Price of a wyrmling dragon?

[saimol]

My PC's managed to capture a wyrmling white dragon and intends to sell it. Now, supposing they do find a buyer, how much should it cost? Unless I'm missing something, Draconomicon only lists price for hiring a dragon mount (which is 500xdragon's HD / year). Maybe some other book has prices for buying dragons/eggs?

[Greenish]

I think BoVD or A&EG has prices for slaves, but I might be wrong.

[saimol]

Hm, can't find it in Vile Darkness. A&EG is...?

[Greenish]

Arms & Equipment Guide. No dice with that, either.

[Coidzor]

Lords of Madness has some general guidelines for what the... Neogi(?) charge for selling slaves. Though, most PCs that would be encountering wyrmling dragons are not strong enough to avoid being mind-slaved by the Neogi long enough to sell to them.

[TroubleBrewing]

Lords of Madness has some general guidelines for what the... Neogi(?) charge for selling slaves. Though, most PCs that would be encountering wyrmling dragons are not strong enough to avoid being mind-slaved by the Neogi long enough to sell to them.

Well, sure, but keep in mind that the Neogi are, afterall, business... abberations.

If they went around mind-slaving everyone who tried to sell them anything, they'd rapidly become even more personas-non-gratis-ish than they already are. (That might be the worst Latin anyone has ever typed.)

[Groverfield]

Note, according to the draconomicon, "White: The egg must be buried in snow, encased in ice, or kept in a temperature below 0 degrees Fahrenheit."

So if they don't keep it at 0F maximum the egg will spoil, and the best they can sell it for is a giant omlette...

[TroubleBrewing]

They don't have an egg. They have a Wyrmling.

[Groverfield]

Ah, my bad, I should read what I read before I read... : /

[saimol]

Using neogi formula for slave price, white wyrmling would cost only 400gp. Um... a bit too cheap, dont you think?
Arms & Equipment Guide only states minimum price of dragon egg as 1000gp, no info on already hatched dragons. Also i believe that book was written for 3rd edition, not 3.5, right?
I'm not really sure if wyrmling should cost more or less than an egg. On one hand wyrmling is already hatched, so no need to care for egg and no chance of it not hatching at all (which is pretty high). On the other hand already hatched wyrmling cannot be domesticated. It can still be befriended with diplomacy (a bit risky considering it's chaotic evil nature) and/or turned into familiar (but it would only be familiar for 3 years before becoming too old, so it's not really that great).

Any ideas?

[big teej]

My PC's managed to capture a wyrmling white dragon and intends to sell it. Now, supposing they do find a buyer, how much should it cost? Unless I'm missing something, Draconomicon only lists price for hiring a dragon mount (which is 500xdragon's HD / year). Maybe some other book has prices for buying dragons/eggs?

The Arms and Equipment Guide contains such information. can't give a page number as it's 5 am and the book is out in the car.

[Groverfield]

I'd say it would be cheaper than the egg (due to paternal/maternal imprinting being a heavy factor in rearing a dragon) but not by much (it survived hatching, so guaranteed no dud.)

[HunterOfJello]

Look up dragon parts as material components and see what a chopped up wyrmling dragon is worth.

[ImperatorK]

I would go with the price for the egg. There's no risk that it won't hatch, but also it is a little harder to make it loyal. It balances out, IMO.

[saimol]

Uh just checked The Arms and Equipment Guide again. Under mount section i still find only price for egg. Also turns out i missed one zero and it's at least 10k gp for egg. Now thats way too much for lvl 1-2 party. Especially seeing neogi would give only 400gp for wyrmling. Also it's not 'a little' harder to make it loyal, it's simply impossible. You can befriend him, but he's still chaotic evil, meaning his attitude to you may change quite easily.

[hamishspence]

There's the "changing alignment via diplomacy" rules in BoED that might help here.

[ericgrau]

Same CR as a hippogriff, so let's say 4,000 gp ballpark. It's not as ride-able though and it might be a niche market. So the PCs might have to find a specific buyer and negotiate a bit, as a shop might not want it even at half price. Or find a city with a lot of eccentric nobles nearby who keep dragons as pets and sell it to an exotic beasts shop there.

EDIT: Hmm, if its' 500 gp per HD per year, that's a long time. Almost as expensive as permanent I'd think. So 1000 gp per HD (4-5 HD for you) to buy probably isn't too far off either. If you guess something in the same ballpark it won't matter if you're off by a little.

[saimol]

PC's will absolutely have to find a specific buyer, and that may take them few sesions :) So far I see 3 kinds posible buyers - high lvl wizard who wants it as familiar, rich aristocrat or so who wants it as 'pet', or kobolds who want to set it free.

[Retech]

Or a venerable loredrake GDR Kobold that is trying to become a White Dragonspawn Abomination to get more free sorcerer levels.

Kobold: Okay, so first you have to enslave me and mutate my body in confusing ways, got it?

Wyrmling:...

[noparlpf]

I rather doubt that dragons have a price on the open market. Seeing as they're an intelligent race, that would be slavery. (If it's a good party, then they probably aren't going to do that anyway.) Since it's slavery, they'd be selling on the black market, where there aren't listed prices.

[Sception]

Make it an adventure. They have to choose between giving it to kobolds who want to set it free (but secretly hope to raise it as a god - one that will in time grow to help them dominate or destroy their rivals), selling it to a wizard who wants it as a familiar (but secretly just plans to use a ring of regeneration to repeatedly harvest its various magical organs - something cruel enough to give the pcs pause even when dealing with an 'evil' creature), selling it to a rich noble who plans to raise it as a pet and eventual mount (but clearly has no idea what he's getting into and would quite obviously be putting himself, his family, and for that matter the dragon itself in danger), killing it themselves for a bounty on slain evil dragons (if a smaller prize then the wizard or noble are offering), or trying to raise it themselves.

Regardless of what choice they make, they'll attract the ire of multiple groups of npcs. The kobolds will send teams of trappers and assassins to try and 'rescue' the dragon (or avenge it); the wizard will task his apprentice with ensuring the deal goes through - with the instructions that if you don't accept the money she should use it to hire thugs to steal the dragon by force; if they don't kill it they will attract the ire of a low level band of dragon-hunters sworn to slay all chromatic dragons and any who serve them, initiates in a wider organization that secretly works for a overzealous metallic dragon.

In the mean time, if the dragon imprinted one of the party members (where they there when it hatched?), it will be very clear that it has no desire to leave the party - but it's still not a nice creature. It will be friendly to its parent, but hostile to the other party members, and might even seek to kill other party members if it perceives any threat or insult, or even if it just thinks doing so would advance its parents position in the party's pecking order, or increase their share of the wealth. On the other hand, if it didn't imprint any member of the party, it will be looking for a chance to do them harm, escape, steal their valuables, or preferably all of the above, especially once it sees that the kobolds are offering it refuge.

