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



## Runesong42

I realize this is probably answered in a pdf somewhere, but I thought I'd ask the pros in-house.

I recall seeing some creatures in the old D&D game having a weakness to "cold iron".  Other than iron that is cold, what makes it stand out?  Is it because weapons are normally made of steel?  Or is there some sort of folklorish explanation?


----------



## Frostmarrow

It's folklore. Britons used to believe fairies had a weakness against cold iron.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

In some versions of the folklore, cold iron means "cold-forged iron", and I seem to recall this means iron which isn't heated very much before it's shaped.


----------



## glass

In D&D terms, cold iron is iron which has been forged using special low temperature techniques, which supposedly makes the iron more 'natural' than normal iron or steel. Hence it's anti-fey and demon properties.

The term 'cold iron' comes from a poem (by Kipling IIRC). It didn't really mean anything other than iron, the word cold was just inserted to make the line scan AIUI.


glass.


----------



## Starglim

It's iron that was found in a pure state (either meteoric iron or an especially rich ore) and hammered into shape without being smelted.

In folklore "cold iron" means the same as "iron". Faeries and their magic are vulnerable to any iron weapon. That would make the game less interesting up until the widespread use of guns.


----------



## S'mon

glass said:
			
		

> In D&D terms, cold iron is iron which has been forged using special low temperature techniques, which supposedly makes the iron more 'natural' than normal iron or steel. Hence it's anti-fey and demon properties.




Which is the opposite of the folkloric origin - iron tools being 'unnatural' and therefore inimical to the fairies.

Personally IMC cold iron = iron (or steel).  So a regular sword works fine against most demons.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Metallurgy in D&D is borked, be very careful of it.  There was a thread about bronze weapons which contains useful input on this, but I couldn't find it with a cursory look through.

The idea of cold-wrought iron is just nonsense and putting it in your game is opening yourself up to a world of hurt if you have a player who asks awkward questions...  Explaining how the iron got out of the rock without being smelted is an exercise in creativity that I just don't need, and meteorites don't help at all, unless you decide that your game world has lumps of metal falling from the sky without getting heated up in the process.

If it's iron, it's been hot at some point.  "Cold iron" just means that it's cold _now_.  If you want to make cold-wrought iron special and different without making a really horrible mess of the metallurgy, it's best to decide that you're talking about cold iron but not cold steel.  (The cold iron's presumably been magically treated by some wizard to stop it sundering every time it gets hit by a properly-forged weapon).


----------



## cmanos

cold iron is not iron that was not smelted out of the ore... a cold iron weapon is one that is forged at a lower tempoerature.  it is still forged in a hot forge, but at a lower temperature.  Steel weapons are hot forged and thus would not be useable against demons and faerie.


----------



## Kylearan

srd said:
			
		

> *Iron, Cold:* This iron, mined deep underground, known for its effectiveness against fey creatures, is forged at a lower temperature to preserve its delicate properties.




Hope this helps.

Kylearan


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Medieval smelting techniques don't produce iron, they produce high-carbon steel (because the iron ore is smelted in charcoal which obviously impregnates the resulting alloy with carbon).  Unfortunately this means that it is fallacious to say that iron is forged at a lower temperature than steel.


----------



## Shazman

Cold iron in 3.5 isn't the same as iron or steel.  It's a unique metal found deep underground that is naturally resistant to magic.  Just check out the special materials section in the DMG.


----------



## alleynbard

<quote>Unfortunately this means that it is fallacious to say that iron is forged at a lower temperature than steel.</quote>

And its fallacious to say that is exactly what is being stated. What is being said is, in D&D (which remarkably is nothing like our own medieval period) cold iron is a type of iron forged and shaped at a lower temperature. Whether magic is involved or if this involves alternate smelting techniques is entirely up the DM.  Overthinking the subject is pointless and not the thrust of this discussion.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

*shrug*

Just trying to offer a view of the subject that deals with the awkward questions.    You're the DM, you can have special metal dug out of the deep earth, smelted via an unspecified magical technique and then forged at special low temperatures if you find it preferable; I'm merely pointing out an answer that feels more elegant to me.


----------



## dravot

My favorite fact about iron, as learned in astronomy class in college, back in the day: the atomic fusion process starts with 2 hydrogen atoms fusing into helium, and continues upward through the elemental table until you get to iron.  The atomic fission process starts with uranium and move downward, splitting off atoms...until you get to iron.

And iron is anathema to fey.  Freaky.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

It's important on this subject to differentiate between "real life" and "D&D."

As others have said, in real life, cold iron is merely iron.  



> Medieval smelting techniques don't produce iron, they produce high-carbon steel (because the iron ore is smelted in charcoal which obviously impregnates the resulting alloy with carbon).




Not sure where that comes from - that is how medieval smelting techniques prouce steel, but it certainly doesn't preclude the production of iron.  The way it happens is that the longer you work the iron, the more carbon gets introduced until you get steel.

Here  is a great link on the subject.

In D&D, Cold Iron is a specific form of metal, with a different method of forging.  My personal feeling is that this explanation makes little or no sense.  Iron melts when iron melts.  

In my game, Cold Iron is iron taken from meteoric iron - hence nearly pure, then smelted into form.  This was not unheard of in ancient days  - Tutenkhamen had an iron dagger in his tomb, and it was probably made from meteoric iron, and hence one of the most valuable items in the hoard.  I prefer this solution to the standard ruling.

Why not just have it be regular iron?  Because, as Piratecat said to me when I broached the subject a couple of years ago while designing my campaign world and looking for advice, "It's more fun that way."  Making strange weapons out of strange stuff is cool, and that's enough reason.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

BTW, using my theory of cold iron (meteoric iron) the explanation I would give for why it works better against Fey would be its magical (metal from the gods!) and natural (doesn't need to be seperated from other metals!) connections cause it to be more dangerous - rather than being utterly anti-fey, it's dangerous because of its similarities, like kryptonite to Superman.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Not sure where that comes from - that is how medieval smelting techniques prouce steel, but it certainly doesn't preclude the production of iron. The way it happens is that the longer you work the iron, the more carbon gets introduced until you get steel.




*grins*

It's more complex than this, but I'm disinclined to argue metallurgy any further for fear of getting lynched.


----------



## billd91

The way I play it, cold iron is pretty much plain iron and not steel (negligible carbon content and no other explicit alloying other than remnant impurities). It's not as durable as steel and thus not as useful for general purposes, but relatively quick and easy to make on special order because it takes less time and heat than steel.

Of course, that's as far as specific materials rules go. People still use the term 'cold iron' colloquially to refer to just about any old blade. But then, most people in the campaign are ignorant of the specifics of the blacksmith trade...


