[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 1540765449544.jpg (478 KB, 1920x1080)
478 KB
478 KB JPG
>killing the dragon is a BAD thing
You don't pull this kind of bullshit, right?
>>
>>64006441
Killing the dragon isn't a bad thing. Letting its corpse rot in the middle of a field is, though. Those things are full of all sorts of exotic compounds, you don't want them leaking into the water table. Always make sure to clean up your monster kills.
>>
>>64006441
You'd have to describe the kind of bullshit, first. What's the context?
>>
File: 1499461009026.png (1.17 MB, 1240x917)
1.17 MB
1.17 MB PNG
>>64006441
Dragons aren't so bad once you get to know them.
>>
>>64006441
I mean, if you kill a black dragon in its underwater cave in the middle of a swamp that it's already fucked up with its presence, there's a finite limit to how much worse its rotting corpse would screw up the ecosystem further, so who cares?
>>64006617
Scalefag pls go
>>
>>64006441
Killing a lung Dragon
>benevolent teacher
>protector
>generally has your back if you aren't evil
>mostly good natured
Killing that just because isn't a good thing.

Killing a European dragon
>vile beast
>kills and plunders (if it has enough intelligence for it to be called plunder)
>only good to bring fame to a knight
Nahh, go for it. The less there are the better.
>>
>>64006678
This.
>>
>>64006441
no, the fun of the game is doing shit like that

but I can't keep a part of me from "such a hugely powerful creature must be almost unique; what kind of effect would it's absence have on the world?"

also "haha, the dragon is slain! now to bang the princess and count my gold" vs "giant pile of rare meat, spell components, and special materials is laying there to rot, I could get rich off the body alone"
>>
>>64006441
Yes I do.
>>
>>64006441
Depends. Do you consider having to become its replacement a bad thing?
>>
File: Flight_of_Dragons_07.jpg (85 KB, 711x540)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>64006441
>>
>>64006493
This is why my party has a wagon full of everything needed for an extended stay in the wild, and an empty wagon to carry stuff back to town. While the wizard and the rogue part out the dragon (the rogue's better with a knife) the barbarian roasts it's meat over a fire, and the cleric picks out a good wine to pair with it.
>>
>>64006441
>X is bullshit, irrespective of context
OP is a moron
>>
>>64006644
The potential profit in harvesting the dragon's meat, hide, blood and various other bits are too great to just leave it to rot. You gotta think long term.
>>
>>64006678
Yeah, this. You have to ask yourself what the dragon has done to deserve a killing. Context is key.
>>
>>64007055
It was honestly a moot situation in that point since our intern finished it off with a Disintegrate spell, leaving no remains to harvest.
>>
>>64006441
>Killing off an apex predator species
What could possibly go wrong.
>>
>>64007126
but Anon, humans are the apex predator species
>>
File: wolf and river.jpg (13 KB, 254x199)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>64007126
George Monbiot pls go.
>>
>>64006441
Of course it’s a bad thing. You can’t fuck the dragon now that it’s dead.
>>
>>64006678
>lung Dragon
*inhales*
>>
>>64007148
Humans are no where near "apex predator" in any biome. What the fuck are you talking? Are you one of those simpletons that thinks "apex predator" means "lol, oober stronk predator"?
>>
>>64007161
Humans can kill anything (given sufficiently large pack of them), humans can eat nearly anything. Humans are so good at the whole predator thing they hunted some species to extinction. How are they not the apex predator?
>>
>>64007186
It was a pretty recent development. Until proper weapons were developed and lots of people got together, we were mid-tier hunter/foragers who mostly ate small animals and plants.
>>
>>64007186
You're confusing capability with reality. The status of "apex predator" refers to an animal CURRENTLY within the biologicla niche of eating animals larger than moat predators can reliably eat. They're "apex" because they are at the top of the chain eating things that other animals dont. Dolphins are an apex predator. They eat fucking whales. Not even sharks reliably eat whales.

Inland humans primarily eat pigs, cows, and chickens. We have no unique niche and as such have very little impact on the biome from a perspective of predation. If humans were to suddenly disapear, wildlife would remain stable.