Remember, white dragons may be the least intelligent of true dragons, but they're still far more intelligent then mere animals, even when newly born. Basically, if they do want to try and raise it, you shouldn't prevent them from doing so, it could actually be a really cool and unique aspect of the campaign, but you should make it clear that it will be a difficult choice, especially with three separate npc groups out to take it by force.

[ericgrau]

I rather doubt that dragons have a price on the open market. Seeing as they're an intelligent race, that would be slavery. (If it's a good party, then they probably aren't going to do that anyway.) Since it's slavery, they'd be selling on the black market, where there aren't listed prices.

Griffons have an int of 5 and understond common. Wyrmlings an int of 6. Griffons eggs and young are on the open market. It is a bit morally sketchy. But the griffon also has to be friendly towards its trainer to be trained. If the wyrmling is safer under someone else's care than alone, if the PCs have permission from the wyrmling to hand him off to someone else for a price, and then only with the wyrmling's agreement and the ability to leave whenever he pleases (when he feels safe perhaps, unless he becomes attached to his new companion), it may be more acceptable.

[saimol]

Well, PC's seems to have no issues with selling it at the moment (and two of them already went from good to neutral because of that).
Now, PC's got that wyrmling from a group of kobolds in the first place and already defeated a group which was sent to retrieve it. Kobolds kinda lost track of PC's since then and would think twice before attacking them again. Maybe they can try to buy it from PC's.
And wyrmling certainly wants to leave the party, preferably all of them dead. :) From his viewpoint, PC's killed his servants, denied him his meal, beaten him senseless, stole his hoard, almost mummified him with rope, beat him again, tied him in chains and put him in metal box (in that order). Also they didn't feed him for few days, taunting him with his former meal walking few feet out of his reach. At the moment elf sorcerer PC is kinda trying to befriend him (he joined group after wyrmling was captured and was the one who remembered to feed him) or at least get him not to breath at him every time he gets in range :) If he decides to keep wyrmling (and rolls diplomacy well) i'll of course let it. However wyrmling may still plot revenge on his captors.
And to defend PC's actions, wyrmlings 'denied meal' was actualy one of PC's, a female gnome :)

However back to topic - I don't have problem with what to do with wyrmling, I do have a problem with: *IF* PC's manages to sell it, what price they should get for it.

[Morph Bark]

Uh just checked The Arms and Equipment Guide again. Under mount section i still find only price for egg. Also turns out i missed one zero and it's at least 10k gp for egg. Now thats way too much for lvl 1-2 party. Especially seeing neogi would give only 400gp for wyrmling. Also it's not 'a little' harder to make it loyal, it's simply impossible. You can befriend him, but he's still chaotic evil, meaning his attitude to you may change quite easily.

Wait, how are they even keeping it in check? Last I recall the lowest a wyrmling goes CR-wise is 3...

[Sception]

Are you sure you want to be so quick to bump alignments? They generally shouldn't change based on a single act, and honestly you've put them in the classic captive trap - they can't let the evil monster go because it will go on to hurt others and thus they'd be doing evil, they can't kill it because killing helpless captives is evil, they can't keep it against its will because doing so is slavery and thus evil and in any event they're poorly equipped to manage it, and they can't sell it to someone else who could keep it out of trouble because that's again slavery and thus evil.

You shouldn't knock players for taking an evil action when you've presented them pretty much entirely evil choices, just because they didn't happen to correctly guess by chance which option you as the dm arbitrarily decided to yourself was 'least evil'.

[ericgrau]

Hmmm there is the whole "is it worse to kill or is it worse to enslave the thing that tried to eat you, and is that fair then?" Adventurers do worse things without flinching I suppose. Often without worrying about alignment... whether they should worry or not.

At this point the wyrmling is party treasure then, so if you lean toward's what's reasonable it shouldn't matter too much. If you think it'd make them a bit too rich for their character level, or if they're forced to sell to a shady dealer for cut rate prices, it could easily go for 2,000 gp or less. If they find a good buyer and it doesn't break their treasure too much compared to everything else, 4,000-5,000 or more could be fine.

[noparlpf]

Just broke out the AEG to check up on prices for other critters.
Blink Dog: typical Int 10, and they speak their own language.
And you can buy them as "riding dogs".
Well now.
Giant eagles and owls, too. Both of which have Int 10.
The paladin in me is screaming "To the bazaar! A holy war is upon us!"


Anyway, I played in a first level party once and we (my fighter, mostly) took down a wyrmling black dragon. I see it as doable.

[SowZ]

Isn't the price for a slave something like 500xCR^2 where CR is it's adulthood CR? If that is the case, you could probably get a little over 50,000. But finding a buyer with a lifespan long enough to actually take advantage of it's adulthood not to mention the ability to tame and control a White Dragon would be... difficult.

[noparlpf]

Isn't the price for a slave something like 500xCR^2 where CR is it's adulthood CR? If that is the case, you could probably get a little over 50,000. But finding a buyer with a lifespan long enough to actually take advantage of it's adulthood not to mention the ability to tame and control a White Dragon would be... difficult.

Where is that number from?

And it's not that hard to find a buyer. An adult white dragon is only CR 10, right? With an XP system like D&D's, reaching levels high enough to single-handedly take on a CR 10 critter isn't that hard.

[saimol]

White wyrmling is CR 2, it was a 'boss' encounter for lvl 1 party. For keeping it in check, well PC's had some hard time with it. Wyrmling almost escaped few times already and almost killed sorcerer with his breath while he tried to feed him. PC's basicly knocked him out with nonlethal damage and at first tied him with rope (after he destroyed rope which held his head with his breath, PC's literally put his head in a pot to deal with it). Now, wyrmling has exactly enough str to burst that rope if he takes 20, however PC's specifically declared that they 'mummify' him with rope, so i declared that wyrmling burst only some of those ropes with each take 20. Of course after some time he almost broke free, but PC's noticed broken ropes in time, knocked wyrmling out again and changed ropes. Next day they reached town, and changed ropes into chains, that wyrmling has no chance of breaking. Finaly they ordered a custom made metal box in which they put wyrmling. Fighter now carries the box on his back, and box has few small holes on one side to let oxygen in. Technically wyrmling can use his breath through these holes, so fighter kinda looks like he has primitive jet-pack. :) Needless to say local dwarf commoners don't take such sight too well. :)

[saimol]

Where is that number from?

And it's not that hard to find a buyer. An adult white dragon is only CR 10, right? With an XP system like D&D's, reaching levels high enough to single-handedly take on a CR 10 critter isn't that hard.

I'm using DMG table to determine highest level NPC for each class in community and there are no big cities in area PC's are now. Of course there may be high level wizard living in a tower somewhere outside town... But thats an adventure on its own, not a simple trip to market.

[noparlpf]

I'm using DMG table to determine highest level NPC for each class in community and there are no big cities in area PC's are now. Of course there may be high level wizard living in a tower somewhere outside town... But that's an adventure on its own, not a simple trip to market.

