Dragon Armor makes no sense...


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Well, basically any spellcaster can create gallons of water from nothing every day, so it's not as big of a concern as it is in real life.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

The question is, is Angelskin legit for a druid? LOL

Angelskin

Wearing Angelskin anything should get you killed on sight at any...no...EVERY good temple you set foot in. Or by any good outsider you encounter.


Someone's gonna have to explain me why a breastplate require as much material as a full plate... when the breastplate is like HALF what the full plate covers ?_?

Dark Archive

Java Man wrote:
I've always been confused by the low price, considering the difficulty in obtaining the raw materials.

Maybe Huge and larger dragons fall out of the sky like cherry blossoms every spring? :)

(I house rule that 'dragon' hide armor can be made from lesser creatures with the dragon type, like drakes and wyverns, and that *most* 'dragonhide' armor comes from these creatures. The CR 22 Great Wyrm Red Dragon one is supposed to kill for a single suit of dragonhide fullplate? Nah. He's not giving up that easy.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Mark Thomas 66 wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

The question is, is Angelskin legit for a druid? LOL

Angelskin

Wearing Angelskin anything should get you killed on sight at any...no...EVERY good temple you set foot in. Or by any good outsider you encounter.

Wildshape into a Tyrannosaurus before entering a good aligned temple, or visiting with Good outsiders.

I mean, you were going to eat them anyways, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Thomas 66 wrote:
Wearing Angelskin anything should get you killed on sight at any...no...EVERY good temple you set foot in. Or by any good outsider you encounter.

But I'm good in alignment.

*Hands you a detect magic item*
See?

It'd be pretty wrong of you to murder someone who's obviously good on sight.

Sczarni

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The low price of this stuff tells me that the larger dragons can shed their scales and do this as a sustainable harvest.

And this is exactly the premise of one of my recurring villains.

She markets herself as a slayer of red dragons. Even wears heavy piecemeal armor made of the tattered scales of previous kills (which are really just cast off scales).

After a dragon has been terrorizing a region, she shows up and promises to slay it; for a price.

But she's really the dragon herself, magically disguised. She's learned that whether she's killing, or swindling, either way she increases her hoard. One way just happens to be safer.

At first, when the PCs encounter her, it becomes a friendly rivalry to see who can slay the dragon first.

Eventually they discover the truth, and have to hunt her down.

Plot is admittedly a modified version of Dragonheart ^_^


I feel like if you're smart, you're going to disguise your angelskin armor so it's not obviously made of the skin of angels. Maybe wear another outfit over it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or start a lot of propaganda about how terrible angels really are.


I'd like to see a character who can pull that off over the course of a campaign. By the end, everyone in the land will be killing angels on sight.


*Raises hand tentatively*
"How do you identify if something is made from Angelskin?
Same can be asked for Giant-hide armour? The wearer of said outfit could be using Giant form spell."

Does everyone glance at you and say
"Yep thats Angelskin. I could recognize that texture any where."

After that remark I at least would start to asks some questions how someone could recognize differend flayed skins from others. Specifically Good aligned Outsiders.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Knowledge (Planes) to identify it's Angelskin.

For Giant-Hide Armor, Knowledge (Local)

Giant-Hide Armor wrote:
This drooping, many-folded suit of +3 hide armor is made from the tanned skin of an actual giant. Once per day on command, the wearer can grow to match the size of the appropriate giant, as if using giant form I (ogre, troll, hill giant, stone giant, fire giant, or frost giant) or giant form II (cloud giant or storm giant). This transformation lasts up to 15 minutes, and ends when the wearer commands. Most good folk consider wearing the skins of intelligent creatures to be abhorrent. Giants gain a +2 morale bonus on attack and damage rolls against the wearer, or +4 if the wearer's armor is made from the same kind of giant as the attacker.

Nothing in the item's description says it changes or otherwise disguises the armor when you're transformed into a giant.


Well I would still say that with Angelskin and Giant-hide, you would have to make Perception/Appraise test to notice that this is something more sinister that normal leather from some bear or other animal.
But these are just my two cents.

@Rysky
I didn't say it would change or disguise and I hope I don't sound truculent. But still those not as knowledgeable as PC's or specialists might not know the difference of magical item used power and spell.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Routana wrote:

Well I would still say that with Angelskin and Giant-hide, you would have to make Perception/Appraise test to notice that this is something more sinister that normal leather from some bear or other animal.