If you were to remove an apex predator from its natural habitat, especially an apex predator who hunts OTHER predators, you would have an explosion in the population of midling predators like wolves and foxes. This would lead to dwindling numbers of prey animals and eventually to near destruction of entire biomes. This is basic wildlife conservation and the reason hunting bears IRL is so well regulated.
>>
>>64007227
And that’s why it’s bad to kill dragons: they’re a keystone predator. Remove the local dragon and the land will be overrun with virgin princesses, which will deplete the ecology of its ermine, mink, and strawberries.
>>
>>64007261
>overrun with virgin princesses
Not with me around it bloody well won't
>>
>>64007261
Humans would have to start a wildlife conservation movement. Have wild princess junting seasons, issue tags to collect taxes for protected princess reserves, carefully log how many virgin princesses have been dicked in any given area. It would be a struggle the whole way through.
>>
>>64007261
>>64007289
What if we introduced a few Chinese dragons back into the ecosystem? After a trial period, of course. It's a non-native, but surely it's a better and less expensive long-term investment.
>>
>>64007261
Fuck name I spat out milk my from my nose with that one.
>>
>>64006441
I think this kind of thing is ok, but only if the players have ample opportunity to see it coming. If the dragon's blood is going to corrupt the river you kill it in you should give a healthy indication beforehand that it will do so.

Then if the players ignore the signs or think they're acceptable risks, then you're good to fuck them over at your leisure.

The reaction should always be "Oh shit, those pieces from earlier have just clicked into place" rather than "what the fuck?". Some groups can't be helped, admittedly, but you shouldn't be playing with those people anyway.
>>
>>64007332
Their potential as an invasive species is too great. Next thing you know, all the locals are worshipping kami spirits or some shit, the chinese dragon population explodes, the local pantheon dies out, and we dont even know if chinese dragons will dick european virgin princesses. Its much safer just to leave it in the hands of sport fuckers, the model has been shown to work before. Pop in to /k/ and ask about harvesting deer lure by hand.
>>
>>64007227
>Humans aren't an apex predator
Then what do you call a predator who hunts apex predators for fun?
>>
File: 1535549639626.png (250 KB, 352x352)
250 KB
250 KB PNG
>>64006441
Silly OP, who would be your maid if you killed your dragon?
>>
>>64006441
Depends on the [spolier]dragon[/spoiler]
>>
>>64007447
>[spolier]
>>
>>64007428
Measured. If we were truly an apex predator then every adult human male would kill a bear once a month and they would go extinct in less than a year. Dont talk to me about how humans are apex predators when the closest you've been to the woods is a dangerous terrain check
>>
>>64007158
Look out, it's a Lung dragon!
>>
>>64007443
The feathered serpent, of course!
>>
File: 1476046049579.jpg (187 KB, 800x1115)
187 KB
187 KB JPG
>>64007428
Humans are a keystone species, but more in the way beavers are than, say, apex predators. Our infrastructure and land management has a far greater effect on the world than hunting nowadays.
>>
>>64007456
if humanity had the inclination (Which it has with previous species) it could wipe other predators off the face of planet, with little to no difficulty and not a single man lost. Hell the only reason tigers haven't become exctinct is our explicit efforts to help them.
>>
>>64007616
Thing is, predators are scarier than herbivores in a dark alley, but predator species tend to be the MOST vulnerable ecologically:
- Fewest numbers
- Need the most territory
- Their diet concentrates any cumulative poisons (mercury, DDT) in the prey species
- Tend to reproduce much more slowly
>>
>>64007496
>>64007616
>>64007649
I think it's categorically moronic to try to classify a sentient species into a conventional ecological niche.
>>
>>64007671
Good point, but humans are still part of the biosphere, and fit into (and create entire) ecosystems as well. You can't really apply the same rules of categorisation, but when you are linked and have an impact on so many different organisms you can't assume we are completely independent from the system either.
>>
>>64006441
The problem isn't the dragon's death, it's what kind of scavengers it's rotting carcass is attracting
>>
File: 1494789488657.jpg (27 KB, 382x312)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>64006441
>fucking the dragon is a BAD thing
You don't pull this kind of bullshit, right?
>>
>>64006441
Depends on the dragon honestly, if it isnt a dick i'll leave it alone. If it is? well shit i've been meaning to get a new coat anyway.
>>
>>64007428
holy shit read the rest of his post you dumbass
>>
>>64007224
we can literally walk anything to death by trowing rocks and sticks at it and hunting in shifts.
>>
File: 1546897911143.jpg (60 KB, 900x900)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>64011055
>we can literally kill a pack of lions by throwing stones at it and hunting in shifts.
>>
>>64006441
>killing a dragon is bad
according to who? ask the humans and theyll say yes, ask the elves and theyll say it isnt
>>
I'll kill your dragon in a minute ;)
>>
Be honest /tg/ if you could form a long term relationship with a dragon (friendship, bromance, bond, dating, marriage, mix and match any of those and etx) would you?
>>
>>64006493
I like the Witcher thing, where dragon corpses are full of priceless spell and potion ingredients and sorceresses and wizards are always on a lookout for a fresh kill.
And I also like when extremely high-level wizards start to transform into dragons due to all the exposure to arcane forces.
And if you combine those two...
>>
>>64006493


