MM II Identity Parade

Evolutionary theory would suggest that a species that is inherently nice and compassionate to other species won't make it very far. So if you want you can say that gold dragons evolved to a better adapted species in 4th edition.
This is one of those few cases where I think it's more appropriate to talk about Intelligent Design.

Cheers, -- N
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Besides, why must every creature think and behave like a human? (Unless the creature is completely evil and can be killed on sight. Thats also perfectly acceptable. But having something inherently nice and compassionate? Thats a big no).

I am not opposed to such a species, but that doesn't sound like a hoard-amassing metallic Dragon.
 

Evolutionary theory would suggest that a species that is inherently nice and compassionate to other species won't make it very far. So if you want you can say that gold dragons evolved to a better adapted species in 4th edition.
2cdzllz.jpg


EVOLUTIONARY THEORY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
 

This may actually be one of the few cases where the two concepts are not contradictory ;)

Why would someone's mistatement of one theory be expected to conflict with another?

In any case, unaligned gold dragons were unable to adapt to the conditions in my campaign world and so they have gone extinct. Had they been good-aligned, their altruism would have been recognized by another species (the DM) and that behavior would have helped them adapt to the new environment.
 


Said the domestic dog to the gray wolf.

You show me a domesticated animal that is altruistic (ie gives up resources without receiving more resources in return). Especially modern dogs are pretty close to a parasitic species by most standards. And I love them for it.
 

You show me a domesticated animal that is altruistic (ie gives up resources without receiving more resources in return). Especially modern dogs are pretty close to a parasitic species by most standards. And I love them for it.

Its not the dog who breaks the theory, but the human who domesticated it.
 
Last edited:


Ints not the dog who breaks the theory, but the human who domesticated it.

It doesn't, because the costs are not symmetric. What we provide for the dog costs us a trifle, but is of enormous benefit for the dog. Hence the dog only needs to be of minuscule benefit to us to break even.

Also, every species will develop detrimental traits if they come together with more advantageous traits (creating a positive net sum). Humans are a prime example of that. Multiple traits negative traits on our bodies were swept along with the development of Intelligence. However in the long run, those negative traits will decouple from the positive traits and disappear.

For more reading I would recommend "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top