Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ozmar" data-source="post: 2520687" data-attributes="member: 8021">Boromar speaks aside to the druid...[sblock]The warforged considers this. "Yes, we have discussed this before, but while this one understands your logic, it remains unconvinced that there is no value in utilizing the common understanding of the term 'natural'. For to be sure, you can, as you have done, make a very strong case that the 'natural' world encompasses all that exists, and that it is therefore meaningless to distinguish between 'natural' and 'unnatural' actors. Yet the more common understanding of this term indicates that people (generally) do find the distinction to be useful.""This one has been thinking on this for some time, and it wonders whether you see any value in distinguishing between the following various 'levels' of actors: At the lowest level, there are inanimate forces such as wind, rocks, and water. One level up, perhaps, there are plants and more-or-less stationary living actors. The next level would be non-sentient creatures such as animals (although from what this one understands, some druids would object to any distinction between animals and the higher humanoids, but let us stipulate a difference for the sake of following this line of reasoning). The next level would be intelligent humanoids such as yourself. The next level would be magic. For magical forces are quite beyond the capabilities of the common animals. Only intelligent beings have mastered them, and then only imperfectly. Please note that this one does not insist that any of these levels of actors are 'unnatural'.""This one's question is, is there some quality that is present in various levels in each of these actors? Certainly plants are 'above' rocks, as plants live and grow and reproduce, and rocks do not do these things. Similarly, animals are 'above' plants, as they can move and speak and seem to be more aware of their environment. (This one concedes that these generalizations are not absolute.)""The common understanding or utility of 'unnatural' would have that certain uses of magic such as the creation of undead beings, or perhaps all magic, as well as certain technological developments, such as the creation of warforged, are beyond the realm of 'nature' in that they are only created by this last category of actors. This one understands that you deny that there is a meaningful distinction, but this one maintains that your denials seem to be outside the common understanding of this term, and this one wonders whether you see a meaningful distinction here and would like to propose another term for this distinction?""You say that warforged and undead are not 'unnatural' by your formulation of that term, yet many people say that they are 'unnatural'. This one suspects that you are using the term differently than many others. Perhaps you would like to use an alternate term to describe warforged and undead?"[/sblock]</blockquote>

Verification