I would love to play a game as a crew cleaning up a killed dragon or similar thing. Kinda like Damage Control in a fantasy world.
>>
>>64011692
Of course. Especially if I knew it would grant my offspring sorcerous powers. It really wouldn't be all that bad with Forgotten Realms dragons anyway, they can shapeshift into anything.
>>
>>64006441
If the dragon was just fucking sitting there and doing nothing, then why would killing it not be a bad thing? What, your faggot ass needs a reward every time you kill something?
>>
>>64007428
A bit of a dick.
>>
>>64006441
Depends on the dragon
>>
>>64012088
Because killing a sapient creature for literally no reason is a fucking horrible thing to do. It depends on the creature though; if the creature has a history of deserving to die then it should be killed.
Not to say you shouldn't exercise extreme caution around something who's species has a bad rep, though...
>>
File: 1544367582291.jpg (259 KB, 992x1403)
259 KB
259 KB JPG
>>64011692
I'd be stupid not to.
>>
>>64006441
I recently made a joke about DMs who do this and then my DM got triggered and went on a rant about how it’s “an awesome plot twist to use.” Now I’m worried.
>>
>>64006441
>make broad statement about killing dragons
>posts an image specifically of an eastern dragon
>>
>>64007158
What if there was some kinda dragon called a Lung Dragon that breathes in so hard that it can suffocate whoever it’s directing the inhale at? Or maybe they can suck up their prey from a distance?
>my players are about to hate me
>>
>>64014195
Aren't there underdark predators that do something like this? Flame breath kinda defeats the purpose when it consumes all of the oxygen with the enclosed space that you yourself need to live.
>>
>>64014195
Stellar dragons in Spelljammer had a kind of black hole breath attack that sucked you in and disintegrated you, but they really weren't designed to be combat encounters.
>>
>>64007227
>If humans were to suddenly disapear, wildlife would remain stable.
>the nuclear power plants wouldn’t meltdown without people taking care of them
>the meltdowns wouldn’t kill most small life, or horribly irradiate larger animals
>the radiation poisoning wouldn’t mutate the animals, making them disgusting shadows of their former selves (not le ebin giant monsters like in your games, more like a bunch of mutilated freaks with downs)
>>
>>64007616
This would, of course, lead to catastrophic ecological destruction and ultimately mass mortality among the human population, but sure, whatever gets your rocks off.
>>
>>64014449
>implying other predator species wouldn't die if they eat all other species to extinction
>>
>>64007227
Okay first off your right, humans aren't apex predators, we are unique in that we create our own habitats.

But on your last point, your really under estimating how easily biomes can bounce back. Most of the time when a apex predator dies out its only a matter of years before the biome stabilizes because another predator will take on that role.
The only time a biome will be completely devastated is if a keystone species goes extinct. Something that is small, reproduces quickly, and a lot of organisms subsist on.
Nature is surprisingly strong, to the point where this planet has gone through multiple extinction level events and life has remained.
>>
>>64014337
The area around Chernobyl is currently simultaneously a high radiation hellhole, but also free from human activity. Many species thrive there better than they do in the nearby areas that with normal radiation levels. Not because radiation is good for ecology, but because human activity is even worse.
>>
>>64006441
If you mean pulling the morality play bit where your players do what's normally expected of them (kill the dragon in battle to rescue captives and/or gain wealth), then you narrate a contrivance that retroactively made their choice the wrong one ("That dragon had cute babies! They're now orphans! Sad orphans! You monsters!"), then no, I don't pull that sort of bullshit. I try to lay down hints about anything that might affect the circumstances of a big event before they happen, and I judge neither the players nor their characters for their actions.
If you mean something else, explain it please.
If you're just fishing for bait, then congratulations. I consider myself caught.
>>
Bump
>>
>>64017391
why?
>>
>>64006441
No, in my setting Dragons are basically like Godzilla and one of them waking up is essentially a natural disaster.
>>
>>64006441
>You don't pull this kind of bullshit, right?
I never pull the "killing X is a bad thing" card. Killing is inherently good.
>>
File: 1539376763793.png (1.38 MB, 1280x717)
1.38 MB
1.38 MB PNG
>>64014642
>>64006441
>>
>>64011692
why not? having a fire breathing, spell casting creature of apex strength as a friend has few downsides.
>>
File: 1522300957277.gif (1.33 MB, 508x266)
1.33 MB
1.33 MB GIF
>>64011692
If I could form a long-term relationship with ANYTHING I would
>>
>>64014642
One version would it became back to life by taking over the body of the last person who killed it.
>>
>>64011692
>tfw you know even hypothetical dragon girls would shoot you down
>>
>>64014642
There's a scene really early on in Breath of Fire 3 where the protagonists have to go kill a monster that's killing all the cattle in the town.
It's hunting to feed its children, but they're already dead by the time you get there. The quest giver appears and the protags get mad at him. He responds "If you knew it had children, then could you leave it alive?"
That moment influenced how I do "kill this monster" quests in all of my games since.
>>
>>64007224
Define recent. Mankind was hunting large animals like mammoths in the paleolithic. It is likely that the species Homo Sapiens has always been a top predator, even if its ancestors were not.
>>
>>64020068
Pretty much. Is it sad her children will starve? Maybe, but if she was a serious threat to human life then nobody with sense can blame the humans for killing her.
>>
>>64022290
Once Homo Sapiens figured out "Make spear go farther" and "gravity kills", nearly every large animal died. The farther away from Africa they were, the more died (roughly).