----------



## Tinner

I've played a LOT of Changeling: the Dreaming, where Cold Iron also is a fae's worst nightmare. AFAIK "Cold Iron" = Cast Iron.
It's not so much how the metal is smelted as how it is cast.
Cast Iron is melted, then poured into a mold, then shaped further from there. Cold Iron weapons are softer, and more brittle than steel weapons, or "worked" iron weapons that are hammered into shape.
The cold/cast iron is more "natural" than the worked iron that has been beaten into shape by man's hands.
YMMV.


----------



## frankthedm

Tinner said:
			
		

> I've played a LOT of Changeling: the Dreaming, where Cold Iron also is a fae's worst nightmare. AFAIK "Cold Iron" = Cast Iron.
> It's not so much how the metal is smelted as how it is cast.
> Cast Iron is melted, then poured into a mold, then shaped further from there. Cold Iron weapons are softer, and more brittle than steel weapons, or "worked" iron weapons that are hammered into shape.
> The cold/cast iron is more "natural" than the worked iron that has been beaten into shape by man's hands.
> YMMV.




Yeah, thats the one i use. 

I like the idea of a character splating a pixie with a frying pan. Ranks up there with giving a lycantrope a silver goblet suppository.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> *grins*
> 
> It's more complex than this, but I'm disinclined to argue metallurgy any further for fear of getting lynched.




Yeah - the thing I didn't include is "up to a point."  But the link I provided does give a pretty good idea of the basics of medieval iron/steel smelting.


----------



## Jdvn1

Runesong42 said:
			
		

> Other than iron that is cold, what makes it stand out?



Heh.  It's not actually cold.  Funny, though.


----------



## RSKennan

glass said:
			
		

> In D&D terms, cold iron is iron which has been forged using special low temperature techniques, which supposedly makes the iron more 'natural' than normal iron or steel. Hence it's anti-fey and demon properties.
> 
> 
> glass.




This is my understanding as well. D&D canon says fey are somehow 'especially natural', but all of the early source research I've done portrays them as otherworldly. Using earlier sources, it makes perfect sense that cold iron would harm fey. 

What's more natural than the mineral at the heart of the earth?

Edit: I've changed "original source" to early source, as the original sources for fey folklore were storytellers, and the coming of christianity altered many of the stories.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

I just wanted to say "fallacious" on this thread. That's a fun word.


----------



## Kelleris

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I just wanted to say "fallacious" on this thread. That's a fun word.




Yes, but I prefer "specious" myself.

And I like the "cast, not forged" idea.  I'm one of those people that finds the image of improvising silver weapons by melting down your (high-quality) coinage to be nifty-keen.


----------



## SidusLupus

What's wrong with just renaming it since the hang up is the name and not the substance?

Take a page from Tad Williams and call it black iron or something. That sounds cooler anyways imo.

Cold Black Iron!

or something.


----------



## Farganger

Shazman said:
			
		

> Cold iron in 3.5 isn't the same as iron or steel.  It's a unique metal found deep underground that is naturally resistant to magic.  Just check out the special materials section in the DMG.




My thought as well.  

Since the SRD also defines "cold iron" as a special type of iron, I don't see its existence as more puzzling (or worthy of complicated explanation) than that of mithral or adamantine.

Interesting discussion though.  The folklore angle is the one I've always played up . . . it would be nice to know the primary source for that.


----------



## moritheil

Farganger said:
			
		

> My thought as well.
> 
> Since the SRD also defines "cold iron" as a special type of iron, I don't see its existence as more puzzling (or worthy of complicated explanation) than that of mithral or adamantine.
> 
> Interesting discussion though. The folklore angle is the one I've always played up . . . it would be nice to know the primary source for that.




I've attempted to broaden the discussion here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=130631


----------



## Cedric

Historically, 'cold iron' is a shortening of 'cold wrought iron'. Wrought iron is usually a very low carbon content steel that is worked with a hammer while white hot and shaped with the hammer into the desired form.

However, you can work it with a hammer while it is merely warm enough for the iron to begin to flow. 

It's technically a form of steel, however, the carbon content is so low (< 3%) that you may as well just call it iron. It has enough carbon to change the manner in which it rusts. Instead of rust eating pits in the iron, it usually forms a reddish/brown coating of mottled colors on the surface that are often used in art because they are attractive and give an aged look to an item. 

True "cold wrought iron" ...while once prevalent, is now only made by specific artists and blacksmiths. It was made by poor smiths in years past because they lacked the resources necessary to make, purchase or pay for time at a forge. Having to work at cooler temperatures required patience and a great deal of strength (a good hammer helped too). 

This became known as Cold Wrought Iron...

There are many theories why creatures of Faerie origin (or sometimes demonic depending on text) are susceptible to Cold Wrought Iron. 

This goes WAY back in history and is right up there with Silver for werewolves, running water for vampires and the like. 

My own theory as to why Cold Wrought Iron was thought to harm the Fae is that making something useful and difficult like a sword out of cold iron is a long, laborious, extremely difficult process that requires a very skilled smith. Anything that hard is likely to take on an element of mysiticism to it, as the general populous feel that if its so far beyond their ability, it must be magical. 

Hence...Cold Wrought Iron became thought of as magical iron...and since the process was so unnatural, creatures that are so uniquely tied to nature as the Fae would be harmed by it. 

Demons were added much, much later, largely based on the term 'cold'...cause if its cold, demons must not like it, right?

Cedric


----------



## mythusmage

We do have our share of misunderstandings and misapprehensions here.  From my reading ...

Allotropic (pure) iron is soft and weak, compared to most alloys. It is the hardest and strongest of the pure metals. 

Wrought iron is what you get when you smelt iron ore. Also known as pig iron. It's the raw material for cast iron and steel.

Steel is either wrought iron heated in charcoal, or the modern alloy made by adding carbon to molten iron. The modern stuff is much better. Though it should be noted that true steel needs manganese as a catalyst for proper alloying. However, too much manganese turns the steel brittle. Something the Italians ran into during World War II (Italian armor plate would crack when hit by an anti-tank shell).

Cast iron is made by adding carbon and silicon to molten iron, and then casting it. Cooled fast it becomes black iron, cooled slowly white iron. Gray iron is cast iron that cooled at a normal rate.

Note that metal can be smelted without melting it. All you need to do is heat it until it becomes plastic. At which time material with a different melting point will separate out. But not entirely, which is how you get slag. Cast metals are stronger than wrought metals by and large, while die cast metals are stronger yet. However, die casting involves very high pressure and very small lots. For examples of die cast metal check the change in your pocket.

The whole 'cold iron' thing? It's what you get when a clueless academic tries shrouding his tush. It's of a type as the idea Chuchulain's gaer bolg (foot spear) was some sort of spiky soccer ball. It's iron that burns the fey; gives them an incentive to learn well the arts of war. (He can't hit you, he can't hurt you.)


----------



## Brother MacLaren

I'd guess that the point of Kipling using the phrase "Cold Iron" was to contrast it with the hot lead bullets.  And I'd further guess that he meant "iron" to refer to steel, because that's what soldiers used in his day.

