Post/Author/DateTime	Post
spiritman 03-26-07, 07:53 PM	Hey everyone, first post here. I dont think I'm breaking any rules, and I read the Code of Conduct, so I didnt see anything wrong there. Also, if this is in the wrong place, let me know please! Ok, I'm making a Wizard, and I like the idea of having a mount. I looked through the Monster Manual, and I want him to have a Dragon as a mount... preferrably a Black Dragon. But already I see a problem with that, there is no info on them as mounts, like the pegasus and griffon.I also have some other questions on a Dragon Mount. 1. If my Wizard wasnt any sort of Evil, then could I still have a Black Dragon, or any sort of Chromatic Dragon as a mount? Or would I have to go with a Metallic? 2. What sort of Checks do you make while casting spells while mounted?(I could've sworn I saw this somewhere, but I cant find it now.) 3. What age catagory does the Dragon have to be? 4. Where can I find more info on this? Thanks in advance! ( If I did anything wrong, please tell me)
Toloran 03-26-07, 08:03 PM	0. The reason they aren't listed is because you can't get them as mounts normally since they are fairly intelligent and will generally refuse to be ridden on. The primary way to get one is as a cohort although this requires a special class ability or feat (I think the feat is out of dragonomicon). 1. As long as you don't conflict with their alignment in any way you are fine. So, in other words, as long as you aren't good or lawful you should be fine. 2. Ride checks (to control mount and not fall off) and concentration checks. The concentration check for normal moving is DC 10, for most combat it would probably be DC 15. 3. Age catagory generally doesn't matter although most wouldn't work if they are less then young. Size matters more because they have to be at least one size catagory larger then you. 4. Dragonomicon, (maybe) Races of Dragon, and the Dragonlance Campaign Setting (has a dragon rider PrC).
Fireclave 03-26-07, 08:03 PM	The Draconomicon has everything you need on dragons, riding dragons, dragons as familiars, dragons as cohorts, dragon-based PrCs (including a dragon rider PrC), as well as handling the presence of a dragon in your campaign.
spiritman 03-26-07, 08:08 PM	Alright, I'll go check out Dragonomicon. Thanks for your help!
TalonofTiamat 03-26-07, 08:58 PM	If you want a Black Dragon as a mount, the lowest age category you'd be able to ride would be a young adult (unless you're small, then you could ride a young one).
Needle 03-27-07, 10:49 AM	Well, Dragons are intelligent people.. heck, they're smarter than humans. They generally wont let themselves be mounts.. what yould your character say if a 6 int pixie wanted you as a mount? Theres exceptions.. a mettalic dragon might let themselves be mounts for a Paladin or other good character on a mission of rightiousness. A chromatic dragon (or even some mettalics) might let themselves be mounts for a price.. like hiring their services. Theres some more rules in the draconomicon, but you should to stop looking at Dragons as nothing more than mounts/beasts of burden, they're elite geniuses.
DreadArchon 03-27-07, 11:59 AM	what yould your character say if a 6 int pixie wanted you as a mount? "That's awesome, what do you pay?" "What's your Ride skill? You do have Mounted Combat, right?"
TalonofTiamat 03-27-07, 07:42 PM	Well, Dragons are intelligent people.. heck, they're smarter than humans. Not nescesarilly, it depends on the type of dragon. White dragons only reach average intelligence at adult age (101-200 years old). Black dragons are about par with humans.
The_Shaman 03-27-07, 07:58 PM	You know, this reminds me of the idea that a brass wyrmling might choose a human to be its familiar. The best part? The adventurer doubles as a mount. Okay, sure: it's slower than just flying, but a lvl 11 barbarian is a wyrmling's equivalent of a limo. You do it not when you want to go somewhere fast, but when you have to travel in style ;)
spiritman 03-28-07, 06:04 PM	Alright, I ordered Draconomicon from Amazon, and the guys feedback says he's a fast shipper, so hopefully it'll be here soon! Thanks guys!
taradusis 03-28-07, 10:56 PM	You can also get things as a pdf. download which is cheaper but I strongly reccomend a backup tp disk.