But these are just my two cents.

@Rysky
I didn't say it would change or disguise and I hope I don't sound truculent. But still those not as knowledgeable as PC's or specialists might not know the difference of magical item used power and spell.

How would even know it's a spell, or a magic item, and not just a plain giant? The only way to tell would be if you identified the armor they were wearing and/or cast detect magic on them.

Otherwise it could be just a normal giant walking around.


Rysky wrote:
Routana wrote:

Well I would still say that with Angelskin and Giant-hide, you would have to make Perception/Appraise test to notice that this is something more sinister that normal leather from some bear or other animal.

But these are just my two cents.

@Rysky
I didn't say it would change or disguise and I hope I don't sound truculent. But still those not as knowledgeable as PC's or specialists might not know the difference of magical item used power and spell.

How would even know it's a spell, or a magic item, and not just a plain giant? The only way to tell would be if you identified the armor they were wearing and/or cast detect magic on them.

Otherwise it could be just a normal giant walking around.

True.


Rysky wrote:
Routana wrote:

Well I would still say that with Angelskin and Giant-hide, you would have to make Perception/Appraise test to notice that this is something more sinister that normal leather from some bear or other animal.

But these are just my two cents.

@Rysky
I didn't say it would change or disguise and I hope I don't sound truculent. But still those not as knowledgeable as PC's or specialists might not know the difference of magical item used power and spell.

How would even know it's a spell, or a magic item, and not just a plain giant? The only way to tell would be if you identified the armor they were wearing and/or cast detect magic on them.

Otherwise it could be just a normal giant walking around.

Except if the creature wearing it is not giant sized.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Sideromancer wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Routana wrote:

Well I would still say that with Angelskin and Giant-hide, you would have to make Perception/Appraise test to notice that this is something more sinister that normal leather from some bear or other animal.

But these are just my two cents.

@Rysky
I didn't say it would change or disguise and I hope I don't sound truculent. But still those not as knowledgeable as PC's or specialists might not know the difference of magical item used power and spell.

How would even know it's a spell, or a magic item, and not just a plain giant? The only way to tell would be if you identified the armor they were wearing and/or cast detect magic on them.

Otherwise it could be just a normal giant walking around.

Except if the creature wearing it is not giant sized.

?

Rou was saying how to tell the difference between a person using giant form through the spell and through the item.


Find the best ratio of armors produced to overall additive weight and material.

Find a wizard (of at least 9th level) with ranks in craft (armor).

Cast Fabricate and magically combine the additive weight of the armor(s) until they match full plate's weight and win.

Grand Lodge

It could be worse. It could be like my GM where you kill a colossal dragon and can't even get 4 scales out of it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
It could be worse. It could be like my GM where you kill a colossal dragon and can't even get 4 scales out of it.

Did you kill it with a sphere of annihilation?

'Cause, if so, that's your problem right there...


To the OP:

I don't see what the problem is. You can't just rip chunks off a dragon, drape it over yourself, and call it a breastplate. Hide armour, maybe, and even then that requires some talent to know the best parts of the dragon to make it out of.

It says right in the description that they have to use the best scales in order to make the more powerful armours. And the smaller the dragon, the less likely they have the appropriately sized scales. So I don't see the issues at all.

Especially considering that dragon hide is not iron ore. You can't just smelt their skin down and reforge it into a plate. If the dragon isn't large enough, they don't have any suitably-sized scales to make the breastplate out of. You can't just grab the thick scaly part and try to harden it to make a breast plate. Again, that's just dragon hide, or maybe scale mail.

Was there something else that threw you off? Because it makes perfect sense to me.


lowericon wrote:
silverrey wrote:
Look at what a Dragon Scale Breastplate would be. It is one scale that would cover you from collar to belt. Basically a breastplate is a large shield that someone decided to wear on their chest. Even full plate allows smaller individual pieces. It works from a logical point of view but does break the fantasy idea pretty bad. :/
A breastplate doesn't need to be made out of a single scale. But even if it did, am I supposed to believe only one scale from the entire dragon survived the fight? Yeah, they damaged it during the combat, but they didn't shove it down a garbage disposal.