Ah, that makes sense. What page is that table on, by the way? I just flipped through the NPC chapter and didn't see it. That should be handy for me as a newbie DM.

[Sception]

I forget where exactly that chart is, but if you dig enough in the DMG you'll find it.

Use at your own risk, though, especially in low level games. Things change a lot when there are spellcasters capable of 2nd or higher level spells in pretty much any settlement, and that's before you even consider that most cities are boasting casters capable of 4th level spells are higher.

There's similar rules for what items should be available to purchase in settlements of various sizes, and they can similarly break games if DMs follow them to their logical conclusions or if PCs manipulate them to their own favor.

Best to treat them as very loose guidelines.

[saimol]

Page 139, world building section

@Malisteen
At low levels I just keep PC's away from cities. Also, if we talk medieval fantasy, there may be as little as 5-10 metropolises in whole world, most of settlements would be towns and smaller, with a cities for capitals and major ports.

[noparlpf]

Page 139, world building section

@Malisteen
At low levels I just keep PC's away from cities. Also, if we talk medieval fantasy, there may be as little as 5-10 metropolises in whole world, most of settlements would be towns and smaller, with a cities for capitals and major ports.

Sweet deal, thanks! :smallbiggrin:

[Diarmuid]

I remember that module, we had an interesting way of capturing and handling the wyrmling. Our cleric had some skeletons he'd controlled and we just tied the thing into one of the skeleton's ribcages and used the other one to feed the wyrmling as it also was prone to trying to use its breath on anyone who got close enough.

Quite amusing for a while. I forget what we ended up doing with it.

[Mixt]

Heh, this reminds me of something that happened to me once.

We ended up adopting a Black Wyrmling after killing it's parents and then finding the egg just lying there in the cave, then it goes and hatches on us before we can decide what to do, at least we had the sense to not let it see the bodies.

So we decide to take care of it, the paladin seems to be of the mind that if raised correctly it may be possible to cause an exception to the whole "Always Chaotic Evil" rule.

And then the trouble started.

Incident 1: Heard the cleric scream about something, so we went to investigate, only to find that the Wyrmling was humping the Cleric's leg.

Incident 2: Same as 1, only this time it was the Sorcerer.

Incident 3: It started hoarding candy...WHAT KIND OF DRAGON HOARDS CANDY ANYWAY!?
Candy that it stole, cue disciplinary action from the paladin.

Incident 4: Paladin found dragon poop in his rations :smallyuk:

Incident 5: The corrupt politician got exposed and was about to be thrown into prison, only to get a dose of acid to the face and die before the guards could drag him away. It seemed damned proud of itself too.


But damn, did it ever make itself useful in the end, it dropped a chandelier on the BBEG's second-in-command just as he was about to kill us all.
HA!

[TheRinni]

Also it's not 'a little' harder to make it loyal, it's simply impossible. You can befriend him, but he's still chaotic evil, meaning his attitude to you may change quite easily.
I would like to point out that hatching a dragon egg can take a long time. It can also be very difficult, as certain conditions have to be met during the incubation period. Taking that into account, my first reaction would be that a wyrmling would be more expensive than an egg.

However, who really wants to keep an un-loyal dragon slave? Just imagine the kind of hell it'll unleash once it gets older.

[Gorfang113]

[QUOTE=saimol;11573760]Using neogi formula for slave price, white wyrmling would cost only 400gp. Um... a bit too cheap, dont you think?QUOTE]

Its a little cheap because you didn't finish the formula by the looks of it. Right under the formula its describes how multipliers can be added based on its qualities. So I would say around 1,200 to 1,600gp as the price. This comes from 400gp base (that part is right), then either a X3 or X4 multiplier. X2 because it can be used as a normal slave, and then as a mount and packmule. This would then go up to X3 because of its special qualities such as fight, its breath weapon, those things. If you want to you could strech it to X4 because of the rarity of dragon wrymlings.

[saimol]

[QUOTE=saimol;11573760]Using neogi formula for slave price, white wyrmling would cost only 400gp. Um... a bit too cheap, dont you think?QUOTE]

Its a little cheap because you didn't finish the formula by the looks of it. Right under the formula its describes how multipliers can be added based on its qualities. So I would say around 1,200 to 1,600gp as the price. This comes from 400gp base (that part is right), then either a X3 or X4 multiplier. X2 because it can be used as a normal slave, and then as a mount and packmule. This would then go up to X3 because of its special qualities such as fight, its breath weapon, those things. If you want to you could strech it to X4 because of the rarity of dragon wrymlings.

Ah I somehow missed that part. Thanks.

[Taelas]

Slavery isn't Evil. It's Lawful. It only becomes Evil when the slaves are mistreated (which happens often enough that the confusion is understandable). But a Lawful Good or Neutral Good character can keep slaves without suffering anything to their alignment.

Even a Paladin is not at all prevented from keeping slaves.

The question of freedom is not for the moral axis of the alignment system, but the ethical. Law does not see freedom as especially important, whereas Chaos sees it as essential.

[noparlpf]

Slavery isn't Evil. It's Lawful. It only becomes Evil when the slaves are mistreated (which happens often enough that the confusion is understandable). But a Lawful Good or Neutral Good character can keep slaves without suffering anything to their alignment.

Even a Paladin is not at all prevented from keeping slaves.

The question of freedom is not for the moral axis of the alignment system, but the ethical. Law does not see freedom as especially important, whereas Chaos sees it as essential.

I dunno. Is restricting a person's freedom and rights morally wrong? I would say that it is both morally and ethically wrong. But then, I tend towards the paladin of freedom's type of chaotic good.

[SowZ]

I dunno. Is restricting a person's freedom and rights morally wrong? I would say that it is both morally and ethically wrong. But then, I tend towards the paladin of freedom's type of chaotic good.

Governments do it whenever they employ compulsory tax or enforce victimless crime laws. The difference between the two is A. a matter of scale and B. whether keeping a forced government is necessary to not have total anarchy whereas slaves aren't necessary.


White wyrmling is CR 2, it was a 'boss' encounter for lvl 1 party. For keeping it in check, well PC's had some hard time with it. Wyrmling almost escaped few times already and almost killed sorcerer with his breath while he tried to feed him. PC's basicly knocked him out with nonlethal damage and at first tied him with rope (after he destroyed rope which held his head with his breath, PC's literally put his head in a pot to deal with it). Now, wyrmling has exactly enough str to burst that rope if he takes 20, however PC's specifically declared that they 'mummify' him with rope, so i declared that wyrmling burst only some of those ropes with each take 20. Of course after some time he almost broke free, but PC's noticed broken ropes in time, knocked wyrmling out again and changed ropes. Next day they reached town, and changed ropes into chains, that wyrmling has no chance of breaking. Finaly they ordered a custom made metal box in which they put wyrmling. Fighter now carries the box on his back, and box has few small holes on one side to let oxygen in. Technically wyrmling can use his breath through these holes, so fighter kinda looks like he has primitive jet-pack. :) Needless to say local dwarf commoners don't take such sight too well. :)

They haven't considered the ethical ramifications of this?