Holy_Beholder 03-28-07, 11:39 PM	By the way, if you use them for mounts, don't they have to be at least 2 sizes bigger than you to fly on? That is the whole point, you fly around casting spells, while the dragon flies around casting spells, and breathing whatever they want on people. And yes, white dragons are idiots. In fact, a solar can take two white great wyrms, wheras it takes 3 solars to reliably take a red.
Derren S. 03-29-07, 09:27 AM	By the way, if you use them for mounts, don't they have to be at least 2 sizes bigger than you to fly on? 1 size.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-29-07, 01:09 PM	I've never understodd the problem with dragons as mounts. Catch one, break it, and force it to do your bidding as you would any other beast. Who cares if they are smart or what their alignment is. I don't need to be the same alignment as my horse, why should I have to be the same alignment as my dragon?
Derren S. 03-29-07, 03:12 PM	1. What you propose is rather evil 2. Dragons are so powerfull that catching them and forcing them to do something is very hard (or they are so young that it isn't feasibly to raise it) 3. With the mental scores many dragons have its more likely that they will break you in the process instead. 4. As dragons are (very) intelligent and sentient they will know when they can kill you so you can never be sure that you broke the dragon completly and always have to feat to be CDGed in your sleep or thrown off in combat.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-29-07, 05:07 PM	1. What you propose is rather evil How so? How is it any more evil than doing it with a horse? 2. Dragons are so powerfull that catching them and forcing them to do something is very hard (or they are so young that it isn't feasibly to raise it) I didn't say it would be easy. 3. With the mental scores many dragons have its more likely that they will break you in the process instead. They are welcome to try. 4. As dragons are (very) intelligent and sentient they will know when they can kill you so you can never be sure that you broke the dragon completly and always have to feat to be CDGed in your sleep or thrown off in combat. BS. If I have to hold it down and lobotomize it with a greataxe I will. When I break a dragon it damn will stays broken. I don't care if it is smart. A lot of slaves were smart but they were still slaves. An elephant can kill it's rider but msot of them do precisely what they are told. Dominating another creature, even a sentient one, and forcing it to bend to your will is not just a battle of wits.
Melpomene 03-29-07, 05:21 PM	1. If my Wizard wasnt any sort of Evil, then could I still have a Black Dragon, or any sort of Chromatic Dragon as a mount? Or would I have to go with a Metallic? Generally, if you're neutral you'de want to go with good dragons because, well, they're friendlier. Also, the Gem Dragons from MMII are neutral in disposition. 2. What sort of Checks do you make while casting spells while mounted?(I could've sworn I saw this somewhere, but I cant find it now.) I believe it's spell level + 15 with a feat to mitigate it, but I could be mistaken. check the skill description in the PhB to eb sure. 3. What age catagory does the Dragon have to be? As mentioned, it has to be one size category bigger than you. Also, a dragon will usually accompany you on missions (where is is approxamately equal to the CR of the foes you will fight or stronger) if you can offer it an amount of gold equal to its current horde. You have to make diplomacy checks to get it to friendly, then offer the gold. If it works, they stay with you mostly loyaly until either a.) You die of old age, b.) They gain an age category and want a bigger horde, or c.) They think they can ransom you off for more money.
ank 03-29-07, 05:27 PM	How so? How is it any more evil than doing it with a horse? Because this horse has a brain, soul, feelings, etc. If you want to domintate it, fine. Just be prepared to tie it down with a ****load of chains before sleeping, dismounting, eating, or generally just letting your guard down. If you are using a dragon mount. It WILL have a better grapple check than you. If it doesn't, you are either cheating or trying too hard. I don't care if it is smart. A lot of slaves were smart but they were still slaves. An elephant can kill it's rider but msot of them do precisely what they are told. Dominating another creature, even a sentient one, and forcing it to bend to your will is not just a battle of wits. Yes, and said slaves, throughout history, have a) Killed their masters b) Ran away c) Bought their freedom A slave does NOT stay down, and if you think humans have an ego problem... Case and point: Go look up the Githyanki and Githzeri in your nearest monster manual.