Maybe all of the scales are not equal in quality before the fight, and many rules are made for balance before they are made for realism. If you don't like the flavor then change the flavor, but don't expect for Paizo to make put realism before balance. If they did that many adventurers would die early deaths because holding a shield up to block an attack from a giant or similar sized creature would likely break the shield, and still kill you. At best you might get broken bones if you are lucky.


Starfinder Superscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
maybe it's so cheap because the true monsters are the adventurers out hunting dragons.

And again, trying to put your reptocentric view on them mammals. Won't work, don't try.

As I'm eyein' you to make a belt.

Scarab Sages

Tyinyk wrote:

We vary, but I don't think it's necessary for a good character to feel bad when they kill an unintelligent creature that's attacking them or others. If you're out on the ocean, and a giant shark attacks your ship and starts trying to each your friends and crew, you're not going to feel bad about killing it, because it was a violent beast that was going to kill you.

Now, if you're out on the ocean, and a bunch of pirates come, and you have to kill them, you'll feel bad because you killed an intelligent person, with hopes and dreams.

Good characters will feel bad after killing the shark. Doesn't mean they won't do the same thing next time, but they don't like killing. They may feel sorry for the shark, or self pity, or maybe they feel bad for forcing their own weapons to kill on their behalf. Good values life, and sees the loss of life as sad and wasteful.

Killing in self defense without moral issues is a trait of neutral characters. Killing only when you need to is very neutral. Some neutral fighters would kill because they need practice, but they don't enjoy killing and wouldn't kill helpless or too weak enemies, as it doesn't benefit them.

Killing because you like it is a trait of evil characters.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DJEternalDarkness wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
maybe it's so cheap because the true monsters are the adventurers out hunting dragons.

And again, trying to put your reptocentric view on them mammals. Won't work, don't try.

As I'm eyein' you to make a belt.

dragons are mammals, we're like platypus's, we're warm blooded and have a pre-frontal cortex.

I mean honestly dragons have a little bit of all the animal kingdoms. Scales and eggs from reptiles, Wings like birds, 6 limbs like an insect, warm blood and cognition of a mammal, and some of us even can breathe water...

oh god we're monsters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we have some inherent differences in how we see good characters. I see good characters as valuing intelligent life, you see them as valuing [u]all[/u] life.

Considering it's medieval fantasy, and death happens going to visit your granny, I feel that people aren't going to feel bad about killing a savage creature that attacks them. Similarly, I don 't think a good character will feel bad about killing the BBEG who has the death of hundreds of innocents on their hands.

If every good character had to feel bad for killing every wild animal that attacked them, I don't think there'd be many good adventurers. When you're killing a few things every day, you're going to stop thinking killing non-sentients is a big deal.


I just had an idea, if the reason you can't make much armour is most of the scales are damaged in the fight, does that mean you could cast mending a few times to get more armour?


412294 wrote:
I just had an idea, if the reason you can't make much armour is most of the scales are damaged in the fight, does that mean you could cast mending a few times to get more armour?

You could try, but the fact that they(rules) are specific about what you can get makes it fairly obvious that they did not intend for you to double and triple what you can get in return, by casting a low level spell.

PS: Also the rules dont say the scales were damaged in the fight itself, that is something someone here came up with. As a GM I would just say that not all parts of a dragon are equal.


412294 wrote:
I just had an idea, if the reason you can't make much armour is most of the scales are damaged in the fight, does that mean you could cast mending a few times to get more armour?

Fabricate.

Fabricate is the answer.


lemeres wrote:
Saethori wrote:

It does mention "choice scales and bits of hide". Your crafter isn't just looking to cobble together enough dragon to make a functional suit. He needs enough to make a work of art, to truly make the armor masterwork.

It's not that the rest of the dragon is broken into pieces. It's that the rest of the dragon isn't in mint condition.

Or the 'non-choice' pieces just end up being little different from regular, if scaly, leather. That is how I interpret it.

I mean... the hide near the cloaca is probably not going to make anything to great defensively.

Likely, it is implying that only certain scales have the notable resistance (along the back, on the forelegs, on the head around the mouth), and the rest of the dragon's defense comes from just being a big mass of meat and hate.