Giving things DR 10/iron has some interesting effects.  Sure, PCs can usually hurt them directly, but the druid's damage output takes a hit (both the summons and the wildshape).  Not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

GOLD is for the mistress—silver for the maid—
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade.”
“Good!” said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
“But Iron—Cold Iron—is master of them all.”

So he made rebellion ’gainst the King his liege,
Camped before his citadel and summoned it to siege.
“Nay!” said the cannoneer on the castle wall,
“But Iron—Cold Iron—shall be master of you all!”

Woe for the Baron and his knights so strong,
When the cruel cannon-balls laid ’em all along;
He was taken prisoner, he was cast in thrall,
And Iron—Cold Iron—was master of it all!

Yet his King spake kindly (ah, how kind a Lord!)
“What if I release thee now and give thee back thy sword?”
“Nay!” said the Baron, “mock not at my fall,
For Iron—Cold Iron—is master of men all.”

“Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown—
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown.”
“As my loss is grievous, so my hope is small,
For Iron—Cold Iron—must be master of men all!”

Yet his King made answer (few such Kings there be!)
“Here is Bread and here is Wine—sit and sup with me.
Eat and drink in Mary’s Name, the whiles I do recall
How Iron—Cold Iron—can be master of men all!”

He took the Wine and blessed it. He blessed and brake the Bread,
With His own Hands He served Them, and presently He Said:
“See! These Hands they pierced with nails, outside My city wall,
Show Iron—Cold Iron—to be master of men all:

“Wounds are for the desperate, blows are for the strong.
Balm and oil for weary hearts all cut and bruised with wrong.
I forgive thy treason—I redeem thy fall—
For Iron—Cold Iron—must be master of men all!”

“Crowns are for the valiant—sceptres for the bold!
Thrones and powers for mighty men who dare to take and hold.”
“Nay!” said the Baron, kneeling in his hall,
“But Iron—Cold Iron—is master of men all!
Iron out of Calvary is master of men all!” 

The Auld Grump, who has used this poem in a Victorian Changeling: the Dreaming game

*EDIT* Forgot to mention - the poem is Cold Iron, by Rudyard Kipling.


----------



## glass

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> It's important on this subject to differentiate between "real life" and "D&D."



True.


> Not sure where that comes from - that is how medieval smelting techniques prouce steel, but it certainly doesn't preclude the production of iron.  The way it happens is that the longer you work the iron, the more carbon gets introduced until you get steel.




Not only is this wrong, but it not what the nice link you supplied actually says:



> Here  is a great link on the subject.






			
				The Age of Iron said:
			
		

> At more than 2% carbon, iron alloys change in a completely unexpected way: they melt at lower temperatures than pure iron. So the first iron alloy to be used for pouring out into molds was a high-carbon alloy. It became known as cast iron or pig iron (from the traditional shape of the molds). Cast iron is very strong, but brittle. This traditional terminology is confusing ("cast iron" has more carbon than "steel"), and the products are not now (and never were) manufactured in sequence of increasing or decreasing carbon. I shall return to cast iron later in the chapter.




glass.


----------



## S'mon

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Giving things DR 10/iron has some interesting effects.  Sure, PCs can usually hurt them directly, but the druid's damage output takes a hit (both the summons and the wildshape).  Not necessarily a bad thing.




Yeah, druids aren't exactly underpowered in 3e.  I like this approach, for one thing it goes against WoTC Environmentalist orthodoxy, which can't be bad.


----------



## glass

billd91 said:
			
		

> The way I play it, cold iron is pretty much plain iron and not steel (negligible carbon content and no other explicit alloying other than remnant impurities).




Unless someone in your campaign (the dwarves maybe) has invented the blast furnace, that description applies to steel just as much as iron.


glass.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Thanks Glass, I didn't personally feel able to get into that.  I stand by my first statement:  Metallurgy in D&D is borked, and therefore needs to be treated with enormous caution if you have any players with a clue about the subject.


----------



## Wild Gazebo

I always make my cold iron fall from the sky.  It gives it that special zesty flavour that fiends detest.


----------



## Stone Dog

To add some information to the fire, Castle Falkenstein has a fun take on this.

Faeries are basically energy beings in the end.  Iron disrupts their energy patterns.  They don't like ANY of it, not steel or any other form, but what they REALLY hate is Star Iron.  Meteoric Iron.  Yes, the Iron from Space.  It is, swear to god, just like kryptonite.  You get any amount within a yard or so of them and they get a splitting headache.  About half a pound of it and it starts actually damaging them from about the same distance.  Usually faeries that are slain come back after a while when they have had the chance to reform, but if they are slain by Star Iron they are dead forever.

Thought it might be fun to consider.


----------



## glass

glass said:
			
		

> billd91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way I play it, cold iron is pretty much plain iron and not steel (negligible carbon content and no other explicit alloying other than remnant impurities).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless someone in your campaign (the dwarves maybe) has invented the blast furnace, that description applies to steel just as much as iron.
Click to expand...



Actually, thinking about it, maybe someone has invented the blast furnace. Certainly, D&D steel seems to be very good (swords don't break even when striking strength 40 blows againts iron golems).

Thus steel in the campaign would be (more or less) modern steel, and 'iron' could include the whole gamut of lower tech irons & steels.

Interesting thought.


glass.


----------



## glass

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> To add some information to the fire, Castle Falkenstein has a fun take on this.
> 
> Faeries are basically energy beings in the end.  Iron disrupts their energy patterns.  They don't like ANY of it, not steel or any other form, but what they REALLY hate is Star Iron.  Meteoric Iron.  Yes, the Iron from Space.  It is, swear to god, just like kryptonite.  You get any amount within a yard or so of them and they get a splitting headache.  About half a pound of it and it starts actually damaging them from about the same distance.  Usually faeries that are slain come back after a while when they have had the chance to reform, but if they are slain by Star Iron they are dead forever.




In considering regigging DR and materials, one of the ideas I had was making fey sensitive to or poisoned by iron, rather than having it simply penetrate DR.


glass.


----------



## MonsterMash

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Thanks Glass, I didn't personally feel able to get into that.  I stand by my first statement:  Metallurgy in D&D is borked, and therefore needs to be treated with enormous caution if you have any players with a clue about the subject.



Pretty much like the economics of D&D and many other areas.


----------



## MonsterMash

I think the origin of the story is where the Celts (who were iron users) displaced the earlier peoples in the British Isles into the forests and mountains or other fringes of the country, by virtue of their iron weapons and lives on in the horseshoe over the door for luck.


----------



## WayneLigon

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> Thanks Glass, I didn't personally feel able to get into that. I stand by my first statement: Metallurgy in D&D is borked, and therefore needs to be treated with enormous caution if you have any players with a clue about the subject.