Echo_that_Pains 03-29-07, 05:33 PM	Best method for a dragon mount: 1) Find a dead dragon 2) Raise dead dragon as a zombie 3) Awaken dragon to give it back some of its int as well as special abilities etc 4) Since the "zombie" is your faithful servant you never have to worry about getting turned on as well as no upkeep
ank 03-29-07, 05:35 PM	Best method for a dragon mount: 1) Find a dead dragon 2) Raise dead dragon as a zombie 3) Awaken dragon to give it back some of its int as well as special abilities etc 4) Since the "zombie" is your faithful servant you never have to worry about getting turned on as well as no upkeep Nice. Alternatively, you could make it your dragon familiar if its possible to go that rout. The player handbook specifically says a familiar will not do anything intentional to harm its master.
TalonofTiamat 03-29-07, 10:53 PM	Nice. Alternatively, you could make it your dragon familiar if its possible to go that rout. The player handbook specifically says a familiar will not do anything intentional to harm its master. Draconomicon does have a feat that you can use to get a dragon familiar. However, the dragon is a wyrmling, so in order to ride it you'd need to be small sized and at least 12th level (minimum level to get either a silver or red wyrmling).
Derren S. 03-30-07, 03:33 AM	I don't care if it is smart. A lot of slaves were smart but they were still slaves. An elephant can kill it's rider but msot of them do precisely what they are told. Dominating another creature, even a sentient one, and forcing it to bend to your will is not just a battle of wits. Have you seen the will saves of dragons? Doing what you want to do is evil as you can't compare dragons to animals. They are sentient and your methods are the worst form of slavery. The problem is that the slaves in your case are quite powerfull and will rebell when they see a chance (or even if they don't. Death is better than slavery for most dragons).
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-30-07, 09:47 AM	Because this horse has a brain, soul, feelings, etc. So do actual horses. Yes, and said slaves, throughout history, have a) Killed their masters b) Ran away c) Bought their freedom Good for them. A slave does NOT stay down, and if you think humans have an ego problem... Most slaves do stay down. Otherwise slavery would never have worked. Case and point: Go look up the Githyanki and Githzeri in your nearest monster manual. They do not interest me. Never have.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-30-07, 09:52 AM	Doing what you want to do is evil as you can't compare dragons to animals. They are sentient and your methods are the worst form of slavery. Bending a dragon to your service is the "worst form of slavery?" Not even be a longshot. Making a dragon your ***** is no more the "worst form of slavery" than doing so with a horse or elephant. A dragon is just a big damned lizard with fire coming out one end…well, one end if we're lucky. I don't buy into the "dragons are the best" cult of personality spin-doctor rubbish. Dragons are there to be tamed or slain, not worshipped.
Karish 03-30-07, 10:00 AM	I never had any problem. I consider the forced physical domination of any creature unless to prevent it from hurting others to be vile, and refuse to take a mount for that reason. Unless I get some big ass silver dragon who comes down and says "Hey, buddy, need a ride?" I'm walking or using Fell Flight. Warlock ftw, yeh?
Derren S. 03-30-07, 10:02 AM	Making a dragon your ***** is no more the "worst form of slavery" than doing so with a horse or elephant. Wrong. It must read "Making a dragon your ***** is no more the "worst form of slavery" than doing so with a human." Unlike animals dragons are sentient (or sapient, whatever...) and no different than a human.