[noparlpf]

Governments do it whenever they employ compulsory tax or enforce victimless crime laws. The difference between the two is A. a matter of scale and B. whether keeping a forced government is necessary to not have total anarchy whereas slaves aren't necessary.

Yeah, and it bothers me that I have to pay taxes for all kinds of stuff that I disagree with, even if some small fraction goes towards things I actually care about, like roads and mail and whatever.

[Taelas]

I dunno. Is restricting a person's freedom and rights morally wrong? I would say that it is both morally and ethically wrong. But then, I tend towards the paladin of freedom's type of chaotic good.

Restricting a person's freedom and rights is done every single day through the law, without being strictly good or evil. It can be both. For example, the law generally protects people and insists that you must assist when you see someone in danger. These are Good laws that restrict your freedom. On the other hand, it can be Evil -- for example, a law in D&D could state that all halflings must be killed on sight.

[SowZ]

Yeah, and it bothers me that I have to pay taxes for all kinds of stuff that I disagree with, even if some small fraction goes towards things I actually care about, like roads and mail and whatever.

Mail, like passenger trains, consumes more then it produces. It gobbles up subsidy money like a Rust Monster devours +2 Full Plate. There are just too many alternatives for it be worth your while. What e-mail can't do, private packaging and mail services are more then able to cover.

[saimol]

They haven't considered the ethical ramifications of this?

Well before sorcerer joined party, the only who could speak draconic was gnome whom wyrmling was about to eat, so she has excuse for not thinking about it (player didn't showed up for next session so no idea whats on her mind now after calming down). And other players had no knowledge in arcana so they didn't really thought of it as more than just magical beast (and i'll say it's morally ok to keep magical beasts just to keep things simple). They were all like "it's rare and therefore valuable, lets sell it". Now after some time (and after alignment change :P) they start to realize their actions. As of yet, no idea whether they will decide its ok being neutral and search for buyer, or try something else.

On alignment change: two players were moved from good to neutral - fighter and rogue. Rogue in my opinion simply made a mistake when creating his character - he plays neutral in all aspects of personality so far (there is example in DMG with exactly same situation). Fighter may return to 'good' later in game, however since it's his first time role-playing and he's only learning alignments he'll probably stay neutral.
Also does beating and not feeding a being which is essentially a baby sounds like something 'good' character would do?

[SowZ]

Well before sorcerer joined party, the only who could speak draconic was gnome whom wyrmling was about to eat, so she has excuse for not thinking about it (player didn't showed up for next session so no idea whats on her mind now after calming down). And other players had no knowledge in arcana so they didn't really thought of it as more than just magical beast (and i'll say it's morally ok to keep magical beasts just to keep things simple). They were all like "it's rare and therefore valuable, lets sell it". Now after some time (and after alignment change :P) they start to realize their actions. As of yet, no idea whether they will decide its ok being neutral and search for buyer, or try something else.

On alignment change: two players were moved from good to neutral - fighter and rogue. Rogue in my opinion simply made a mistake when creating his character - he plays neutral in all aspects of personality so far (there is example in DMG with exactly same situation). Fighter may return to 'good' later in game, however since it's his first time role-playing and he's only learning alignments he'll probably stay neutral.
Also does beating and not feeding a being which is essentially a baby sounds like something 'good' character would do?

And the baby was afraid at the time and I assume what he considered his home was being invaded. So using that as justification to torture and keep an infant sentient being... Yeah, definitely isn't screaming 'good' to me.

[noparlpf]

Mail, like passenger trains, consumes more then it produces. It gobbles up subsidy money like a Rust Monster devours +2 Full Plate. There are just too many alternatives for it be worth your while. What e-mail can't do, private packaging and mail services are more then able to cover.

I hardly use real mail, but when it is necessary to send a physical document or to order something, it's handy.
Public transportation is neat, though. I've been using buses a lot lately, and I've been using trains for years. I need to find a place that does driver's ed. so I can get a license.


Anyway, I definitely think that what they're doing right now is "bad" if not "evil". Especially since they now realize it's a sentient creature.

[Doug Lampert]

White wyrmling is CR 2, it was a 'boss' encounter for lvl 1 party. For keeping it in check, well PC's had some hard time with it. Wyrmling almost escaped few times already and almost killed sorcerer with his breath while he tried to feed him. PC's basicly knocked him out with nonlethal damage and at first tied him with rope (after he destroyed rope which held his head with his breath, PC's literally put his head in a pot to deal with it). Now, wyrmling has exactly enough str to burst that rope if he takes 20, however PC's specifically declared that they 'mummify' him with rope, so i declared that wyrmling burst only some of those ropes with each take 20. Of course after some time he almost broke free, but PC's noticed broken ropes in time, knocked wyrmling out again and changed ropes. Next day they reached town, and changed ropes into chains, that wyrmling has no chance of breaking. Finaly they ordered a custom made metal box in which they put wyrmling. Fighter now carries the box on his back, and box has few small holes on one side to let oxygen in. Technically wyrmling can use his breath through these holes, so fighter kinda looks like he has primitive jet-pack. :) Needless to say local dwarf commoners don't take such sight too well. :)

So? Possible buyer to PCs: "I'll need to inspect the merchandise prior to purchase.

PCs: Umm, well, we can't let it out of the box or it might kill us.

Buyer: Oh? So you're not offering a loyal or obedient servant? Or even a controllable one. Why do you expect anything? I'll pay you the value of the box.

PCs: Hey! We went to a lot of trouble to get this! We want at least 3,000 GP.

Buyer: Fine. Open the box so we can inspect it. I can handle the dragon if it tries anything.

PCs open box.

Buyer: Hey dragon! Help me kill these bozos who kidnapped you and put you in a box and we can split their stuff!

A few minutes later.

Buyer to dead bodies of PCs: See, I told you I could handle it.

Dragon: I call dibs on the gold!

Buyer: This looks like the start of a beautiful friendship.

[TheRinni]

Restricting a person's freedom and rights is done every single day through the law, without being strictly good or evil. It can be both. For example, the law generally protects people and insists that you must assist when you see someone in danger. These are Good laws that restrict your freedom. On the other hand, it can be Evil -- for example, a law in D&D could state that all halflings must be killed on sight.

I believe BoVD disagrees with you, and the whole "slavery isn't evil" thing. It lists "Bullying and Cowing Innocents," "Greed," and "Bringing Despair," as evil acts. While I don't think the book explicitly lists slavery, it does list many things slavery could be otherwise referred as.

EDIT:
Oh, and "Using others for personal gain." Forgot that one. Slavery literally covers 1/4th of the evil acts listed in Book of Vile Darkness. If that doesn't qualify something as evil in d&d, I simply don't know what does.