No, it doesn't. Players that play armchair metalurgist/sword expert/combat expert/whatever expert to the detriment of the game need to be taken out back and whipped with a barbed-wire-wrapped bike chain until their ears bleed.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

glass said:
			
		

> Not only is this wrong, but it not what the nice link you supplied actually says: (snip)




Yeah, you'll notice I pointed that extra bit out myself later in the thread because I realized it was giving the wrong impression.

Re: Blast Furnaces - In my games dwarves do have blast furnace technology; it's one of the key foundations of their technical superiority.


----------



## ssampier

SidusLupus said:
			
		

> What's wrong with just renaming it since the hang up is the name and not the substance?
> 
> Take a page from Tad Williams and call it black iron or something. That sounds cooler anyways imo.
> 
> Cold Black Iron!
> 
> or something.




That works, but I like the saying of Cold Black Steel* myself

*"taste my cold, black steel"*

*ignore the fact that black steel may not be scientifically possible. I suppose you don't have dragons, orcs, fey, or magic in your game either?


----------



## Rick Oneil

http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/custom-manufacturing-fabricating/hot-forging-cold-forging

more technical then gaming, but the main point here is the recrystallization point.  so if you have a large chunk of natural iron you could hammer it into a sword or spear point or dagger.  Most iron on Earth come in small pebble sized pieces.  it would take alot of work to hammer them together [basically impossible].  However meteors which are mostly iron and have had the outer impurities burnt off in entering the atmosphere would probably have big enough pieces for a couple of daggers and maybe even a short or long sword.  Remember this is I believe how Excalibur [the Singing Sword] was supposedly made.  Has for being good against fey and demons, well it comes from Heaven so it slays demons and its not natural to Earth so it keeps the l'il people honest.  Also this makes such weapons extremely rare and worth fighting wars over.  And a blacksmith would need a MU of some high level to help with the process.  Very expensive.


----------



## snickersnax

I think of cold iron like a cold chisel.  The cold part refers to the cold iron tool/weapon being able to work or cut other metal that is cold because it is so strong and tough.  This effectively gives cold iron the opposite meaning of cold-forged iron.  Instead it refers to heat treated and tempered steel, making it hard and tough.


----------



## Quickleaf

dravot said:


> My favorite fact about iron, as learned in astronomy class in college, back in the day: the atomic fusion process starts with 2 hydrogen atoms fusing into helium, and continues upward through the elemental table until you get to iron.  The atomic fission process starts with uranium and move downward, splitting off atoms...until you get to iron.
> 
> And iron is anathema to fey.  Freaky.




Radioactive Iron on the Moon!

So maybe it's a lunar connection all along...which kinda makes sense for fey.


----------



## aramis erak

The traditional meaning has always been iron not forged in a fire. Which, generally, means cold-worked meteoric iron.

While cold working is insanely slow, it's not impossible with a high-quality iron source, and with harder (generally hot-forged) hammers.

Some games have other meanings. I've seen games and/or novels mean each of the following explicitly

Worked by Magic
Cast iron
Chemically crystallized from solution. (possible, but I don't want to be handling the solvent...)
meteoric iron
cold-worked iron
Cold worked meteoric iron
Iron forged normally but tempered in ice.
Summoned matter no matter how worked
Iron imbued with magical energy after forging
Iron below room temperature.


----------



## Eltab

Runesong42 said:


> Other than iron that is cold, what makes it stand out?



It takes industrial processes to heat iron hot enough to melt into liquid.
However, you can heat it red-hot over a fire and then beat the iron ingot into a shape.
If you are really strong and patient, you can warm the ingot a bit and pound on it with say a big metal mallet until it takes the shape you want - such as a sword blade.

That last is a form of 'cold iron' which does not spill any Dwarven blacksmith's secrets.
In effect, because you did it the hard way, you get an advantage from it.

And there are 49 posts above mine that might be the civilized / sophisticated telling of the truth; I'm trying to sound like a folkloric backwoodsman.


----------



## Psikerlord#

As I understand it cold iron is iron, just another name for it. In LFG however I made it: _Weapons forged of cold iron (the oldest and purest iron ore, mined deep and sometimes exhibiting mild ferromagnetism) are best against Demons and Undead_

As a means of bypassing immunities without needing a magic weapon (and I made silvered weapons useful against lycantropes and aberrant terrors).


----------



## Kobold Stew

This blog post here crossed my feed today, which does not concern the science of metallurgy but the place of iron in historical superstition and lore.


----------



## Salamandyr

Kobold Stew said:


> This blog post here crossed my feed today, which does not concern the science of metallurgy but the place of iron in historical superstition and lore.




was just coming here to post that link.  It's some great background information.


----------



## Bill Reich

In old Gaelic tradition, the folks of Faery were unable to handle "cold iron," which certainly included heated iron and definitely included steel. It's a folklore thing that works if it fits your ideas about the setting but it isn't necessary if you don't want to use it.

-- 
Bill Reich
https://sites.google.com/site/grreference/home/05-the-black-mountain/at-the-high-point-inn


----------



## gatorized

Psikerlord# said:


> As I understand it cold iron is iron, just another name for it. In LFG however I made it: _Weapons forged of cold iron (the oldest and purest iron ore, mined deep and sometimes exhibiting mild ferromagnetism) are best against Demons and Undead_
> 
> As a means of bypassing immunities without needing a magic weapon (and I made silvered weapons useful against lycantropes and aberrant terrors).




what's "lfg"?


----------



## Michael Silverbane

Nothing to see here.


----------



## Psikerlord#

Mike R said:


> what's "lfg"?




"Low Fantasy Gaming" RPG


----------



## Thomas Bowman

Are their any spells that could freeze an iron crow bar so it can be used against demons?


----------



## Umbran

"Cold iron" is not about physical temperature, nor about forging.

It is about the things the fae are sensitive - emotional/spiritual/magical content, or the lack thereof, and symbolism.  Iron is cold in the way that a person who lacks empathy is cold.  It represents mankind's separation from the natural world, or humans taking command of their own fate in defiance of the magics of the past.  Iron, and the technologies that come with it, are what allows people to no longer be subject to the whims of the world, and the whims of the fae.


----------



## gatorized

Psikerlord# said:


> "Low Fantasy Gaming" RPG




oh, context made it sound like he was referring to a comic or podcast or something


----------



## gatorized

Umbran said:


> "Cold iron" is not about physical temperature, nor about forging.
> 
> It is about the things the fae are sensitive - emotional/spiritual/magical content, or the lack thereof, and symbolism.  Iron is cold in the way that a person who lacks empathy is cold.  It represents mankind's separation from the natural world, or humans taking command of their own fate in defiance of the magics of the past.  Iron, and the technologies that come with it, are what allows people to no longer be subject to the whims of the world, and the whims of the fae.




Humans are natural, so anything they make is also natural.