Karish 03-30-07, 10:07 AM	Wrong. It must read "Making a dragon your ***** is no more the "worst form of slavery" than doing so with a human." Unlike animals dragons are sentient (or sapient, whatever...) and no different than a human. I'm gonna talk D&D terms for a real life dealy here, as well as in game. Read the horse stats. It has an INT, WIS, and CHA score. It is thus sentient, has free will, and a 'soul' which permits it to be a free creature. If it had no INT, it would work entirely on instinct, be impossible to interact with except on this level, and not be sentient. If it had no WIS, it would be a hive-mind pawn with no free will, acting as a soulless creature. If it had no CHA, it would be unable to decipher itself, understand the difference between real and unreal, and essentially have no idea what was going on at any point in time. Thus: A horse being tamed and enslaved is equal to a human, dragon, or demilich former-elf wizard. If he's able to dominate a dragon, he has just as much right to do so as a human has right to do this to a horse.
Derren S. 03-30-07, 10:10 AM	There is a big distinction in D&D between things with int <3 (animal) and int of 3 and higher (sentient). Things with int lower than 3 are not capable of understanding alignment and not sentient. Things with int 3 or more are and thus should be treated differently.
Karish 03-30-07, 10:11 AM	There is a big distinction in D&D between things with int <3 (animal) and int of 3 and higher (sentient). Things with int lower than 3 are not capable of understanding alignment and not sentient. Things with int 3 or more are and thus should be treated differently. And yet, with the proper modifications or defects of birth, a human or dragon might be born with a 2 Int. Would you enslave this individua?
wrecan 03-30-07, 10:12 AM	They do not interest me. Never have. You know, ignoring rules that contradict your argument doesn't make them go away. You asked (apparently rhetorically) what was wrong with enslaving dragons and people gave you responses. You could at least be courteous by actually considering their answers. So what's wrong with training a dragon to be a mount: Mechanical issues. Animals and other Int 2 creatures can be trained using the Handle Animal skill. There are no clean rules for maintaining slaves. Leadership: Most dragons suitable as a mount (Large size) are the equivalent of 16th level characters, meaning they could only be cohorts to 18th level wizards or greater. Intimidate: The DC of an Intimidate check against most true dragons suitable as mounts is going to be no less than d20+15 (at a minimum) and that shifts the creature only to friendly which includes "limited help" and does not include flying you into combat. This makes it unsuitable as a mount. Diplomacy: A dragon is going to be Hostile to the idea of serving as your mount. The DC for Diplomacy is going to be 50 plus the dragon's diplomacy modifier (and Diplomacy is a class skill for dragons). So convincing a dragon to be your mount is an epic task. Magic: Charm Monster only operates for one hour a level and is not a low-level spell. Moreover, it makes the dragon friendly, not helful, so it still won't serve as a mount. Dominate monster is a ninth level spell beyond the range of most PCs. Feeblemind: This fifth level spell could be used to render a dragon Int 1 (and Wis 1 and Cha 1), and thus trainable with Handle Animal as a mount. However, even feebleminded creatures recognize ebenmies. Before you can teach it to be a mount, you must "rear" it. This is a Handle Animal check with a DC of no less than 40 (and probably higher), followed by a DC 25 to train it for combat riding. Alignment Issues. Even assuing you figured out a way to overcome the mechanics of controlling the beast, there are alignment issues. Dominating a sapient creature is probably not an act that a chaotic character is willing to take, and, depending on the means, not one that a good character would take either. While you appear to be taking the position that anything with a nervous system is fair game for explitation, an d that horses should be no different than humans (or dragons), the game clearly takes a different approach. The alignment rules clearly differentiate between creatures with Intelligence under 3 and those over 2. Handle Animal, after all, is a class skill for paladins. Now, if you are advocating a rules change, that's a different story. But the OP seemed to be asking for help stayingwithin the rules.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-30-07, 10:18 AM	There is a big distinction in D&D between things with int <3 (animal) and int of 3 and higher (sentient). Things with int lower than 3 are not capable of understanding alignment and not sentient. Things with int 3 or more are and thus should be treated differently. No, the difference is that a creature with a 3 INT is stupider so humans can rationalize their domination of the creature better and thus sleep more comfortably at night.