Of course, dragons would always have been around humans in fantasy.
>>
>>64022642
Pretty much, but it might have predated Sapiens. People have this idea that Homo Sapiens themselves basically began as animals and developed tools later, but their direct ancestor, Homo Erectus, already used tools and there's debate about its ancestors either way. Sapiens evolved completely in the presence of, and with the usage of, tools.
>>
>>64006441
Anon, Chinese Dragons, among other things, control the rain. Offing one will either cause a massive drought, or in this case, a major flood.
You fucked us Paul. You fucked us but good.
>>
This is the fucking problem when you start to think of mythical beasts as biologically consistent. It's a fucking non-issue if you magic at the problem. A creature that large would need magic anyway to fly, let alone breath fucking fire.
>>
File: Inhale_on_Waddle_Dee.jpg (81 KB, 1024x732)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
>>64014195
There's a 3pp book for pathfinder with a class called Ungermaw that does that, it's basically Kirby.
>>
>>64022290
Homo Sapiens, sure, but earlier species of humans were probably not. Only Homo Sapiens can really work together in large groups.
>>
>>64022888
People usually mean Sapiens when they say human. Hell, the word 'human' is not by definition applied to other species of Homo, so it's up to personal judgement if they even count.
>>
>>64007186
Humans can kill anything but they don't do it nearly enough to take the place of animals that need to do it to survive and do so naturally.
That's why when populations get out of control from us killing natural predators or introducing animals without predators in an area they start destroying the ecosystem immediately.
To the point where we let people kill them freely pretty much however they want in unlimited numbers, even paying for proof of every kill when it gets bad enough.
>>
>>64023121
Humans also lack the natural controls of having their population decline from starvation if they are killing too many animals below them on the chain thanks to agriculture.
That's why even in pre-modern times hunting was controlled and restricted in many areas and poaching was a thing even in ancient times.
>>
>>64023232
In a lot of places that wasn't because 'you'd kill all the animals' but 'the deer are all royal property fuck you peasants mine reeeee'
>>
>>64023243
Who else would get the privilege of hunting when letting everyone do it would lead to nothing more to hunt?
>>
>>64023255
The point is that they were not using such logic. They were trying to flex their muscle and reserve the venison for themselves. Same as sumptury laws, it's about enforcing status. There were no laws restricting the hunting of lesser animals the king had no interest in, like rabbits.
>>
File: kangaroo-mob_h.jpg (262 KB, 1200x675)
262 KB
262 KB JPG
>>64006441
>>64007148
>>64014560

Remove apex predators such as dragons and you end up with overpopulation situations like with kangaroos and california seals.
>>
>>64014337
Modern nuke plants are failsafe designs. Without himan intervention the rods drop into isolated cooling tanks that halt fission.
>>
>>64023410
I can't wait until we have fusion. Since the most likely containment will remain magnetic, do you know what happens if the power goes off? The fusion outright stops. If there's any energy release, it'd be so weak it wouldn't even damage the equipment.