----------



## Umbran

Mike R said:


> Humans are natural, so anything they make is also natural.




That's a very modern notion, and the "cold iron" thing is very old, based in an earlier view of human's place in the world.

And, while this is true in the very basic "cannot be in violation of the laws of the universe" sense, it is not true in the "what mankind makes is automatically compatible with the normal operations of the natural world around us."  We make and do thing highly inimical to the bioshpere in which we live.


----------



## gatorized

Umbran said:


> That's a very modern notion, and the "cold iron" thing is very old, based in an earlier view of human's place in the world.
> 
> And, while this is true in the very basic "cannot be in violation of the laws of the universe" sense, it is not true in the "what mankind makes is automatically compatible with the normal operations of the natural world around us."  We make and do thing highly inimical to the bioshpere in which we live.




It is neither modern nor old, it simply is. Human beings are made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe, obey the same laws, and use the same processes. Also, the properties of any given substance, such as iron, are not affected by any views of our place in the world. Iron was magnetic before we existed, and it will continue to be after we are gone.

Nothing is compatible or incompatible with nature. Again, nature just is. It has no desires or goals. If humans cause the extinction of all life, that is nature. If life goes extinct for some other reason, that is also nature. A barren world like Mercury is natural, as is a hellscape like Venus. Nothing can be inimical to nature; everything is the result of nature. It's really kind of a meaningless term, it would be more precise to replace it with "the fundamental physical constants and all properties, fields, particles, and interactions that arise therefrom" but that's a little wordy to type out every time.


----------



## SkidAce

Mike R said:


> It is neither modern nor old, it simply is. Human beings are made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe, obey the same laws, and use the same processes. Also, the properties of any given substance, such as iron, are not affected by any views of our place in the world. Iron was magnetic before we existed, and it will continue to be after we are gone.
> 
> Nothing is compatible or incompatible with nature. Again, nature just is. It has no desires or goals. If humans cause the extinction of all life, that is nature. If life goes extinct for some other reason, that is also nature. A barren world like Mercury is natural, as is a hellscape like Venus. Nothing can be inimical to nature; everything is the result of nature. It's really kind of a meaningless term, it would be more precise to replace it with "the fundamental physical constants and all properties, fields, particles, and interactions that arise therefrom" but that's a little wordy to type out every time.




While what you say may be accurate, it does not change the mythological origins of the customs and legends of "cold iron", nor their influence on D&D.


----------



## gatorized

SkidAce said:


> While what you say may be accurate, it does not change the mythological origins of the customs and legends of "cold iron", nor their influence on D&D.




Any mythological treatment of iron that depends on it being natural or unnatural is affected by whether it is natural or unnatural, so yes, it does matter.


----------



## Umbran

Mike R said:


> Any mythological treatment of iron that depends on it being natural or unnatural is affected by whether it is natural or unnatural, so yes, it does matter.




Mythological treatments are fiction, and thus do not have to depend at all points upon what we think of things in the real world.  The one thing we can depend upon in our fictions  is that somewhere it deviates from reality, rather than clings to it.  Most D&D is played as a high fantasy, meaning that it takes place on a world, and probably a universe, that is not our own.  The ideas of "natural" and "unnatural" that any particular person thinks apply here may not apply in the fiction.

If a person were to do a revisioning of fae creatures today, they might wish to base it upon a modern philosophy relating to the position of mankind in the universe.  But for the moment we are (admittedly implicitly) speaking about a version of the fae based on older views of the world.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Umbran said:


> Mythological treatments are fiction, and thus do not have to depend at all points upon what we think of things in the real world.  The one thing we can depend upon in our fictions  is that somewhere it deviates from reality, rather than clings to it.  Most D&D is played as a high fantasy, meaning that it takes place on a world, and probably a universe, that is not our own.  The ideas of "natural" and "unnatural" that any particular person thinks apply here may not apply in the fiction.
> 
> If a person were to do a revisioning of fae creatures today, they might wish to base it upon a modern philosophy relating to the position of mankind in the universe.  But for the moment we are (admittedly implicitly) speaking about a version of the fae based on older views of the world.



While you rightly criticize  [MENTION=6966901]Mike R[/MENTION] for being unable to put down a particular philosophical lens when evaluating a fictional fantasy game, I have to muddy the waters a bit. The naturalism he is espousing has a very long pedigree in philosophy, with origins in Classical India and Greece. Both the Epicureans and the Stoics were naturalistic, making naturalism arguably the dominant view among thinkers in the West until Christianity changed the game. In contrast, this...


Umbran said:


> It represents mankind's separation from the natural world, or humans taking command of their own fate in defiance of the magics of the past.  Iron, and the technologies that come with it, are what allows people to no longer be subject to the whims of the world, and the whims of the fae.



...is a quite modern perspective. Technology as separation from nature is not a theme you see a lot (at least in Western thought; the Taoists were sort of in the neighborhood of it) until the Industrial Revolution and the Romantic movement. In general, the understanding of technology as a thing, and the progression thereof, was historically slow to emerge.

Yes, "cold iron" plays a prominent role in European folklore warding off fairies. But a nature-vs.-technology conflict does not satisfactorily explain why. Remember, too, that iron _also_ supposedly wards off evil spirits, witches, bad luck, and so on.

So it's a bit less obvious why this is the case than you seem to be claiming.


----------



## gatorized

Umbran said:


> Mythological treatments are fiction, and thus do not have to depend at all points upon what we think of things in the real world.  The one thing we can depend upon in our fictions  is that somewhere it deviates from reality, rather than clings to it.  Most D&D is played as a high fantasy, meaning that it takes place on a world, and probably a universe, that is not our own.  The ideas of "natural" and "unnatural" that any particular person thinks apply here may not apply in the fiction.
> 
> If a person were to do a revisioning of fae creatures today, they might wish to base it upon a modern philosophy relating to the position of mankind in the universe.  But for the moment we are (admittedly implicitly) speaking about a version of the fae based on older views of the world.




A thing is natural if it is the result of natural processes. Humans are the result of natural processes, and so anything that is the result of humans is also a natural process.

You can either agree with this or explain when, why, and how a natural thing stops being natural. For example, is an iron atom selected at random natural? If it is, does a natural animal interacting with it cause it to stop being natural, even though the iron atom is unchanged? If so, why, and what is the mechanism which causes it to stop being natural? Also, given any iron atoms, how shall we distinguish between an unnatural and natural one? That is, what must be true about an unnatural iron atom, and what must not be true about it? What do we expect to observe, and not to observe? If these questions can't be answered, then the word "unnatural" fails to convey any information.