Karish 03-30-07, 10:20 AM	No, the difference is that a creature with a 3 INT is stupider so humans can rationalize their domination of the creature better and thus sleep more comfortably at night. I think they dislike you because they're too weak to get their own dragon. ^_^
Derren S. 03-30-07, 10:22 AM	No, the difference is that a creature with a 3 INT is stupider so humans can rationalize their domination of the creature better and thus sleep more comfortably at night. Read the MM (and PHB) again please. The int 2/3 difference is in the books.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-30-07, 10:24 AM	You know, ignoring rules that contradict your argument doesn't make them go away. How is me not liking Gith "ignoring rules?" :confused: You asked (apparently rhetorically) what was wrong with enslaving dragons and people gave you responses. You could at least be courteous by actually considering their answers. Just cos I disagree doesn't mean I didn't consider them. So what's wrong with training a dragon to be a mount: That is not what is wrong with the idea, that is what is difficult with the process. Alignment Issues. Even assuing you figured out a way to overcome the mechanics of controlling the beast, there are alignment issues. Dominating a sapient creature is probably not an act that a chaotic character is willing to take, and, depending on the means, not one that a good character would take either. While you appear to be taking the position that anything with a nervous system is fair game for explitation, an d that horses should be no different than humans (or dragons), the game clearly takes a different approach. The alignment rules clearly differentiate between creatures with Intelligence under 3 and those over 2. Handle Animal, after all, is a class skill for paladins. A beast is a beast. They are either all fair game for use and exploitation or none of them are. Now, if you are advocating a rules change, that's a different story. But the OP seemed to be asking for help staying within the rules. And there is nothing in the rules that says "dragons can't be used as mounts." Just cos my take on the issue does not jibe with yours, or anyone else's, does not make it less valid. The OP asked for advice, we gave him adivce. It does not all need to be the same to be of use. He can pick and choose which bits he wasts to use and discard the rest.
wrecan 03-30-07, 10:25 AM	No, the difference is that a creature with a 3 INT is stupider so humans can rationalize their domination of the creature better and thus sleep more comfortably at night. Please don't bring real world morality into this. It's inappropriate and nobody cares.
wrecan 03-30-07, 10:28 AM	How is me not liking Gith "ignoring rules?" :confused: Because you're ignoring the implications of trying to enslave powerful sapient races like the gith. It ends badly in D&D> I also noted that you totally ignored the mechanical difficulties I detailed in taming a dragon, which was one of the primary issues with the OP's proposal. A beast is a beast. In the game, a dragon is neither an animal nor a magical beast. If you have some other definition of "beast" I have no idea why it is pertinent to a game. And there is nothing in the rules that says "dragons can't be used as mounts." The mechanical issues I detailed make it an epic quest and the OP is clearly not an epic character. The OP asked for advice, we gave him adivce. It does not all need to be the same to be of use. But it should at least be creditable and consistent with the game rules. He can pick and choose which bits he wasts to use and discard the rest. Yes, eh can. And to help him in that endeavor I am pointing out that your advice has not actual bearing on anything written in the game.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-30-07, 10:29 AM	Please don't bring real world morality into this. It's inappropriate and nobody cares. I am discussing it from a D&D point of view. My opinion on this topic has sod-all to do with my views on this topic in the real-world.
wrecan 03-30-07, 10:33 AM	I am discussing it from a D&D point of view. Then why do you ignore the rules about the difference between Intelligence 2 and 3 creatures. Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. From a moral perspective, animals (defined by their Intelligence of 2) are different than sapient creatures (of Intelligence of 3 or more). I also noted that Handle Animal is a Paladin skill and it is unlikely that a paladin would get this as a class skill if you could treat people the way animals are treated when being trained. If you have a rules basis for thinking that treating animals is morally equivalent to the manner in which sapient creatures are treated, please share the basis of your belief witht he rest of us, particularly the OP who will probably need to show it to his DM.
