with, for example, a player whose dragon companion dies, and the player uses the scales to make armor so that his friend can protect him from beyond the grave. Or maybe he takes a tooth as a momento, or whatever. Even if it's a foe, that doesn't really upset me. It's the idea that a dead dragon is suddenly car parts that bugs me. See the idea that you would skin your frind to wear him---- THAT bugs me, the idea that you would skin a beast and wear him doesn't bug me at all.
Derren S. 05-15-06, 11:19 AM	No wear does it even suggest? You are joking right--- so exactly howmany arcane spell casters in the form of say a goat have you met? You must not have read very closely because the entire higher portion of thier spiecies is dependent on the consumption of Arcane spell casters to exist. So is it that they hunt dragons-- hmmm I guess there arn't that many slaad because the everage dragon is going to stomp a slaad, not to mention it could just fly away. What MM where you looking in anyway, or do you know of some form of non-sapiant arcane spell caster? Edit: so they are a Neutral creature which specifically hunts sapiant creatures, which is what you claim is inherintly evil. Now you are unreasonable. Yes, IF they impregnate a arcane spellcaster they get a green slaad. Nowhere does it say that they activly hunt spellcaster for this, you are making this up. It could happen in self defence, it could happen as bargain when they are summoned by planar ally etc. So, show me where it says that they hunt humanoids or spellcaster for reproduction. (A hint don't bother unless you want to waste time because you won't find anything).
Elthbert 05-15-06, 11:37 AM	Now you are unreasonable. Yes, IF they impregnate a arcane spellcaster they get a green slaad. Nowhere does it say that they activly hunt spellcaster for this, you are making this up. It could happen in self defence, it could happen as bargain when they are summoned by planar ally etc. So, show me where it says that they hunt humanoids or spellcaster for reproduction. (A hint don't bother unless you want to waste time because you won't find anything). I am being unreasonable? Okay death Slaads are all about killing, It makes mention of this fact, I suppose thats all about killing non sapiant creatures because the Books mention that on every predator around right. Yet Death Slaads -- while corrupted by evil--- are still CN not CE. But I guess that is just me making that up. Well Derren you go right ahead in your campaign and have the kinder gentler Slaad farm goats for reproduction---- but that is NOT the intention of the books.
Derren S. 05-15-06, 11:44 AM	I am being unreasonable? Okay death Slaads are all about killing, It makes mention of this fact, I suppose thats all about killing non sapiant creatures because the Books mention that on every predator around right. Its interesting what you make out of Death slaads focus more on killing then magical power Nowhere does it say that they kill everything they encounter, just that they focus more on beeing able to kill then on gaining magic like gray slads do. I suggest you stop making thinks up or to twist them so they fir your argument. Best, you search for another monster to prove your point as there are so many of them (at least you said that).
Serow 05-15-06, 12:32 PM	Look it up in the savage speicies book. Their is even a class to impregant other creatures as a red sladdi. I won't start a huge discussion, but its in there. Thank you so much darth! I needed to find out which ones those were, thank you again!
Necropolitan 05-15-06, 12:35 PM	Since everyone's talking about things to do with bodies of big creatures... I've a thought that's been dancing through my mind for a while. Could you fesably make a two-handed weapon from a Huge or larger creature's teeth? Say, you killed and Adujt Black Dragon; would be be possable to pry a fang from it's skull and then use some of it's clawbones to build a hilt for it; enchant the sucker - and get a +1/etc Greatsword that a Druid would be capable of using? Not sure why, just a thought that's been bugging me for a bit.
Derren S. 05-15-06, 12:46 PM	Yes it is, but a adult black would be much too small to get a greatsword. A dagger maybe. But you are aware that druids can wield metal weapons normally?
Necropolitan 05-15-06, 12:49 PM	Yes it is, but a adult black would be much too small to get a greatsword. A dagger maybe. But you are aware that druids can wield metal weapons normally? Eh, well a dragon large enough or similar creature: I figure you could do it with anythign that has the required length; like a Purple Worm stinger and so forth. Yes, I know druids can, but it's a common houserule to limit the usable metal weapons for a druid, or to exclude them all together; so this would be sort of spiffy. Besides, there something just nasty and primal about having a gigantic serrated bone greatsword that I like - I think I just might do that for fun.
Derren S. 05-15-06, 12:57 PM	But what is the point then? Dragon bone has no special property. The only thing which speaks for it is that you can save some work when you take a tooth or fang as they are sharp in their natural form. When you take a random bone and first have to craft it into the right shape you could take the bone from any other creature or even make the blade out of stone or whatever and enchant it.
Necropolitan 05-15-06, 01:01 PM	But what is the point then? Dragon bone has no special property. The only thing which speaks for it is that you can save some work when you take a tooth or fang as they are sharp in their natural form. When you take a random bone and first have to craft it into the right shape you could take the bone from any other creature or even make the blade out of stone or whatever and enchant it. Style man, style. Not every aspect of the game has to reflect bonuses; some aspects are purely for fluff and awesome; and in my mind I can't think of a better weapon for a barbarian with Monkey Grip then a serrated tooth from a Gargantugan lizard gouged with tribal runes - same as a +1 Large Greatsword made from steel - but the fluff factor is through the roof. Style my man, style. ;)
Derren S. 05-15-06, 01:04 PM	Ok, if you have no problem with using body parts of sentient/sapient creatures as weapons...