Daw wrote:
It isn't supposed to make sense in any way other than the nonsense economy of PFS and PFRPG canon. You are getting expensive special materials effectively free. Yes, it is stupid, but it is stupid in a way that supports generally accepted stupidity.

Consistent stupidity.

I partially blame the economy because it was grandfathered from 3.5.

triggered, which reminds me I need to do a new study including the downtime and development rules.

Scarab Sages

Tyinyk wrote:

I think we have some inherent differences in how we see good characters. I see good characters as valuing intelligent life, you see them as valuing [u]all[/u] life.

Considering it's medieval fantasy, and death happens going to visit your granny, I feel that people aren't going to feel bad about killing a savage creature that attacks them. Similarly, I don 't think a good character will feel bad about killing the BBEG who has the death of hundreds of innocents on their hands.

If every good character had to feel bad for killing every wild animal that attacked them, I don't think there'd be many good adventurers. When you're killing a few things every day, you're going to stop thinking killing non-sentients is a big deal.

You don't feel bad about defending your granny, you feel bad that the result was that you had to kill something. And in truth, most adventurers could defeat a wild animal without killing it due to the PFS rules. Knocking an animal to -1 HP is enough to reduce a threatening animal into a helpless creature. You don't need to use non-lethal damage to not kill things in PFS.

I will also note that Self-defense does not apply when you are trespassing, or otherwise putting yourself purposely in harms way. If you purposely create the circumstances where you "need" to defend yourself, you aren't acting in self defense. That would be premeditated assault, and if you kill them, premeditated murder. Adventuring very often results in being attacked, but not reacting in self defense, since you are the ones instigating the fight to begin with.

Regarding defeating "bad guys," understand that one of the traits of a good person is that they believe in good things. A bad guy can reform, they can become good if given the chance. That's how good wins over evil, they win through kindness and GOOD behaviour. Defeat and death are different, you can defeat someone, but killing them means they lack the chance to become good. You deny the potential for goodness.

As for killing the guy with the "evil" backstory, you've missed the point. Good doesn't like killing. They don't like creating death. A character that uses excuses to behave in a non-good manner is non-good. A backstory is an excuse. Reasons are excuses. Killing and creating death is non-good behaviour. In a game of pathfinder, this probably won't be enough for an alignment shift, but if your PC keeps finding excuses to deal death to their enemies and never shows remoarse, beware, your alignment may shift.

Now, a Lawful Good Character may still act within the confines of the Law, and if that means killing, they will certainly do so, but that is because they believe in Law/Order, not because killing is good, ever.

Exception wise, creatures with the Evil Subtype are okay for Good characters to kill without question (only because Pathfinder does not allow them to reform). You can also, usually, destroy undead and constructs without question. Summoned creatures, or other ones that don't permanently die, when "killed" are also okay to kill without questioning it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Except I don't view Good as being on the side of life, I view Good as being on the side of kindness, selflessness, and decency. They're not going to relish killing, but if it happens to something that was attacking them, or someone who undoubtedly deserved it, they don't have to feel bad. (Note that I said they don't have to. Some characters certainly will, but I feel that the alignments hold a large variety of people with different reactions to the same stimuli, even within the same alignment.)

Also, if you're bringing a wild animal to -1, it's generally going to die if you don't stabilize it then and there. Which I can certainly see being done for people who you've fought (And I've had characters who do this) but not wasting your medical supplies on an animal. Might as well cook and eat it, if you're doing anything.

If you're going into a dungeon to kill some monsters, the kind who usually attack on sight, there's a good reason you're doing that, most of the time. They're likely causing trouble (read: bodily harm or death) for the locals, so killing them is giving the good people of the nearby town a lot less grief.

I think you're taking my explanation of my personal viewpoint of what constitutes good as what all my characters tell people to make them seem good. Not so. I'm not saying they go out of their way to butcher every undesirable they see, and say "They attacked me." What I am saying is that I don't view the act of killing as something every single Good character needs to feel bad about. Not feeling bad about something doesn't mean you like doing it, it just means you're not guilty about it. I don't think a Good character needs to feel guilty because they killed a bunch of Goblins who just finished butchering a group of traders.

Also note, I don't play in the Golarion setting, and my table has a different view on alignment than the books. (A couple of our people dont require Paladins to be Lawful Good.) I'm not arguing about how things may work there, just about how I interpret the Good alignment.