But yes fission plants of modern design are very safe, it really is a shame fearmongering kills nuclear power. Fuckin' Fukushima probably killed it until fusion.
>>
>>64023243
Seems like a pretty big oversimplification.
A big part of it was status and value of what was hunted, and Western Europe had highly ritualized hunts that were seeped heavily in displaying and developing status and skills.
Another part of that is if it was left unrestricted they would be hunted to near extinction, making it much harder for nobles to hunt them.
They might not have known or cared about the ecosystem the same way we do today, but they also did not want those animals to be driven out of existence and understood the possibility even if it was only their selfish reason of not wanting them to be harder and rarer to hunt.
>>
>>64023467

Don't let them fool you, hunting restrictions are still mostly about making sure the rich get to kill them.
>>
>>64022904
>personal judgement
Mine is that every member of the genus "Homo" is a human, given that it's literally Latin for "human"; even though the boundaries are admittedly in flux, I think we can agree that the likes of Homo Erectus and Homo Neanderthalensis (which is so close to Sapiens that it's been filed by many as the subspecies Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) classify as human according to this definition.

That aside, the fact that humans hunted and killed mammoths is not exactly grounds to believe that they were apes predators without proof that it was done regularly. It seems more likely to me that mammoths were killed or scavenged from occasionally and the normal diet was small animals, fruits and vegetables, but that was in 40000-15000 BCE or so -- in the Upper Paleolithic, and hardly close to the estimated beginning of the Paleolothic, some 3.3 million years ago.
>>
What if the dragon gave half its heart to the king of the land so now you can't kill one without killing the other?
>>
>>64023517
Neanderthals almost certainly hunted large game too, at least. It's really just Erectus that there can be major debate on. And Floresiensis I guess, who very likely didn't.
>>
>>64023530
Meh, if it was an evil dragon the heart probably would have ended up corrupting the king eventually anyways. Yeah sure, now that the king's dead you probably have to deal with a nasty succession war, but that's arguably better than an evil dragon that could exist for thousands of years and/or corrupt the country wholesale.
>>
>>64023566
>neanderthals
>the ones that are so close to sapiens they're often classified as a subspecies and their DNA lingers in asia
Otherwise, I agree with you.
I guess that ends this discussion, unless you have anything else to say.
>>
>>64023530
>>64023614
He's referring to a film you philistine
>>
>>64023632
Well, you're wrong in saying it lingers in Asia, mainly because it lingers in everyone outside of Sub-Saharan Africa, not just Asia. Europeans actually have a larger component, but that's just because Asians also crossbred with the mysterious Denosovians.
>>
>>64007616
Yes, but that isn't what's being fucking argued you absolute retard. Yes humans could if they so desired act as an apex predator anywhere on earth. They aren't thouhg and as a result should not be considered one in terms of ecology. Your argument is the equivalent of calling rhinos the apex Savannah predator just because they could if they so desired kill every other animal around.

"Apex predator" is not some dick measuring contest of "deadliest species". Your obvious insecurity causing HFY is fucking embarrassing.
>>
>>64011692
Would I have to care for it, feed it, find housing for it, and so on?
>>
>>64007390
Chinese dragons have already cause horrible damage to the Buddhist spirit population in Tibet and Indochina, stealing offerings and worship that those beings need sustain a healthy Samsara cycle.
>>
>>64011692
Yes, even if it couldn't shapeshift

especially if it couldn't shapeshift
>>
>>64021981
That was actually well done. It's not a punishment for the players, but instead an establishment of how fucked the world is and a well done emotional beat. If that was in a game I'd have no problems with the GM using it.
>>
>>64007161
>What the fuck are you talking
Classic tg getting unreasonably angry the moment someone says anything
>>
>>64023794
I don't think you're right. Traditional wisdom has been that Samsara cycles have always been independent of worship; it was taught that the identities of gods are more akin to positions which any soul can occupy. It's more likely that the dragons which previously existed adapted to a new niche in the more recent cycles by occupying deity positions and becoming familiars to foreign Boddhisatvas who were subsequently worshipped.
Then again, I could be wrong. Theological Ecology is not an easy science.
>>
>>64024312
They don't need prayer and more importantly offerings to enter the cycle in any cosmological sense. I'm talking about the local deities that require nourishment to live and thus contribute to the cycle. Having your local rain deity die from obscurity and be replaced by a foreign dragon is not going to do the local environment any favors, particularly if that dragon expects everyone to treat it like Chinese royalty.
>>
>>64014566
And most of the wildlife there is retarded, for example spiders in the area are unable to produce effective webs.
>>
>>64025601
Spider brain damage is a fun idea.
>>
>>64006441
Inflation is going to ruin the economy.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.