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

[Umbran]

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

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

Okay, so, we have two branches here, two meanings of, "unnatural". One meaning is about being dark, or morally wicked - "the cultists performed unnatural acts." The other is about not being part of the natural world, as a D&D druid might conceive of it.

In the sources adapted to Christianity, all things come from the Creator. The Creator made trees and grass, and angels. Demons are powers that are unnatural in the morally wicked sense. But angels and their powers? They are they are part of the world as the Creator made them - as natural as trees. If the creator made a wood sprite, are you going to gainsay them and say it is unnatural?

Humankind, with free will, can themselves create, and so some of our works may be unnatural in either of the above senses - not of the world as created, or wicked. There are a few suggested fae origins in here that are such that we could debate their position in the scheme of things. But that gets a bit theological, and thus a bit dicey for EN World. I will note that they were not cast into the Abyss, so there's a limit on how bad or outside the intended order they can be.

In sources not adapted to Christianity, the moral wickedness portion of this does not apply. In most of these traditions, the natural world quite normally has magic in it. To these traditions, the natural world exudes and generates magic. Anything of that magic is natural - the sylphs and nymphs of the glade and the wood are totally part of nature - they are nature spirits! Yes, there are magics in these traditions that are not of nature, but the fae are not generally associated with those powers.

Now, to bring this back around to D&D - to classify things as natural or unnatural will depend strongly on the metaphysic of your given world. I will note the Monster Manual says: "Fay are magical creatures tied closely to the forces of nature." I don't know of any official rules for cold iron - fay creatures in the MM are not listed as being vulnerable to it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, so, we have two branches here, two meanings of, "unnatural". One meaning is about being dark, or morally wicked - "the cultists performed unnatural acts." The other is about not being part of the natural world, as a D&D druid might conceive of it.

In the sources adapted to Christianity, all things come from the Creator. The Creator made trees and grass, and angels. Demons are powers that are unnatural in the morally wicked sense. But angels and their powers? They are they are part of the world as the Creator made them - as natural as trees. If the creator made a wood sprite, are you going to gainsay them and say it is unnatural?

Humankind, with free will, can themselves create, and so some of our works may be unnatural in either of the above senses - not of the world as created, or wicked. There are a few suggested fae origins in here that are such that we could debate their position in the scheme of things. But that gets a bit theological, and thus a bit dicey for EN World. I will note that they were not cast into the Abyss, so there's a limit on how bad or outside the intended order they can be.

I think this is wrong. You're trying to split unnatural into two meanings and only argue cases where one meaning applies. It's special pleading.

In this case, you're using 'unnatural' to mean 'not in the wishes of a supernatural being' with only mankind being allowed to choose to become 'unnatural' or against these wishes. This fails to explain the core of the Christian faith, though, where an angel turned against God and rebelled. All things that God made in the world are according to his wishes, sure, with mankind having free will, but free will is only important because of the existence of the Adversary -- ie, there's a choice. Prior to that choice being known, there was Eden. So, even under this conception of 'unnatural' there are clearly things outside of the world - angels and demons, if you will - that don't adhere to the concept you're providing. Point in fact, 'unnatural' acts are often encouraged by demons/devils to pull mortals from God's path.

Looking under the 'part of the natural world', the same problems occur -- demons, devils, and angels all where not created with the world, so any fairy that is really one of those in disguise is already supernatural in origin and therefore not natural.

Christian adaptations of local folklore don't cohere to your arguments that it's the fairies that are natural and worked iron that isn't.

In sources not adapted to Christianity, the moral wickedness portion of this does not apply. In most of these traditions, the natural world quite normally has magic in it. To these traditions, the natural world exudes and generates magic. Anything of that magic is natural - the sylphs and nymphs of the glade and the wood are totally part of nature - they are nature spirits! Yes, there are magics in these traditions that are not of nature, but the fae are not generally associated with those powers.

But, you still have to make the argument under these constructs that iron is unnatural. You have two parts to your argument. If you stand and declare that fairies are natural under some unspecified, non-Christian belief system, you still have work to do to get to iron being unnatural.

I'd also like a specific concept you're referencing, because I'm having trouble coming up with one that had both nature spirits are part of nature but also only vulnerable or extra vulnerable to iron -- most could be killed normally. The Greek and Roman myths had spirits that were definitely fearful of non-iron wielding mortals. The mythology you pull from here has to have both natural-world spirits AND vulnerability to iron to address my questions.

Now, to bring this back around to D&D - to classify things as natural or unnatural will depend strongly on the metaphysic of your given world. I will note the Monster Manual says: "Fay are magical creatures tied closely to the forces of nature." I don't know of any official rules for cold iron - fay creatures in the MM are not listed as being vulnerable to it.

Yes, the question wasn't that I didn't get how a completely made-up, modern mythology could be whatever the author desired, but your's and Max's agreement that iron hurts faeries in myth because iron is unnatural.