Scarab Sages

Each their own opinion, but regarding the CRB in pathfinder they describe the Good as:

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient life. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

I don't think that your allowed to pick and choose which life deserves respect as a good character. Yeah, innocent life deserves protection and sentient life you are concerned about their dignity too, but you respect life in general. And when someone you respect loses their life, it is sad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

an old house rule i used in the early days of 3.0:

you can have the dragon´s con score * size modifer (large *1, huge *2, gargantuan * 3, colossal * 4) in total lb in useable hide to make armors.

So, a colossal great wyrm (con 29), you´ll get 116 lb of useable hide (2 full plates and 1 leather armor or something else)


I think we view that line as respect for life differently. You can have respect for life but not feel bad every time someone or something loses their life. Were they bad for life as a whole? Then it's good they're gone.

I'll also point out that it implies all that. Not demands. You can hit 4 out of 5 points and still be good.

We could argue the finer points of alignment all day, but I doubt either of us is going to sway the other, and we've kind of heavily derailed this thread.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Each their own opinion, but regarding the CRB in pathfinder they describe the Good as:

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient life. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

I don't think that your allowed to pick and choose which life deserves respect as a good character. Yeah, innocent life deserves protection and sentient life you are concerned about their dignity too, but you respect life in general. And when someone you respect loses their life, it is sad.

It's more derailing, but does this mean that in your games pretty much all Good characters must be vegetarian? And, since druids and plant creatures exist, possibly only eat plant material that regrows?

What about the famous 'Hydra buffet'?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Tyinyk wrote:

Except I don't view Good as being on the side of life, I view Good as being on the side of kindness, selflessness, and decency. They're not going to relish killing, but if it happens to something that was attacking them, or someone who undoubtedly deserved it, they don't have to feel bad. (Note that I said they don't have to. Some characters certainly will, but I feel that the alignments hold a large variety of people with different reactions to the same stimuli, even within the same alignment.)

Also, if you're bringing a wild animal to -1, it's generally going to die if you don't stabilize it then and there. Which I can certainly see being done for people who you've fought (And I've had characters who do this) but not wasting your medical supplies on an animal. Might as well cook and eat it, if you're doing anything.

If you're going into a dungeon to kill some monsters, the kind who usually attack on sight, there's a good reason you're doing that, most of the time. They're likely causing trouble (read: bodily harm or death) for the locals, so killing them is giving the good people of the nearby town a lot less grief.

I think you're taking my explanation of my personal viewpoint of what constitutes good as what all my characters tell people to make them seem good. Not so. I'm not saying they go out of their way to butcher every undesirable they see, and say "They attacked me." What I am saying is that I don't view the act of killing as something every single Good character needs to feel bad about. Not feeling bad about something doesn't mean you like doing it, it just means you're not guilty about it. I don't think a Good character needs to feel guilty because they killed a bunch of Goblins who just finished butchering a group of traders.

There are definitely literary examples of Good characters who fight for Life, who understand violence is sometimes necessary, and don't torture themselves for resorting to it.

The Wizard's Oath wrote:
In Life's name and for Life's sake, I say that I will use the Art for nothing but the service of that Life. I will guard growth and ease pain. I will fight to preserve what grows and lives well in its own way; and I will change no object or creature unless its growth and life, or that of the system of which it is part, are threatened. To these ends, in the practice of my Art, I will put aside fear for courage, and death for life, when it is right to do so -- till Universe's end.

Scarab Sages

Gilarius wrote:

It's more derailing, but does this mean that in your games pretty much all Good characters must be vegetarian? And, since druids and plant creatures exist, possibly only eat plant material that regrows?

What about the famous 'Hydra buffet'?

I'd have to look up 'hydra buffet' as I don't get that reference. Perhaps you could explain it.

Regarding what you eat, that one is an interesting moral quandry. And it goes so much further. I mean, if plants are equal to humans, then a log cabin is a house made of corpses. And there are many others. If your respect for life includes all life (which I think it should), then respect must be shown for food, building materials, and just about everything else.

I do think the food options are losing battle if you start looking at the morality of using other things to sustain yourself. Doesn't really matter if they are plant or animal or mineral, the issue is that I'm selfishly deciding that my life is more important than the existance that my food previously sustained. Its the guilt of living.