----------



## gatorized

TheCosmicKid said:


> While you rightly criticize  [MENTION=6966901]Mike R[/MENTION] for being unable to put down a particular philosophical lens when evaluating a fictional fantasy game, I have to muddy the waters a bit. The naturalism he is espousing has a very long pedigree in philosophy, with origins in Classical India and Greece. Both the Epicureans and the Stoics were naturalistic, making naturalism arguably the dominant view among thinkers in the West until Christianity changed the game. In contrast, this...
> 
> ...is a quite modern perspective. Technology as separation from nature is not a theme you see a lot (at least in Western thought; the Taoists were sort of in the neighborhood of it) until the Industrial Revolution and the Romantic movement. In general, the understanding of technology as a thing, and the progression thereof, was historically slow to emerge.
> 
> Yes, "cold iron" plays a prominent role in European folklore warding off fairies. But a nature-vs.-technology conflict does not satisfactorily explain why. Remember, too, that iron _also_ supposedly wards off evil spirits, witches, bad luck, and so on.
> 
> So it's a bit less obvious why this is the case than you seem to be claiming.




I am not particularly concerned with any specific philosophical tradition. I want to know exactly what we mean by "unnatural", and why this should matter to a substance's properties.


----------



## Maxperson

Mike R said:


> It is neither modern nor old, it simply is. Human beings are made of the same stuff as everything else in the universe, obey the same laws, and use the same processes. Also, the properties of any given substance, such as iron, are not affected by any views of our place in the world. Iron was magnetic before we existed, and it will continue to be after we are gone.
> 
> Nothing is compatible or incompatible with nature. Again, nature just is. It has no desires or goals. If humans cause the extinction of all life, that is nature. If life goes extinct for some other reason, that is also nature. A barren world like Mercury is natural, as is a hellscape like Venus. Nothing can be inimical to nature; everything is the result of nature. It's really kind of a meaningless term, it would be more precise to replace it with "the fundamental physical constants and all properties, fields, particles, and interactions that arise therefrom" but that's a little wordy to type out every time.




This is not what is meant by unnatural, though.  A car is made up of things found in nature.  A car itself, though, will never be found occurring naturally.  Hence it's an unnatural creation.


----------



## Maxperson

Mike R said:


> A thing is natural if it is the result of natural processes. Humans are the result of natural processes, and so anything that is the result of humans is also a natural process.
> 
> You can either agree with this or explain when, why, and how a natural thing stops being natural. For example, is an iron atom selected at random natural? If it is, does a natural animal interacting with it cause it to stop being natural, even though the iron atom is unchanged? If so, why, and what is the mechanism which causes it to stop being natural? Also, given any iron atoms, how shall we distinguish between an unnatural and natural one? That is, what must be true about an unnatural iron atom, and what must not be true about it? What do we expect to observe, and not to observe? If these questions can't be answered, then the word "unnatural" fails to convey any information.




It stops being natural when it fails to occur all by itself in nature.  If something requires humans to create it in order for it to exist, it's unnatural.


----------



## gatorized

Maxperson said:


> This is not what is meant by unnatural, though.  A car is made up of things found in nature.  A car itself, though, will never be found occurring naturally.  Hence it's an unnatural creation.




A car occurs naturally when humans make one. The natural process in this case is amino acids > proteins > cells > humans > car. (a lot left out for conciseness, of course.)


----------



## gatorized

Maxperson said:


> It stops being natural when it fails to occur all by itself in nature.  If something requires humans to create it in order for it to exist, it's unnatural.




Is an anthill or a beehive unnatural?


----------



## Maxperson

Mike R said:


> A car occurs naturally when humans make one. The natural process in this case is amino acids > proteins > cells > humans > car. (a lot left out for conciseness, of course.)




That's a load of philosophical BS, though.  You wanted to know when the car stops being natural, and that's at the point where it doesn't occur in nature all by itself.  That's how the world defines it outside of philosophy.  You know the, practical, real world.  

Amino acids occur in nature all by themselves.  Proteins occur in nature all by themselves.  Cells occur in nature all by themselves.  Humans occur in nature all by themselves.  A car doesn't.  Full stop.  It's unnatural.


----------



## Maxperson

Mike R said:


> Is an anthill or a beehive unnatural?




An anthill is just a pile of dirt.  Piles of dirt are natural.  A beehive is a construction and isn't natural.  It can't occur in nature outside of being built by the bees or perhaps humans trying to make one.


----------



## gatorized

Maxperson said:


> An anthill is just a pile of dirt.  Piles of dirt are natural.  A beehive is a construction and isn't natural.  It can't occur in nature outside of being built by the bees or perhaps humans trying to make one.




Are bees natural?


----------



## Maxperson

Mike R said:


> Are bees natural?




Are your toenails natural?


----------



## Umbran

TheCosmicKid said:


> While you rightly criticize  [MENTION=6966901]Mike R[/MENTION] for being unable to put down a particular philosophical lens when evaluating a fictional fantasy game, I have to muddy the waters a bit. The naturalism he is espousing has a very long pedigree in philosophy, with origins in Classical India and Greece. Both the Epicureans and the Stoics were naturalistic, making naturalism arguably the dominant view among thinkers in the West until Christianity changed the game.




Well, Stocism, at least, does not serve you here.  "Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature," is a basic Stoic tenet.  However, this admits that human will can be in *disagreement* with nature.  

Similarly, with Epicurians, we have the idea that there are three kinds of desires:  the natural and necessary, the natural but not necessary, and those that are neither natural or necessary.  This, again, admits to humans having unnatural desires - there is something about humans that is not natural.

So, I say both of these early philosophies fall rather short of the idea that anything that humans do is natural, by definition.  Rather, both accept that humans have issues when they step away from their natures - though they have *major* disagreements about what those natures are 

In general, once we've hit the Christian era, we have the three major religions of Europe and the Middle East all claiming that humans, as created by the divine, have a special place in the universe, outside of the natural order.  And, since the highest accomplishment of these cultures was iron, that iron becomes symbolic of mankind's special status.  The Western World doesn't make major steps away from that until after Darwin, IMHO.



> Yes, "cold iron" plays a prominent role in European folklore warding off fairies. But a nature-vs.-technology conflict does not satisfactorily explain why. Remember, too, that iron _also_ supposedly wards off evil spirits, witches, bad luck, and so on.




Iron is seen as anti-magic at least as far back as Pliny the Elder, in the First Century, AD.  We may note that it is during Pliny's life that the Romans come to the British Isles - bringing with them wealth and relatively advanced technology.  The idea that iron and human works are inimical to the fae powers probably has a lot to do with Roman occupation of Britain.  Romans were all about taming the lands around them - roads, aqueducts, and so on....


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> T Humans occur in nature all by themselves.  A car doesn't.




Um.... 

Humans only occur by action of humans.  We do not spontaneously generate and spring forth from spoiled meat, or something - it requires human action to create a human.  And even more human action to craft another human that talks and does mathematics and engineering...

Cars only occur by action of humans....

I agree with the general posit that there is a practical dividing line between natural occurrences and the actions of sentient beings.  But this logic doesn't hit the mark.


----------



## CapnZapp

Stop feeding the troll.