Derren S. 03-30-07, 10:35 AM	I am discussing it from a D&D point of view. My opinion on this issue has sod-all to do with my views on this topic in the real-world. Then you should also include the Int 2/3 barrier in your opinion. In D&D: Int 1-2 -> animal/not sentient Int 3+ -> sentient Training an animal -> Not evil Enslaving a sentient being -> evil Not to mention that breaking a dragon is something a epic character can do but not a normal one. To the original poster: 1. The alignment should be close. Helm of Opposite allignments are your friend. Subdue a black dragon and put the helm on it. Now you have a LG black dragon. (If the dragon likes you after that is a different question. Either it will thank you for freeing it from its evil self (good) or hate you for attacking it (very very bad)). 2. Concentration checks for heavy movement (DC20 + spell level I think) 3. It has to be 1 category larger than you. Small characters have an advantage here. 4. Draconomicon. Either use the Dragon Cohort feat or "bribe" the dragon (will cost you nearly all your gold and items you have).
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-30-07, 10:40 AM	Because you're ignoring the implications of trying to enslave powerful sapient races like the gith. It ends badly in D&D> So what? A lot of things end badly, that does not mean one can't try. I also noted that you totally ignored the mechanical difficulties I detailed in taming a dragon, which was one of the primary issues with the OP's proposal. I did not ignore them. As I have said many times over, now, the process is not an easy one. What possible value is there in picking apart your mechanical difficulties? There was nothing wrong with them. In the game, a dragon is neither an animal nor a magical beast. If you have some other definition of "beast" I have no idea why it is pertinent to a game. I was using the word as defined in English, not the game-specific typing label. The mechanical issues I detailed make it an epic quest and the OP is clearly not an epic character. Yes, and? How does the difficulty fo the process in any way bear on the supposed moral issues involved? But it should at least be creditable and consistent with the game rules. Yes, it shold, and those game rules do not preclide one making a dragon a mount. Yes, eh can. And to help him in that endeavor I am pointing out that your advice has not actual bearing on anything written in the game. If it was all written in the game then he wouldn't need to ask for advice on the forums now would he? All of the alignment and moral issues that are brought up also are not "written in the game," they are opinion based on personal interpretations of game material, not RAW. My oroginal post was not a direct response to the OP, others had and have covered the pertinent rules-based mechanical info, my post was a reponse to the idea that riding a dragon must be some sort of alignment-based hippy love-in. While Good characters may want to form a partnership with a dragon why would an Evil one care? It is much more fitting to simply bend the beast to your will and make it serve you, just as you wold with anyone else.
wrecan 03-30-07, 10:47 AM	So what? A lot of things end badly, that does not mean one can't try. Who said he can't try? Nobody, that's who. I did not ignore them. As I have said many times over, now, the process is not an easy one. What possible value is there in picking apart your mechanical difficulties? It answered your question,w hich I'll quote: I've never understodd the problem with dragons as mounts. Some of the problems with dragons as mounts are mechanical in nature. So, I guess now you do understand the problem with dragons as mounts? Do you not remember writing that sentence? And before you claim that you were only referncing ethical problems, let me remind you of the sentence that directly followed the quote: "Catch one, break it, and force it to do your bidding as you would any other beast." It seemed to me you were also descussing the mechanics of trainign a dragon and claiming it was the same as "any other beast." I've showed it's not the same as all, even excluding the ethical dilemma. So don't criticize me for answering the "problem" that you now deny havign identified. I was using the word as defined in English, not the game-specific typing label. I was being facetious. What you haven't done is explained why all "beasts" should treated equally from a morality standpoint. Yes, and? How does the difficulty fo the process in any way bear on the supposed moral issues involved? It goes to your statement about not seeing "problems". You didn't specify "moral problems" Yes, it shold, and those game rules do not preclide one making a dragon a mount. Mechanically or morally?! You're writing is very unclear on what it is you're trying to discuss. If it was all written in the game then he wouldn't need to ask for advice on the forums now would he? Well, it would if he hadn't noticed those rules. Most of the questions on these forums are anwered by reference to the rules. I figured you'd have noticed that by now. they are opinion based on personal interpretations of game material, not RAW. For the third time, what "game material" are you "interpreting"? I don't see anything in the game that makes it appear that horses are morally equivalent to dragons.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-30-07, 10:49 AM	Then you should also include the Int 2/3 barrier in your opinion. In D&D: Int 1-2 -> animal/not sentient Int 3+ -> sentient So long as you also include the fact that said "barrier" is a rather arbitrary one dicated by the combination of human arrogance and the fact you can't roll a "2" with 3d6.