[Taelas]

Slavery does not need to involve any of those. Not even the latter -- it is entirely possible to have slaves for community gain rather than personal, for example.

Slavery is not Evil. Many things that people associate with slavery are, but that does not change that underlying fact.

Regardless, it is generally suggested to avoid using the BoVD and BoED to determinate alignment; both books handle the subject poorly.

[TheRinni]

Slavery does not need to involve any of those. Not even the latter -- it is entirely possible to have slaves for community gain rather than personal, for example.

Slavery is not Evil. Many things that people associate with slavery are, but that does not change that underlying fact.

Regardless, it is generally suggested to avoid using the BoVD and BoED to determinate alignment; both books handle the subject poorly.
Yes, yes, yes. Everything is subjective. "Evil" acts such as killing, theft, and slavery can all be justified under certain circumstances. We've all heard this argument before.

Bringing this back to the wyrmling dragon, I'm going to assume the players are doing this for personal gain. They want money for it, so they're being greedy. As they are locking the dragon (a sentient creature of about 1-5 years old) up in a box, I'm going to make the assumption that the dragon isn't happy about this. In fact, I'd even say they are bulling, and causing despair to a baby.

In this case, at the very least, I'd rule slavery to be an evil act. However, since this is an evil dragon, I'd be very lenient as a DM. You could probably find a buyer willing to purchase an unloyal evil dragon, but he'd most likely be of the evil sort himself. As others have stated, I can see the dragon and buyer killing the party rather than just purchasing it.

[SowZ]

Yes, yes, yes. Everything is subjective. "Evil" acts such as killing, theft, and slavery can all be justified under certain circumstances. We've all heard this argument before.

Bringing this back to the wyrmling dragon, I'm going to assume the players are doing this for personal gain. They want money for it, so they're being greedy. As they are locking the dragon (a sentient creature of about 1-5 years old) up in a box, I'm going to make the assumption that the dragon isn't happy about this. In fact, I'd even say they are bulling, and causing despair to a baby.

In this case, at the very least, I'd rule slavery to be an evil act. However, since this is an evil dragon, I'd be very lenient as a DM. You could probably find a buyer willing to purchase an unloyal evil dragon, but he'd most likely be of the evil sort himself. As others have stated, I can see the dragon and buyer killing the party rather than just purchasing it.

If you are going by D&D rules, treating evil creatures in a way that is unjustified is just as evil as treating good creatures in a way that is unjustified. The game explicitly states that unless an evil creature commits an evil act, any act of retribution or harm made against it are evil and unjustified. Since the dragon has done no evil and the game states that its alignment alone does not justify it, the alignment of the dragon is totally unnecessary. So they may as well be locking a 3 year old halfling up. The only thing that grants them some absolution is ignorance. The party has probably been brainwashed by the idea that certain beings have less of a soul, etc. At the moment the PCs realize the dragon is just as sentient as they are and has commited no evil, continuing to torture it is an extremley evil act.

BTW, I think slavery is evil. But if you are going to justify governments forcing taxation and victimless crime laws, you can't argue it is evil just because it violates rights.

[Taelas]

Yes, yes, yes. Everything is subjective. "Evil" acts such as killing, theft, and slavery can all be justified under certain circumstances. We've all heard this argument before.

NO.

I cannot state this vehemently enough. Alignment is not subjective, but objective. Good and Evil are physical, tangible forces in D&D.

As for killing, theft and slavery, it is only in context they gain their alignment. Killing, at its most base, is done for survival. This is Neutral. The same is true for theft. Slavery, at its most core, is Lawful. Slavery, or perhaps more accurately, indentured servitude, takes away freedom and replaces it with order, rules and regulations -- the very epitome of Law.

Slavery easily becomes Evil when it involves cruelty or abusiveness, and many aspects of what is normally associated with slavery are undoubtedly Evil. But that does not change that slavery, in and of itself, does not have to be.

[SowZ]

NO.

I cannot state this vehemently enough. Alignment is not subjective, but objective. Good and Evil are physical, tangible forces in D&D.

As for killing, theft and slavery, it is only in context they gain their alignment. Killing, at its most base, is done for survival. This is Neutral. The same is true for theft. Slavery, at its most core, is Lawful. Slavery, or perhaps more accurately, indentured servitude, takes away freedom and replaces it with order, rules and regulations -- the very epitome of Law.

Slavery easily becomes Evil when it involves cruelty or abusiveness, and many aspects of what is normally associated with slavery are undoubtedly Evil. But that does not change that slavery, in and of itself, does not have to be.

Yes, good and evil are tangible, usable energies meaning they aren't abstract concepts of right and wrong. They are energies. So slavery can be philosophically wrong but it isn't actually evil in and of itself in the D&D world. I think slavery is evil morally, but it doesn't channel evil energies by itself in D&D.

[TheRinni]

Emphasis added by myself:

If you are going by D&D rules, treating evil creatures in a way that is unjustified is just as evil as treating good creatures in a way that is unjustified. The game explicitly states that unless an evil creature commits an evil act, any act of retribution or harm made against it are evil and unjustified. Since the dragon has done no evil and the game states that its alignment alone does not justify it, the alignment of the dragon is totally unnecessary. So they may as well be locking a 3 year old halfling up. The only thing that grants them some absolution is ignorance. The party has probably been brainwashed by the idea that certain beings have less of a soul, etc. At the moment the PCs realize the dragon is just as sentient as they are and has commited no evil, continuing to torture it is an extremley evil act.

BTW, I think slavery is evil. But if you are going to justify governments forcing taxation and victimless crime laws, you can't argue it is evil just because it violates rights.
You are absolutely correct. However, I was under the impression that the dragon attacked the party, and attempted to kill a variety of people. If that's the case, is it really that wrong to imprison the dragon in slavery, rather than do what most goodly players would do and just kill him?

[SowZ]

Emphasis added by myself:

You are absolutely correct. However, I was under the impression that the dragon attacked the party, and attempted to kill a variety of people. If that's the case, is it really that wrong to imprison the dragon in slavery, rather than do what most goodly players would do and just kill him?

I am assuming the Players attacked/violently trespassed on the dragon in it's own home and it responded in kind. And, as far as it understands, it has only tried to kill people who actively torture and imprison it. None of those are evil acts in the slightest.

[ericgrau]

Given the party level I'm going to lean towards 2,000 gp unless the PCs do some spectacular fast buyer finding or unless it takes so long that they level up a bit in the meantime.

On the morality, I'd say it's fuzzy and adventurers do morally fuzzy things all the time in the name of stopping worse problems. Dropping them to neutral or not, the side-track is kinda meh.

[Taelas]

Yes, good and evil are tangible, usable energies meaning they aren't abstract concepts of right and wrong. They are energies. So slavery can be philosophically wrong but it isn't actually evil in and of itself in the D&D world. I think slavery is evil morally, but it doesn't channel evil energies by itself in D&D.