 

[Shasarak]

Yes, the question wasn't that I didn't get how a completely made-up, modern mythology could be whatever the author desired, but your's and Max's agreement that iron hurts faeries in myth because iron is unnatural.

I always imagined that Faeries were vunerable to Iron in the same way that everything is vunerable to being hit with an Iron sword. ie Very.

 

[gatorized]

Was very obviously answered by my question. Person 1:"Hey Mike! You wanna go to Vegas with us?" Mike:"Did Mike Tyson hit like a ton of bricks?"

Humans are naturally occurring. Nature provided them, unless you are arguing creationism.

Dunno. I didn't say that. What I said is that some acts are natural and some, probably most, are not.

What makes an act natural or unnatural, and why?

As I said, the end result is the determining factor. Yes ant construct the dirt hill, but dirt hills are as common as, well, dirt. Beehives, not so much. What bees construct are not found nature. Sure, you can find hex shapes in nature, but not made out of wax and built into a home. That's also the reason that reproduction is a completely natural act, but building a house/hive is not.

From this, it seems like the assertion is that an act is unnatural if it results in something that is rare, or if the act is rare. Is this a correct interpretation? If so, why does rarity make a thing unnatural?

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.

If human beings are natural, why aren't the things they do natural? If human beings aren't natural, why aren't they natural?

 

[Maxperson]

What makes an act natural or unnatural, and why?

I already answered this upthread.

From this, it seems like the assertion is that an act is unnatural if it results in something that is rare, or if the act is rare. Is this a correct interpretation? If so, why does rarity make a thing unnatural?

I made no assertion of rarity at all. Either something occurs in nature, or it doesn't. It's a true dichotomy. Cars do no occur in nature. Cats do.

If human beings are natural, why aren't the things they do natural? If human beings aren't natural, why aren't they natural?

Some things they do are natural. Some things are not. The reasons I explained upthread and am not going to repeat.

 

[gatorized]

I made no assertion of rarity at all.

"Yes ant construct the dirt hill, but dirt hills are as common as, well, dirt. Beehives, not so much."

So you assert that dirt hills are common and beehives are rare. In what way is this related to them being natural or not?

Some things they do are natural. Some things are not. The reasons I explained upthread and am not going to repeat.

"Natural because it occurs in nature" is a circular argument that communicates nothing: A thing is natural if it is natural. Your reasons are insufficient, arbitrary, and explain nothing. You have not established what makes an object natural, nor why some processes are natural and others are not.

Either something occurs in nature, or it doesn't.

Everything occurs in nature. Nothing (that humans can observe, anyway) can possibly take place outside of it.

 

[Maxperson]

"Yes ant construct the dirt hill, but dirt hills are as common as, well, dirt. Beehives, not so much."

So you assert that dirt hills are common and beehives are rare. In what way is this related to them being natural or not?"

You do know what context is, right? When discussing whether things are natural or not, saying one is common as dirt and the other not so much is saying that one is natural and the other is not is in the context of natural vs. unnatural, not rarity. We're back to that dichotomy, though as happened later in this discussion I acknowledged that hives are a part of nature. That's why I'm back to cars as the example of something unnatural.

"Natural because it occurs in nature" is a circular argument that communicates nothing: A thing is natural if it is natural. Your reasons are insufficient, arbitrary, and explain nothing. You have not established what makes an object natural, nor why some processes are natural and others are not.

It's not circular. It's a thing is natural if it occurs in nature. That, despite your assertion there, does not equate to a thing is natural if it's natural. A car for example, does not occur in nature. Ever. It must be constructed by mankind through a large number of unnatural(does not occur in nature) processes.

Everything occurs in nature. Nothing (that humans can observe, anyway) can possibly take place outside of it.

No. Everything occurs in the universe. That's different than occurring in nature.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You do know what context is, right? When discussing whether things are natural or not, saying one is common as dirt and the other not so much is saying that one is natural and the other is not is in the context of natural vs. unnatural, not rarity. We're back to that dichotomy, though as happened later in this discussion I acknowledged that hives are a part of nature. That's why I'm back to cars as the example of something unnatural.



It's not circular. It's a thing is natural if it occurs in nature. That, despite your assertion there, does not equate to a thing is natural if it's natural. A car for example, does not occur in nature. Ever. It must be constructed by mankind through a large number of unnatural(does not occur in nature) processes.


No. Everything occurs in the universe. That's different than occurring in nature.

Okay, how are you defining nature, and how does it differ from the universe?

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, how are you defining nature, and how does it differ from the universe?

If it has to be artificially created, like a car, it's not natural, even though it exists within the universe. A plastic bottle is another good example. You won't be finding those occurring naturally.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If it has to be artificially created, like a car, it's not natural, even though it exists within the universe. A plastic bottle is another good example. You won't be finding those occurring naturally.

You're just using words and not defining what you mean. Artificial here appears to mean not natural, which you have as meaning occurs in nature, but you haven't defined nature in any useful way. Please define nature.