wrecan 03-30-07, 10:52 AM	So long as you also include the fact that said "barrier" is a rather arbitrary one dicated by the combination of human arrogance and the fact you can't roll a "2" with 3d6. It's not arbitrary. It's purposeful game design. Sapient humanoids are given ability ranges based on the default dice-roll for characters. Animals are then assigned a value below the minimum sapient Intelligence score. If abilities were rolled using a d20, animals would have been given an Intelligence of 0 (presumably, vermin would have been given a -1). There's nothing arbitrary about it. As for attributing it to human "arrogance", that's you bringing in your real-world prejudices again. Unless you can provide a rules-based support for the "arrogance" you perceive.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-30-07, 11:01 AM	It answered your question,w hich I'll quote: I've never understodd the problem with dragons as mounts. Some of the problems with dragons as mounts are mechanical in nature. So, I guess now you do understand the problem with dragons as mounts? Do you not remember writing that sentence? Sorry, I thought it was clear form teh context I was speaking of the suppose moral and ethical problems, not mechanical ones. For the third time, what "game material" are you "interpreting"? I don't see anything in the game that makes it appear that horses are morally equivalent to dragons. For the approximately 437,916th time, I am not "interpreting" "game material." I am giving my "opinion" as part of a "discussion" on a "discussion" "forum."
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-30-07, 11:07 AM	It's not arbitrary. It's purposeful game design. Sapient humanoids are given ability ranges based on the default dice-roll for characters. Animals are then assigned a value below the minimum sapient Intelligence score. If abilities were rolled using a d20, animals would have been given an Intelligence of 0 (presumably, vermin would have been given a -1). There's nothing arbitrary about it. There is everything arbitrary about it, as you yourself prove by your own arguments. It presumes that animals are always stupider than even the stupidest human on the planet, which quite clearly also illustrates the arrogance you deride here: As for attributing it to human "arrogance", that's you bringing in your real-world prejudices again. Unless you can provide a rules-based support for the "arrogance" you perceive. Please stop assuming that just you disagree with me that I must be "bringing in (my) real-world prejudices." Believe it or not, Wrecan, people can actually have discussion here that are not just rules-based, that people can hold opinions in and about the game that aren't based on those selfsame rules, and that thos opinons actually can have bearing on a discussion. Trying to reduce and constrian all discussion to just that which is "rules-based" does a great disservice to the forums IMO.