Being wrong and being Evil isn't the same thing. You think it is philosophically wrong -- that simply means that, at least in this one aspect, you are more aligned with Chaotic than with Lawful.

Something which is "wrong" is typically on the opposite side of the alignment spectrum from your own.

[Sception]

If busting into a dungeon, killing the monsters there, and taking their stuff is an "evil" act that prevents PCs from being good, then you're going to find yourself running an evil campaign very quickly. What kind of game do you want to run, exactly? One where the PC's open a shop at market and role play buying and selling goods all campaign?

If adventuring is evil, that undoes the game. And if imprisoning an evil dragon is worse then killing it, then I think you need to rethink things a little. Also, if the dragon attacks them when they try to feed it, then no, I don't think 'not feeding' it should lose them their alignment.


Again, you put them in the prisoner's trap, or in any event allowed them to fall into it. You let them get into a situation with nothing but ostensibly evil options. Allow the evil monster to go free, a monster that specifically seeks out and enjoys eating the flesh of other intelligent creatures? Kill a helpless captive? Keep an intelligent creature in bondage against its will? Those are the only options they have. Punishing them for not picking the one that you, in your own personal subjective morality, decide is the "least evil" isn't very nice.

If it becomes a habit, if they're repeatedly hunting down monsters to enslave, sure, but even then talk to them about it before changing their alignment. You and the players need to be on the same page.

[Cornelius Grim]

Is this thread even about prices of dragons anymore? :smallsigh:

[SowZ]

If busting into a dungeon, killing the monsters there, and taking their stuff is an "evil" act that prevents PCs from being good, then you're going to find yourself running an evil campaign very quickly. What kind of game do you want to run, exactly? One where the PC's open a shop at market and role play buying and selling goods all campaign?

If adventuring is evil, that undoes the game. And if imprisoning an evil dragon is worse then killing it, then I think you need to rethink things a little. Also, if the dragon attacks them when they try to feed it, then no, I don't think 'not feeding' it should lose them their alignment.


Again, you put them in the prisoner's trap, or in any event allowed them to fall into it. You let them get into a situation with nothing but ostensibly evil options. Allow the evil monster to go free, a monster that specifically seeks out and enjoys eating the flesh of other intelligent creatures? Kill a helpless captive? Keep an intelligent creature in bondage against its will? Those are the only options they have. Punishing them for not picking the one that you, in your own personal subjective morality, decide is the "least evil" isn't very nice.

If it becomes a habit, if they're repeatedly hunting down monsters to enslave, sure, but even then talk to them about it before changing their alignment. You and the players need to be on the same page.

An alternative is to maybe play a game with more depth then Descent? There should be more motivation then, "I love to murder things in their own homes just to steal from them but it's OKAY cause their skin is a different color." assuming the characters aren't evil. Wait, so the monsters aren't justified in enjoying killing humans but humans ARE justified in enjoying killing monsters?

It's fine if the players want to play a game where they bust down the doors of sentient creatures houses and slit their throats/murder their children. But don't pretend you are playing good characters.

[saimol]

OK i got what i needed and this is just turning into yet another alignment debate.

Lock thread please.

[Sception]

An alternative is to maybe play a game with more depth then Descent?

That's all well and good, but you need to be on the same page from the start. You can't send the adventurers to a dungeon and throw a dragon at them as a boss encounter to fight, and then turn around at knock them for, you know, delving the dungeon and fighting the monster.

Either don't have evil monsters for the characters to fight, or don't punish them for fighting those monsters. You really can't have it both ways, if you try you'll just get hurt feelings and a game that falls apart.

[SowZ]

OK i got what i needed and this is just turning into yet another alignment debate.

Lock thread please.

Yeah, that's just as much my fault as anyone's, so sorry about that. Also, I wasn't implying your party was evil. (Though the act is still evil, think.) For all I know the reason they encountered a dragon was as part of a perfectly moral plotline/quest.

[SowZ]

That's all well and good, but you need to be on the same page from the start. You can't send the adventurers to a dungeon and throw a dragon at them as a boss encounter to fight, and then turn around at knock them for, you know, delving the dungeon and fighting the monster.

Either don't have evil monsters for the characters to fight, or don't punish them for fighting those monsters. You really can't have it both ways, if you try you'll just get hurt feelings and a game that falls apart.

When they encounter a monster that does not deserve to die they can defend themselves in an us or them scenario and if they kill it, okay. But if it is unconscious finishing it off without good reason or deciding to torture it are both immoral actions.

[Coidzor]

Also does beating and not feeding a being which is essentially a baby sounds like something 'good' character would do?

Well, there's your issue right there. Wyrmlings are not essentially babies.


Since the dragon has done no evil

[citation needed]

You have to do evil in order to get an evil alignment in the first place as a sapient creature, even if you're made in part of evil like a succubus paladin.


I believe BoVD disagrees with you, and the whole "slavery isn't evil" thing. It lists "Bullying and Cowing Innocents," "Greed," and "Bringing Despair," as evil acts. While I don't think the book explicitly lists slavery, it does list many things slavery could be otherwise referred as.

This isn't an innocent and is instead an evil dragon, wyrmling or no; it's more an act of desperation to get the albatross off of their necks at this point, and the thing clearly is not despairing as it's still trying to get them to kill it at every opportunity.

and hell, that stuff is so vague you could apply it to any modern business and its employment policies. :smallamused:

[hamishspence]

BoED also explicitly lists slavery as evil. As does Cityscape.

On wyrmlings- the way MM's "Always X Evil" is written, a newly hatched chromatic dragon, just taking its first breath, that has had not time to commit any evil act- is Evil-aligned.

Maybe because it has a strongly sociopathic personality "wired in".

Still- personalities can be changed- and not necessarily with magic, either.

[SowZ]

Well, there's your issue right there. Wyrmlings are not essentially babies.



[citation needed]

You have to do evil in order to get an evil alignment in the first place as a sapient creature, even if you're made in part of evil like a succubus paladin.



This isn't an innocent and is instead an evil dragon, wyrmling or no; it's more an act of desperation to get the albatross off of their necks at this point, and the thing clearly is not despairing as it's still trying to get them to kill it at every opportunity.

and hell, that stuff is so vague you could apply it to any modern business and its employment policies. :smallamused:

According to the rules on alignment, (which I dislike anyway but whatever,) killing something for its evil deeds is valid but killing something for its alignment only is murder. On the alignment scale, you may has well have slaughtered a halfling merchant and taken his Hershey's. I think this is all restrictive/arbitrary/silly/booooring to spell it out like this, but if you justify evil acts with a 'the book says he is evil' then I am going to respond by 'the book also says the killers are doing serious evil.'

Anyway, yeah, you can't punish a party for doing what the DM wants them to. But that doesn't change the good or evil of the party. If the campaign is to break into monsters homes and murder them for no good reason but theft/XP you are playing an evil campaign. I could run an assassin campaign where the goal is to kill off different leaders to plunge two peaceful nations into a war and it would be silly to punish the players for evil since the premise of the campaign is evil.