It's a philosophical troll, but a troll nevertheless. 

If he can't see that D&D cold iron is a pop-culture appropriation of an ancient mythical concept, he's either arguing in bad faith or genuinely new to role-playing. 

Given his eloquent argumentation, I'm inclined to guess the former - hence the troll label. (It is at this stage a good-natured conversationalist removes his fake troll costume and says "You got me; yep, I was only trying to trigger y'all with philosophy. Ha ha. No harm, no foul."

If it is the latter, my apologies. Then my answer becomes: "Because. Next question?"


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Um....
> 
> Humans only occur by action of humans.  We do not spontaneously generate and spring forth from spoiled meat, or something - it requires human action to create a human.  And even more human action to craft another human that talks and does mathematics and engineering...




I'm going to have to have a serious conversation with my mother about storks.  

Seriously, though, reproduction is a natural act.  It's not as if we have to go smelt a bunch of metal to forge us some babies.



> Cars only occur by action of humans....
> 
> I agree with the general posit that there is a practical dividing line between natural occurrences and the actions of sentient beings.  But this logic doesn't hit the mark.




It takes more than an act to make something unnatural, though.  See my comment on the difference between an ant hill and a beehive.  Yes reproduction and cars both require human acts, but one is an act of nature and the other involves unnatural acts.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

Umbran said:


> Well, Stocism, at least, does not serve you here.  "Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature," is a basic Stoic tenet.  However, this admits that human will can be in *disagreement* with nature.
> 
> Similarly, with Epicurians, we have the idea that there are three kinds of desires:  the natural and necessary, the natural but not necessary, and those that are neither natural or necessary.  This, again, admits to humans having unnatural desires - there is something about humans that is not natural.
> 
> So, I say both of these early philosophies fall rather short of the idea that anything that humans do is natural, by definition.  Rather, both accept that humans have issues when they step away from their natures - though they have *major* disagreements about what those natures are



 Okay, true enough. I was thinking about their physical theories of matter with regards to the "what is iron?" question, but I should have thought about it a bit more broadly.



Umbran said:


> In general, once we've hit the Christian era, we have the three major religions of Europe and the Middle East all claiming that humans, as created by the divine, have a special place in the universe, outside of the natural order. And, since the highest accomplishment of these cultures was iron, that iron becomes symbolic of mankind's special status. The Western World doesn't make major steps away from that until after Darwin, IMHO.



As you note, though, iron is already described as anti-magical by pagan writers. And if iron's status were tied to the Judeo-Christian worldview, I'd expect to see it appear as part of official Church doctrine in some way. Instead, it's folk superstition that stands outside the Church and which the Church kind of frowns upon. In short, it looks very pre-Christian to me.



Umbran said:


> We may note that it is during Pliny's life that the Romans come to the British Isles - bringing with them wealth and relatively advanced technology.  The idea that iron and human works are inimical to the fae powers probably has a lot to do with Roman occupation of Britain.  Romans were all about taming the lands around them - roads, aqueducts, and so on....



What of the iron lore outside of Britain? Pliny was not British any more than he was Christian.


----------



## gatorized

Maxperson said:


> Are your toenails natural?




Yes. Answer my question.


----------



## gatorized

Maxperson said:


> That's a load of philosophical BS, though.  You wanted to know when the car stops being natural, and that's at the point where it doesn't occur in nature all by itself.  That's how the world defines it outside of philosophy.  You know the, practical, real world.
> 
> Amino acids occur in nature all by themselves.  Proteins occur in nature all by themselves.  Cells occur in nature all by themselves.  Humans occur in nature all by themselves.  A car doesn't.  Full stop.  It's unnatural.




Humans don't occur in nature all by themselves. They only occur among a particular combination of particles, like carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorous; and environmental factors, such as atmospheric pressure, gravity, temperature. The combination of all these elements is in fact so exact that we only know of a single planet in the entire observable universe where they exist.

The above paragraph is also true for cars. Since you agree humans are natural ("occur all by themselves") you also agree cars are natural.


----------



## gatorized

Umbran said:


> Um....
> 
> Humans only occur by action of humans.  We do not spontaneously generate and spring forth from spoiled meat, or something - it requires human action to create a human.  And even more human action to craft another human that talks and does mathematics and engineering...
> 
> Cars only occur by action of humans....
> 
> I agree with the general posit that there is a practical dividing line between natural occurrences and the actions of sentient beings.  But this logic doesn't hit the mark.




Why does "occurs by action of humans" remove the state of being natural? And how does it do this?

Why is it only humans? If a human sanded down a rock in such a way that the process was indistuinguishable from air and water weathering, would that rock then be unnatural? Why or why not? How would you determine the rock's naturalness after the fact, without the benefit of knowing any human had interacted with it?



Maxperson said:


> I'm going to have to have a serious conversation with my mother about storks.
> 
> Seriously, though, reproduction is a natural act.  It's not as if we have to go smelt a bunch of metal to forge us some babies.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes more than an act to make something unnatural, though.  See my comment on the difference between an ant hill and a beehive.  Yes reproduction and cars both require human acts, but one is an act of nature and the other involves unnatural acts.




Why are the acts of humans unnatural?


----------



## Maxperson

Mike R said:


> Yes. Answer my question.




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 don't occur in nature all by themselves. They only occur among a particular combination of particles, like carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorous; and environmental factors, such as atmospheric pressure, gravity, temperature. The combination of all these elements is in fact so exact that we only know of a single planet in the entire observable universe where they exist.




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



> Why are the acts of humans unnatural?




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


----------



## Sadras

Mike R said:


> It is neither modern nor old, it simply is.




Whether it is or isn't in any which you try to define it, humans perspectives have changed through the ages.
Imagine the wonderment of various cultures and people witnessing horses and larger beasts for the first time, the use of gun-powder, forged steel...etc - one can easily imagine that it would be deemed unnatural by those unfamiliar with _it_.    

It is that perspective (at some point in time), that _cold iron_ was viewed as unnatural, which has been integrated within the D&D mythos. You may not like it and that is your prerogative, but you cannot deny that particular point of view existed at one time.


----------



## Imaculata

Mike R said:


> Why are the acts of humans unnatural?




Whether they are (or are not) natural is irrelevant in the context of nonsensical fantasy. No one ever said that fantasy had to make sense. High fantasy has a lot of internal ideas and rules regarding what is natural, that have no basis in reality what so ever. It seems to me like a pointless endeavor to then argue against it.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> It takes more than an act to make something unnatural, though.  See my comment on the difference between an ant hill and a beehive.  Yes reproduction and cars both require human acts, but one is an act of nature and the other involves unnatural acts.




Note, I've already said I basically agree with you, but I find your stated logic flawed.  Here, you are basically assuming the conclusion.  You haven't clearly stated what makes one act by a human natural, and another act by a human unnatural.