wrecan 03-30-07, 11:44 AM	Please stop assuming that just you disagree with me that I must be "bringing in (my) real-world prejudices." Believe it or not, Wrecan, people can actually have discussion here that are not just rules-based, that people can hold opinions in and about the game that aren't based on those selfsame rules, and that thos opinons actually can have bearing on a discussion. I believe it. I just don't think you should deny that you are bringing real-world prejudices into a discussion. The problem is that you declare that horses and humans are morally equivalent, or that treating them otherwise is "arrogant". But when it's pointed out that such statemments are merely your prejudices, you state "I am discussing it from a D&D point of view. My opinion on this topic has sod-all to do with my views on this topic in the real-world." That's transparently incorrect. Your opinion on this topic is clearly not "from a D&D point of view" and is quite clearly your "views on the topic in the real-world." And I agree it can be useful to a discussion, as long as people are upfront and honest about what they are doing. Claiming that your personal views are a "D&D point of view" is misleading. The player is asking for advice. While personal prefernces can be useful and helpful to such a discussion, if the OP were to go back to his DM and claim that, under the rules, taming a dragon had no more alignment consequence than taming a wild horse, he'd be rightfully laughed at. Being unclear that you're giving your personal views and claiming they are a "D&D point of view" is doing everybody a distinct disservice, particularly on the players' forum. Trying to reduce and constrian all discussion to just that which is "rules-based" does a great disservice to the forums IMO. I'm not. I'm trying to elicit clarity on when someone is discussing rules and when someone is discussing personal playing style.
taradusis 03-31-07, 07:06 AM	Consider getting the draconomicon or savage species and be the dragon?Goto paizo.com for the sorceror on black dragon mini,usually on sale?RANDOM THOUGHTS
Maekrix_Waere 03-31-07, 06:22 PM	You know, most of this arguement could have been avoided simply by referring to the rules on Rearing Dragons in the Draconomicon (page 13, sidebar). It is very hard, but it's possible. You have to make a Diplomacy or Intimidate check opposed by the Wyrmling's Sense Motive check with a +15 bonus on it's roll, though that number can be modified all the way down to a -2 on the check if you fullfill every conditional modifier. If the wyrmling wins, it regards you as a captor and tries to run off ASAP. If you win, you can rear the dragon, a process which takes 5 years and costs 10gp/day for food and housing (18250gp total), and at the end, you make a Handle Animal check DC (20+Dragon's HD at Very Young). If you fail, the dragon tries to leave ASAP, as mentioned above, and if you succeed, you can finally begin to train the Dragon to perform whatever task you had in mind. Now, unless you reared a Gold or Red dragon, you have to wait at least another 20 years (don't forget, 10 gp/day, thats another 73,000gp minimum) before it reaches Large size and you can ride it. If you are willing to spend 25 years and 91,250gp for a dragon mount...go for it.
Maekrix_Waere 03-31-07, 06:31 PM	For the approximately 437,916th time, I am not "interpreting" "game material." I am giving my "opinion" as part of a "discussion" on a "discussion" "forum." Did you forget the .468230583624, or did you just round down?:P
unusualsuspect 03-31-07, 11:08 PM	Interesting convo so far. One question, Jayne: While Good characters may want to form a partnership with a dragon why would an Evil one care? It is much more fitting to simply bend the beast to your will and make it serve you, just as you wold with anyone else. This seems to imply, Jayne, that a good character WOULD care about forming a partnership with a dragon, a fellow sentient creature. The ethical issue brought up is that a "good" character, within the D&D ruleset (with all of its human-biases, of course), would find the enslavement of a sentient dragon, be it evil or good in alignment, to be an evil act. That an evil charcter wouldn't give two ***** about the sentience of the bronze dragon it permanently cowed into being its ***** is sorta of beside the point - we're arguing D&D alignment, where the enslavement of a sentient creature stands pretty clearly on the evil side of the spectrum. Have I gotten your argument wrong throughout my reading, or are you actually trying to convey that, within the D&D ruleset (including alignment descriptions, human biases, the int 2/3 barrier, etc), a good character wouldn't see the complete domination and enslavement of a sentient creature to be an evil act? Perhaps an answer to that might steer this conversation into less, ehm, antagonistic levels, neh?
PhaedrusXY 03-31-07, 11:11 PM	The Lords of Darkness book has a class that allows a wizard to gain a dragon as a mount, and even share spells with it, like he would his familiar. The class is the Zhentarim Skymage. I have an NPC in the Encounter Resource that uses it (ECL 9, Untouchable Zhent Artillerist (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=9900566&postcount=371)).