[Sception]

D&D is a horrible game for playing with moral greys. The mechanics aren't designed for it to begin with, and the alignment system is fundamentally opposed to it. Not that you can't do it, but it's an annoying thing to spring on a party that "just wants to play some D&D".

Evil monsters sitting in their homes aren't assumed to have done nothing wrong in D&D. That pile of gold that even the youngest dragons guard? That was stolen from the intelligent humanoids they killed and ate, likely not in that order. As an evil dragon, the white dragon has an instinctive taste for the flesh of good intelligent creatures. Left to its own devices, it will go on to brutally murder and eat other intelligent creatures, innocent ones whenever it has the chance. By default, intelligent or not, helpless or not, killing it is ridding the world of a powerful magical evil that would have gone on to gleefully slaughter entire communities of innocent beings.

Stealing its liberty is more questionable, especially for chaotic good characters, but again given its own choice and enough time it would do great harm to a great number of innocents, and if there's any chance of turning it from evil, it would have to be done against its will at first. This isn't a creature that you can simply bribe into changing alignments.

We also run into campaign image problems here. Dragons trained as mounts are a fantasy staple, but generally only in settings were dragons are at a more animalistic level of intelligence. Even so, such show up in D&D, and as such the idea that a dragon would be raised as a mount, and the linked concept that young dragons could be sold for such a purpose, is an iconic one that the players shouldn't necessarily be punished for assuming. If you don't want that kind of thing to be part of your game (and if you're emphasizing dragons as not only intelligent but also free willed - not at all the same thing in D&D, then you likely don't), then that's something also that should have been mentioned out of character before the players embarked on this undertaking. Characters shouldn't be punished in game for their players having a different mental image of the fantasy world then the DM does, that should be resolved with out of character discussions.


Regardless, torture is, of course, right out, and yeah, I would definitely take an ostensibly good character's player aside for some out-of-character discussion if they indicated an inclination to do so, but I would have that conversation before allowing the character to take that action, and the player would know in advance that it would mean a change in alignment. On the other hand, if it's attacking party members who try to feed it, then withholding food until it stops doing that is a completely appropriate response, regardless of alignment.


As for the amount of gold I would offer: maybe 2,400 or so gold, and then adjust party rewards for future adventure until things were back on track?

[SowZ]

D&D is a horrible game for playing with moral greys. The mechanics aren't designed for it to begin with, and the alignment system is fundamentally opposed to it. Not that you can't do it, but it's an annoying thing to spring on a party that "just wants to play some D&D".

Evil monsters sitting in their homes aren't assumed to have done nothing wrong in D&D. That pile of gold that even the youngest dragons guard? That was stolen from the intelligent humanoids they killed and ate, likely not in that order. As an evil dragon, the white dragon has an instinctive taste for the flesh of good intelligent creatures. Left to its own devices, it will go on to brutally murder and eat other intelligent creatures, innocent ones whenever it has the chance. By default, intelligent or not, helpless or not, killing it is ridding the world of a powerful magical evil that would have gone on to gleefully slaughter entire communities of innocent beings.

Stealing its liberty is more questionable, especially for chaotic good characters, but again given its own choice and enough time it would do great harm to a great number of innocents, and if there's any chance of turning it from evil, it would have to be done against its will at first. This isn't a creature that you can simply bribe into changing alignments.

We also run into campaign image problems here. Dragons trained as mounts are a fantasy staple, but generally only in settings were dragons are at a more animalistic level of intelligence. Even so, such show up in D&D, and as such the idea that a dragon would be raised as a mount, and the linked concept that young dragons could be sold for such a purpose, is an iconic one that the players shouldn't necessarily be punished for assuming. If you don't want that kind of thing to be part of your game (and if you're emphasizing dragons as not only intelligent but also free willed - not at all the same thing in D&D, then you likely don't), then that's something also that should have been mentioned out of character before the players embarked on this undertaking. Characters shouldn't be punished in game for their players having a different mental image of the fantasy world then the DM does, that should be resolved with out of character discussions.


Regardless, torture is, of course, right out, and yeah, I would definitely take an ostensibly good character's player aside for some out-of-character discussion if they indicated an inclination to do so, but I would have that conversation before allowing the character to take that action, and the player would know in advance that it would mean a change in alignment. On the other hand, if it's attacking party members who try to feed it, then withholding food until it stops doing that is a completely appropriate response, regardless of alignment.


As for the amount of gold I would offer: maybe 2,400 or so gold, and then adjust party rewards for future adventure until things were back on track?

Why is it wrong for a dragon to kill a humanoid for their stuff but not wrong for a human to kill a dragon for their stuff? Even if people want to play classic D&D it is completely possible to do so with good characters. The easiest solution is to fight things, (demons, golems, undead, extra-planars,) that have been summoned by necromancers/liches. But that could get old fast.

For example, a villian, (possibly an ambitous black dragon,) has raised an army of assembled human mercanaries, orcish soldiers, goblins, etc. for the express purpose of taking over the world and has well hidden, well trapped, and well guarded bases strategically placed across the continent, one near each major city/nation-state to rise up and take it over when the army is large enough. The heroes learn of the plot but no army believes them. Each base is already occupied by a scout force and the Dragon is off assembling more forces so each week the bases get sronger. If the Good adventurers can destroy each base and get evidence it will alert each country to the threat so they go off and destroy htem one by one as the heroes and the bases get progressively more powerful.

I just pulled that one out of my hind-quarters because there are countless adventures like this that give non-evil motivations to the battles. Good heroes wouldn't even waste their time murdering things for their money. Because, you know, good characters have good motivations and are actually trying to improve the world. If you jump back to, 'D&D has a black and white morality' you are still stuck by the game explicitly stating that killing monsters for being monsters is evil. There are a lot of ways around it.

[hamishspence]

There's also ways for monsters to get their treasure without robbery, in contexts where robbery would make no sense.

In Races of the Dragon, it mentions that often, dragon hoards are full of treasure that was mined, crafted, and then donated- by kobolds, to win the support of the dragons.

So- you might have a huge, near-barren arctic region, no humans for miles, with white dragons lairing, and kobold warrens in the Underdark beneath it.

[ericgrau]

Lock thread please.
I think you gotta PM a mod or "report" one of your own posts.

[Coidzor]

Why is it wrong for a dragon to kill a humanoid for their stuff but not wrong for a human to kill a dragon for their stuff?

Dragons are, generally speaking, outlaws and primary aggressors that live in caves, flaunt the laws of society & ignore the rights of travelers to pass unmolested through the areas near to where they live, and practice brigandry more often than not.

Adventurers are, generally speaking, going after outlaws & other creatures that refuse the social contract & do not recognize the rights of individuals to their lives & property & so are active threats to the public peace.