Anyway, yeah, I think respect should be shown for food (so don't waste it).

PS: Feeling bad doesn't mean torturing yourself. You don't have to get depressed each time you cook diner. But you feel something, some tinge of guilt or sadness when you kill something. Especially when the death isn't needed (you need to eat).

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
I'd have to look up 'hydra buffet' as I don't get that reference.

Well, you know what a hydra is, and you know what a buffet is, right?


Tyinyk wrote:
Well, basically any spellcaster can create gallons of water from nothing every day, so it's not as big of a concern as it is in real life.

Not any... only divine casters.


master_marshmallow wrote:
412294 wrote:
I just had an idea, if the reason you can't make much armour is most of the scales are damaged in the fight, does that mean you could cast mending a few times to get more armour?

Fabricate.

Fabricate is the answer.

Fabricate does not create material, it uses building material, and it can't use spoiled material. In other words if the problem is something that a Craft check won't fix, the spell won't help you with it.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Tyinyk wrote:
any spellcaster can create gallons of water
Not any... only divine casters.

And one psychic caster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Gilarius wrote:

It's more derailing, but does this mean that in your games pretty much all Good characters must be vegetarian? And, since druids and plant creatures exist, possibly only eat plant material that regrows?

What about the famous 'Hydra buffet'?

I'd have to look up 'hydra buffet' as I don't get that reference. Perhaps you could explain it.

Hydra Buffet.

Fairly self-explanatory, but everyone needs to see the comic at least once.

Scarab Sages

bigrig107 wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Gilarius wrote:

It's more derailing, but does this mean that in your games pretty much all Good characters must be vegetarian? And, since druids and plant creatures exist, possibly only eat plant material that regrows?

What about the famous 'Hydra buffet'?

I'd have to look up 'hydra buffet' as I don't get that reference. Perhaps you could explain it.

Hydra Buffet.

Fairly self-explanatory, but everyone needs to see the comic at least once.

Horrible, but funny. Thanks.

Scarab Sages

Nefreet wrote:
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
I'd have to look up 'hydra buffet' as I don't get that reference.
Well, you know what a hydra is, and you know what a buffet is, right?

It really took me a while to get it. I've never really thought of a Hydra as gaining meat when it regrows heads. Always kinda thought the Hydra would get skinnier each time it grows a head back. Or perhaps it has one of those fat tails for storing food in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh. I don't really like to bring real-world values into Pathfinder, as it's a wildly different view on what's "Good" and what's "Evil".

Tangent:
That's pretty much my biggest issue with this topic, as I don't really see the need for anyone to be upset at using armor.
Dragons that usually have their skin available for making armor are either irrevocably evil (to the point where the redeemed ones have a special name for them, see Dragons Revisited). Now, of course, we have the example of dragons being reptiles and molting skin, and that's fine. It's just not stated anywhere.

In a world where Good and Evil are both clearly defined, where there are specific actions that have different results depending on whether your target is good or evil, it becomes much easier to "justify" killing these evil beasts and using their scales (not even their actual skin, see: molting above) for the purposes of protecting oneself against the next monster.

I mean, really. What's the difference between killing a dragon on Golarion and making a breastplate out of its scales and shooting an alligator and making a pair of boots out of its hide on Earth? We as humans have had plenty of examples where we have taken the skins of certain creatures and made them into outfits for our own use (bears, cows, foxes, etc., etc.) Are any of these people capital-E Evil for wearing these clothes? Of course not. Now, we have this social taboo against killing humans and wearing their skin in public, but that's a while different level of crazy.

So why is it any different with dragons on Golarion?
I assume it's because of the "sentient beings" part. And that is a legitimate answer, but one I think is flawed for one major reason: it's from our world's point of view.
Golarion is not Earth; it doesn't have the same set of values and morals.
On Golarion, there is Absolute Evil in the world. There is also Absolute Good. When it is so easy to point to something and declare it irrevocably Evil, it becomes easier to rightly justify killing it and remaining Good.

As to the "respect for life" part of being Good, the Internet (ooooh, reliable sources!) defines "respect" thusly:

Respect Definition wrote:
respect (noun): a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

Even in this world it's possible to respect the beauty of the elk as you take the shot that will literally feed you for the foreseeable future; just as it is possible to admire the strength and power of the mighty red dragon right before you send the final arrow careening towards its one weak spot, approximately the area of one scale under its belly.

