WTF is "cold iron", and why's it so special?

[Umbran]

Beehives, not so much. What bees construct are not found nature.

Yeah, so we agree on the end point, but the reasoning? No so much.

Because, try this: you say reproduction is a perfectly natural act. For bees, the beehive is a required part of that perfectly natural act. Bees cannot reproduce without the hive.

So, either bee reproduction is not really natural, or the hive is. Take your pick.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, so we agree on the end point, but the reasoning? No so much.

Because, try this: you say reproduction is a perfectly natural act. For bees, the beehive is a required part of that perfectly natural act. Bees cannot reproduce without the hive.

So, either bee reproduction is not really natural, or the hive is. Take your pick.

Okay. So maybe the hive is a bad example. A car isn't required for any sort of natural process and doesn't come from any sort of natural process. The same goes for houses and many other acts that humans engage in.

 

[Umbran]

Okay. So maybe the hive is a bad example. A car isn't required for any sort of natural process and doesn't come from any sort of natural process. The same goes for houses and many other acts that humans engage in.

Yah. And, to bring it back around to the OP, that's kind of the distinction made for iron. There is a point somewhere between bees and humans where we are doing things that are not clear results of natural processes. If you have a seed, and plant it in the right place, you get a tree. If you have a queen bee, and put her in an appropriate place, you will get a beehive. If you put a person down... you probably *won't* get smelted iron. If you put an entire village down, you still probably won't get smelted iron.

 

[pemerton]

In case anyone wants to merge this mighty discussion of science in D&D and fantasy with another recent one: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?649157-A-discussion-of-metagame-concepts-in-game-design/ - it starts around post 450.

 

[CapnZapp]

In case anyone wants to merge this mighty discussion of science in D&D and fantasy with another recent one: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?649157-A-discussion-of-metagame-concepts-in-game-design/ - it starts around post 450.

No thanks

 

[Umbran]

In case anyone wants to merge this mighty discussion of science in D&D and fantasy with another recent one:... it starts around post 450.

And goes on for another 500 pages. Not a morass to step into.

Plus, your discussion of "what is magic" seems much more about game design - what can a character do before we consider it "magic". We are talking a bit more about myth and metaphor here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It appears to me that there's a consesus forming around cold iron being an unnatural creation and that's why it harms fae. Isn't this a bit backwards, myth-speaking? The lore is that the fae themselves were unnatural. It's only recent myth that fae are part of the natural world. Iron was used because it was the hardest, densest natural element known to man abd therefore the condensation of the natural world, anathema to the unnatural fae and other monsters.

As an aside, for the decision that technology isn't part of the natural world you need a definer of the natural. What's being used? It appears to be "made by man," which is a fraught distinction as it removes man from the natural. Or, is it some suoernatural definer that is a concept of natural that's perverted by man's delving into unnatural knowledge? Either way, there diesn't seem to be a useful demarcation that isn't based on modern philosophy or supernatural belief.

 

[Umbran]

The lore is that the fae themselves were unnatural.

There is no one "the lore" on this subject. Five minutes with Google game me no fewer than a dozen different origins for fae folks and faeries. Only a couple of which would place them as "unnatural". Generally they are no more unnatural than any other being with magical powers.

Some sources say they are demons. Others say they are angels placed to mediate natural processes. Others place them as former angels, not relegated to Hell, but not allowed in Heaven either - and there are multiple versions of this theme. Some say they are children of Lilith, children of Eve, children of Nephilim - and these are just the variations connected with Christianity. Earlier mythological traditions have other origins, sometimes tying their origin to creation to various members of the pantheons, and other just saying "they just are".

 

[Ovinomancer]

There is no one "the lore" on this subject. Five minutes with Google game me no fewer than a dozen different origins for fae folks and faeries. Only a couple of which would place them as "unnatural". Generally they are no more unnatural than any other being with magical powers.

Emphasis added. I'm really not sure what to do with this argument.

Some sources say they are demons. Others say they are angels placed to mediate natural processes. Others place them as former angels, not relegated to Hell, but not allowed in Heaven either - and there are multiple versions of this theme. Some say they are children of Lilith, children of Eve, children of Nephilim - and these are just the variations connected with Christianity. Earlier mythological traditions have other origins, sometimes tying their origin to creation to various members of the pantheons, and other just saying "they just are".

All those seem unnatural to me. Demons, angels, kids of angels... where are you going here?

 

[Maxperson]

I was out buying my wife a new pan and I discovered that cold forging still exists.