Necropolitan 05-15-06, 01:07 PM	Ok, if you have no problem with using body parts of sentient/sapient creatures as weapons... -Snort- Pal, according to alll the D&D tests floating around the forum, I'm a Chaotic Evil Human Whirling Frenzy Barbarian. I've had a Cleric of Nerull whom made his Scythe out of enchanted and sharpened human bones - dragons are a step DOWN.
Derren S. 05-15-06, 01:08 PM	I have never said that using body parts is evil, only that using the body parts of a dragon is not better/worse then using the body parts of a human.
Necropolitan 05-15-06, 01:09 PM	I have never said that using body parts is evil, only that using the body parts of a dragon is not better/worse then using the body parts of a human. Untrue. Dragon Skin makes far more fashonable armor. :D
Keenath 05-15-06, 03:29 PM	See the idea that you would skin your frind to wear him---- THAT bugs me, the idea that you would skin a beast and wear him doesn't bug me at all.An evil dragon is not a 'beast'. It's exactly as intelligent as your best-buddy-dragon, which is about three times your intelligence. Anyway, as I've said before, the hide doesn't bother me nearly as much as the rest.
Elthbert 05-15-06, 05:04 PM	An evil dragon is not a 'beast'. It's exactly as intelligent as your best-buddy-dragon, which is about three times your intelligence. Anyway, as I've said before, the hide doesn't bother me nearly as much as the rest. A smart beast is still a beast, it is a big flying lizard that lays waste to villages and eats people--- its a beast. Now if you are friends with a dragon I would expect you to treat it's body with some respect, just like one would do with a pet; but intellegance does not necessarly mandate respect for the creatures body. That "respect" for the body requires it to be left alone, or even that good creatures inherintly respect the body of fallen foes, is not a given. I would say this had to do more with honor than right or wrong. edited because I was typing too fast Derren you said-- Best, you search for another monster to prove your point as there are so many of them (at least you said that). I still contend that the Slaadi are quite in keeping with this but if you want another example try Lizardfolk--- they are Neutral yet relish the flesh of humaniod creatures.
Derren S. 05-15-06, 05:18 PM	I wonder if you really read the MM before posting. Popular lore holds that lizardfolk prefer to eat humanoid flesh but this charge is largely unfounded (though some tribes do eat captive or slain foes) That fits perfectly with their usual neutral alignment. Most don't do it, but some do and will probably even hunt for it (which are those who are evil). Oh, and please tell me what happens when some higher level adventurers stumble upon a kobold village? They behave exactly as the dragon. Also the definition of beast in this regard is clearly defined in D&D. Int 2 or lower -> beast. Int 3 or more -> Intelligent, sentient/sapient being which deserves the same respect as all others. If you would post true facts and not your twisted version of them i would be very thankfull.
Kothardarastrix 05-15-06, 07:33 PM	I'm sorry, you'll have to excuse Derren, he has a tendancy to make rediculous theories about dragons; one such theory was that dragons have racial memory and knows everything the parent knows, which is contradicted by the fact that Wyrmlings have an intelligence score of roughly 1/3 of your average Great Wyrm. He also seems to forget that, yes, weapons and armors created from dragon parts are indeed better, but it requires an extra feat (Dragoncrafter) from the crafter.
Elthbert 05-15-06, 11:07 PM	I wonder if you really read the MM before posting. That fits perfectly with their usual neutral alignment. Most don't do it, but some do and will probably even hunt for it (which are those who are evil). Oh, and please tell me what happens when some higher level adventurers stumble upon a kobold village? They behave exactly as the dragon. Also the definition of beast in this regard is clearly defined in D&D. Int 2 or lower -> beast. Int 3 or more -> Intelligent, sentient/sapient being which deserves the same respect as all others. If you would post true facts and not your twisted version of them i would be very thankfull. Actually I didn't I told you I didn't have my books with me at work-- I got home and checked and I was remembering the text from 3.0 which reads Although they are omnivores, they prefer meat, paticularly human flesh. Which goes to show exactly my point that this is a long standing traditional interpretation of neutrality in D&D. That 3.5 is now sissifying neutrality and neutral creatures doesn't really suprise me, wouldn't want to offend lizard men after all.
Derren S. 05-16-06, 01:09 AM	I'm sorry, you'll have to excuse Derren, he has a tendancy to make rediculous theories about dragons; one such theory was that dragons have racial memory and knows everything the parent knows, which is contradicted by the fact that Wyrmlings have an intelligence score of roughly 1/3 of your average Great Wyrm. He also seems to forget that, yes, weapons and armors created from dragon parts are indeed better, but it requires an extra feat (Dragoncrafter) from the crafter. You have to excuse Kothardarastrix as he has no idea what he is talking about, otherwise he would remember that the draconomicon says on page 12 "It [wyrmling dragon] inherits a considerable body of practical knowledge from its parents" Also he has a tendency to exagerate as I never said that they inherit all knowledge. But if you have a other explanation how a 1 hour old wyrmling has higher knowledge skills then most humans bring it on. @Elthbert Sorry, I was unaware that you are still without MM. Its probably best that you wait with your posts till you have access to it again.