Neither of the hunters are disrespecting either creature, and both hunters are actually very, very Good (in game terms, both are Paladins of Erastil).

Now, to the Alignment section of the Core Rulebook (which is stated to be a guideline anyway):

Good vs. Evil Section, Additional Rules chapter wrote:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life...Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Emphasis mine.

This tells us that Good characters, on Golarion, both protect innocent life and are concerned about the dignity of sentient beings.
This means that killing said (Evil) dragon and using its scales, skin, body, and bones as resources to be taken advantage of is still quite Good.

It's only when you apply the flawed filter of this world's blurred lines between Good and Evil do you begin to misunderstand the actions of adventurers.

[/end rant]


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Gilarius wrote:

It's more derailing, but does this mean that in your games pretty much all Good characters must be vegetarian? And, since druids and plant creatures exist, possibly only eat plant material that regrows?

What about the famous 'Hydra buffet'?

I'd have to look up 'hydra buffet' as I don't get that reference. Perhaps you could explain it.

Regarding what you eat, that one is an interesting moral quandry. And it goes so much further. I mean, if plants are equal to humans, then a log cabin is a house made of corpses. And there are many others. If your respect for life includes all life (which I think it should), then respect must be shown for food, building materials, and just about everything else.

I do think the food options are losing battle if you start looking at the morality of using other things to sustain yourself. Doesn't really matter if they are plant or animal or mineral, the issue is that I'm selfishly deciding that my life is more important than the existance that my food previously sustained. Its the guilt of living.

Anyway, yeah, I think respect should be shown for food (so don't waste it).

PS: Feeling bad doesn't mean torturing yourself. You don't have to get depressed each time you cook diner. But you feel something, some tinge of guilt or sadness when you kill something. Especially when the death isn't needed (you need to eat).

the old definition for animal was a creature who consumer other living things to survive. unfortunately, the current definition basically is "it's squishy when you touch it".

Sovereign Court

Bandw2 wrote:
Stephen Ede wrote:

I would suggest a major reason for Dragon Armour materials been cheap is that Dragon Armour really isn't that good.

And also probably removes the "Random target selection" when fighting other Dragons and replaces it with "Kill creature wearing Dragon Skin".

if how useful things were, were the primary method of determining price, water wouldn't be so cheap.

It's about half of it.

Supply AND Demand.

If the supply is high enough then even something with a high demand won't be valuable.

In the case of dragonhide - there are a couple of things that might keep its price "low".

1. It's not that low. Most people can't afford full plate at all, so paying double the cost isn't a good option when it gives no benefit besides to druids. You have to spend A LOT to benefit from the cheaper resistance enchantment.

2. Wearing dragonhide might not be good to your health. Sure - your fellow adventurers and all of the ladies might think that you're pretty awesome for wearing the hide of a magical flying monster of legend, but a dragon probably won't feel the same way. Wearing dragonhide armor is like flying a giant banner with a middle finger raised to all of the dragons of the world, especially of that color.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
412294 wrote:
I just had an idea, if the reason you can't make much armour is most of the scales are damaged in the fight, does that mean you could cast mending a few times to get more armour?

Fabricate.

Fabricate is the answer.

Fabricate does not create material, it uses building material, and it can't use spoiled material. In other words if the problem is something that a Craft check won't fix, the spell won't help you with it.

Fabricate can turn pieces of material into a single object.

The game allows you to take multiple pieces of dragonhide whose weight is equal to what you want then craft it together with the spell.

Rule Zero still applies, but the rules are pretty open on it working.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Each their own opinion, but regarding the CRB in pathfinder they describe the Good as:

"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient life. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

I don't think that your allowed to pick and choose which life deserves respect as a good character. Yeah, innocent life deserves protection and sentient life you are concerned about their dignity too, but you respect life in general. And when someone you respect loses their life, it is sad.

Considering what Sarenrae's doctrine is to offer redemption, but if the foe/bad guy proves to be irredeemable, squash them flat and think no more on it...

Also, since I am always curious about such things, what alignment would you assign to someone like the Punisher? (Since I just discovered the vigilante class.)

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Dragon Armor makes no sense... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.