So a principle difference is the legitimacy of the targets & actions. If one has been killing and eating travelers, one really can't complain if one day the travelers one attacks are able to kill and eat you. Turnabout is fair play and all.

If a dragon has done nothing wrong, however, of course it's wrong to break into their home & attempt to stab them in the face, but generally dragons don't ping on the radar so much when they're not making a nuisance of themselves.


According to the rules on alignment, (which I dislike anyway but whatever,) killing something for its evil deeds is valid but killing something for its alignment only is murder. On the alignment scale, you may has well have slaughtered a halfling merchant and taken his Hershey's. I think this is all restrictive/arbitrary/silly/booooring to spell it out like this, but if you justify evil acts with a 'the book says he is evil' then I am going to respond by 'the book also says the killers are doing serious evil.'

Ok, so what about killing him because he's proven to be evil through his past reported as well as observed actions? :smalltongue: Or even as a preventative to keep him from finally succeeding in escaping due to growing to the point where his murderous tendencies are remotely achievable, and since it's an evil, murderous dragon, well, letting it live without neutralizing the threat it poses is an evil act anyway.

Or the bit where this is not a newly hatched wyrmling, and if I'm any guess it's the one from the Sunken Citadel, which the party apparently decided to butcher their way through.

[Kogak]

On a point related to the actual selling of said dragon...

A wyrmling white dragon should be really easy for a cleric with the "Cold" domain to dominate, yes? I think the rules for turning state that elemental clerics can destroy opposite and dominate like elements. Seems like an easy way for your PC's to wander to a specific point you want to send them towards and make them sell at a discount since it is one of the few people able to ensure control.

[SowZ]

1. Dragons are, generally speaking, outlaws and primary aggressors that live in caves, flaunt the laws of society & 2. ignore the rights of travelers to pass unmolested through the areas near to where they live, and practice brigandry more often than not.

3. Adventurers are, generally speaking, going after outlaws & other creatures that refuse the social contract & do not recognize the rights of individuals to their lives & property & so are active threats to the public peace.

4. So a principle difference is the legitimacy of the targets & actions. If one has been killing and eating travelers, one really can't complain if one day the travelers one attacks are able to kill and eat you. Turnabout is fair play and all.

5. If a dragon has done nothing wrong, however, of course it's wrong to break into their home & attempt to stab them in the face, but generally dragons don't ping on the radar so much when they're not making a nuisance of themselves.



6. Ok, so what about killing him because he's proven to be evil through his past reported as well as observed actions? :smalltongue: Or even as a preventative to keep him from finally succeeding in escaping due to growing to the point where his murderous tendencies are remotely achievable, and since it's an evil, murderous dragon, well, letting it live without neutralizing the threat it poses is an evil act anyway.

Or the bit where this is not a newly hatched wyrmling, and if I'm any guess it's the one from the Sunken Citadel, which the party apparently decided to butcher their way through.

1. Why should dragons acknowledge human laws if humans don't acknowledge draconic laws?

2. Breaking into a dragons cave and attacking him is violating the dragons right, regardless of his color. That's brigandry on part of the adventurers.

3. Adventurers attacking monsters for their stuff are the very definition of people who don't value the rights of lives and property. If humans aren't condemned for killing mosnters, why should monsters be condemned for killing humans? The first part about social contract is mor of a law/chaos thing, not good/evil.

4. If the dragon goes out of it's home and eats travellers he becomes the attacker. If the adventurers travel to the dragons home and kill him they become the attackers.

5. Then I suppose we don't disagre on this point. But if a monster deserves death for killing travelling humans, a human deserves death for killing travelling monsters/monsters in their homes.

6. Only if it has done acts that warrant death or attempted said acts without proper justification can it be rightfully killed.

[Drachasor]

Eh, you capture a dragon and your plan is to SELL IT? Bah, where is your vision? You should raise it up as an ally!

[SowZ]

Eh, you capture a dragon and your plan is to SELL IT? Bah, where is your vision? You should raise it up as an ally!

Dragons age... very... slowly...

[Drachasor]

Dragons age... very... slowly...

You could plan on being immortal or use magic to speed the aging process up. Plenty of options. Worst case, it is part of your legacy spanning thousands of years (at least).

Selling it is so...pedestrian.

[SowZ]

You could plan on being immortal or use magic to speed the aging process up. Plenty of options. Worst case, it is part of your legacy spanning thousands of years (at least).

Selling it is so...pedestrian.

Alternatively, dragon hide is worth a lot. If you are good, this is probably not an option. If you are neutral, put it to sleep first each time before doing this. If you are evil, go for it...

Peel the scales off the dragon. Pay a thirteenth level or higher cleric quite a bit to prepare multiple regenerate spells and cast it. Repeat over and over again.

[Drachasor]

Alternatively, dragon hide is worth a lot. If you are good, this is probably not an option. If you are neutral, put it to sleep first each time before doing this. If you are evil, go for it...

Peel the scales off the dragon. Pay a thirteenth level or higher cleric quite a bit to prepare multiple regenerate spells and cast it. Repeat over and over again.

Clone should work, admittedly you need a cubic inch of flesh. Best if you have a Wizard in the party. Granted, it does take 2d4 months, but you could set up multiple batches.

[SowZ]

Clone should work, admittedly you need a cubic inch of flesh. Best if you have a Wizard in the party. Granted, it does take 2d4 months, but you could set up multiple batches.

Buy a plot of land. Have a wizard and a cleric team up. Cast clone the dragons, skin, and then regenerate. At 3000GP a day per dragon, you will each have to quit selling the hide to keep from saturating the market after a little over a year and each be filthy rich.

[Coidzor]

5. Then I suppose we don't disagre on this point. But if a monster deserves death for killing travelling humans, a human deserves death for killing travelling monsters/monsters in their homes.

6. Only if it has done acts that warrant death or attempted said acts without proper justification can it be rightfully killed.


So how, exactly, do you reconcile these two again?

[SowZ]

So how, exactly, do you reconcile these two again?

What do you mean? If a Dragon kills people for theft, not for defense, it can be rightfully killed. If a human kills a dragon for theft, not for defense, that human can be rightfully killed.

[Coidzor]

What do you mean? If a Dragon kills people for theft, not for defense, it can be rightfully killed. If a human kills a dragon for theft, not for defense, that human can be rightfully killed.

So killing a dragon that's been killing people to eat them and take their stuff means that the person who killed it is both justified and can be rightfully killed then?

Because that's how you phrased it.

[SowZ]

So killing a dragon that's been killing people to eat them and take their stuff means that the person who killed it is both justified and can be rightfully killed then?

Because that's how you phrased it.

If the human killed the dragon because it was a murderer it is a totally different story then if the human killed the dragon for theft. If the dragons deeds don't matter to the human and the dragons stuff is all that matters, it is an evil act to kill said dragon whatever it has done. If the point is justice and protecting ones own kind, the dragon wasn't killed for theft.