Your bee analogy is confusing.  How is human mating more natural than bees making a hive?  Both are instinctual behaviors.

And, by the way, piles of dirt may be natural, but *anthills* are constructions by ants - the dirt doesn't pile itself up - it is dug out and placed there by ants.  Why is bee construction less natural than ant construction?


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> Note, I've already said I basically agree with you, but I find your stated logic flawed.  Here, you are basically assuming the conclusion.  You haven't clearly stated what makes one act by a human natural, and another act by a human unnatural.
> 
> Your bee analogy is confusing.  How is human mating more natural than bees making a hive?  Both are instinctual behaviors.
> 
> And, by the way, piles of dirt may be natural, but *anthills* are constructions by ants - the dirt doesn't pile itself up - it is dug out and placed there by ants.  Why is bee construction less natural than ant construction?





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.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> 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

Umbran said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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

pemerton said:


> 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

pemerton said:


> 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

Ovinomancer said:


> 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

Umbran said:


> 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.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> 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

Umbran said:


> 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

Ovinomancer said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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?



Maxperson said:


> 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?



Umbran said:


> 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

Mike R said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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?



Maxperson said:


> 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.



Maxperson said:


> 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

Mike R said:


> "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

Maxperson said:


> 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

Ovinomancer said:


> 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

Maxperson said:


> 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.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> 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.




un·nat·u·ral
ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective

1. contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.

2. *not existing in nature; artificial*.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> un·nat·u·ral
> ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
> adjective
> 
> 1. contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
> 
> 2. *not existing in nature; artificial*.



You're being circular.  I've asked you to define nature and you keep telling me unnatural means not in nature.

Again, define nature.  For bonus points, do so in context of the fae and iron.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> You're being circular.  I've asked you to define nature and you keep telling me unnatural means not in nature.
> 
> Again, define nature.  For bonus points, do so in context of the fae and iron.




nat·u·ral
ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective

1.*existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.*

Bonus points: Cold forged iron does not exist in or caused by nature, and is both made and caused by humankind.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> nat·u·ral
> ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
> adjective
> 
> 1.*existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.*
> 
> Bonus points: Cold forged iron does not exist in or caused by nature, and is both made and caused by humankind.



Okay, finally.  So, the definition of natural your using is "anything not made by man."  Are things made by fae then natural?  Are shoes cobbled by gnomes natural while ones cobbled by man are unnatural?

The argument you put forth earlier is that iron harms fae because iron is unnatural.  But, then, so is bronze, or leather.  What, in the mythologies iron harmed fae come from, suggests fae are part if the natural world?  What about iron makes it soecial, in tge vast realm of unnatural things man can wield? 

Also, for reference, cold iron has nothing to do with forging, and cold forging is a marketing gimmick.  It's a poetic reference, much like cold, hard steel isn't a special version of steel.  Cold iron is just iron.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Okay, finally.  So, the definition of natural your using is "anything not made by man."  Are things made by fae then natural?  Are shoes cobbled by gnomes natural while ones cobbled by man are unnatural?




Do they exist in or caused by nature?  You seem to have forgotten that portion of it.



> The argument you put forth earlier is that iron harms fae because iron is unnatural.  But, then, so is bronze, or leather.  What, in the mythologies iron harmed fae come from, suggests fae are part if the natural world?  What about iron makes it soecial, in tge vast realm of unnatural things man can wield?




Why does silver harm werewolves?  Why do wood stakes through the heart kill vampires?  Why ask why?  It's cold iron because the stories say it is.



> Also, for reference, cold iron has nothing to do with forging, and cold forging is a marketing gimmick.  It's a poetic reference, much like cold, hard steel isn't a special version of steel.  Cold iron is just iron.




But I provided a picture that shows cold forging still goes on!!!!!!


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Do they exist in or caused by nature?  You seem to have forgotten that portion of it.



You should read up on semi-colons a bit -- those aren't separate definitions but instead interrelated ones.





> Why does silver harm werewolves?  Why do wood stakes through the heart kill vampires?  Why ask why?  It's cold iron because the stories say it is.



Your argument was that iron harmed fae in the stories because iron was unnatural.  Pointing to other, different stories as if they illuminate your argument isn't helpful.  Why doesn't iron being unnatural cause it to be anathema to fae?  If your point was meant to be 'because the stories say so' then I'm confused as to why you've been so strident on the unnatural nature of iron.

Iron, btw, is natural.  A sword may be unnatural under your defintion, but the iron in it, which is the operative part, is still natural.  Man does not cause iron to exist. 




> But I provided a picture that shows cold forging still goes on!!!!!!



Heh.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Your argument was that iron harmed fae in the stories because iron was unnatural.  Pointing to other, different stories as if they illuminate your argument isn't helpful.  Why doesn't iron being unnatural cause it to be anathema to fae?  If your point was meant to be 'because the stories say so' then I'm confused as to why you've been so strident on the unnatural nature of iron.




My argument has never been that iron harmed the fey.  Cold forged/worked iron, yes.  Just iron, no.


----------



## pemerton

Artificial things are, by definition, unnatural in some sense.

But artifical things clearly exist in the world, and are produced by beings that exist in the world. Hence there is some sense in which things can exist in and as part of the world, yet not be natural.

What's the relevant sense, and where are the boundaries to be found? The most pithy treatment I know of in the D&D context is found in Gygax's AD&D books, particularly the discussin of True Neutral alignment:

The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be. (PHB p 33)

Absolute, or true, neutral creatures view everything which exists as an integral, necessary port or function of the entire cosmos. Each thing exists as a part of the whole, one as a check or balance to the other, with life necessary for death, happiness for suffering, good for evil, order far chaos, and vice versa. Nothing must ever become predominant or out of balance. Within this noturalistic ethos, humankind serves a role also, just as all other creatures do. They may be more or less important, but the neutral does not concern himself or herself with these considerations except where it is positively determined that the balance is threatened. (DMG p 33)​
Nature is "the cosmos" that is in a state of balance as a result of the interaction of its constituent elements and processes. Intelligent beings are a risk to that balance, as they bring their own goals and purposes which are not necessarily integrated into the balance of natural elements and processes. It's easy to see how this idea relates to certain real world religious and philosophical positions (eg Stoicism; some forms of Taoism and Taoist-influenced Buddhism; some strands of contemporary environmentalism). And it helps us see the difference between natural and unnatural human activity - the latter consists in purposive activity undertaken with indifference to its impact upon the balance of natural elements and processes. Building a small homestead or even village probably doesn't count; raising an army and mining the ore and then forging the arms and armour to equip them almost certainly does!

How exactly this fits into our understanding of "cold" iron and faeries I'll leave for others to work out.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> My argument has never been that iron harmed the fey.  Cold forged/worked iron, yes.  Just iron, no.



So, then, you're not advocating a reason for how the myth started at all, but rather for something else?  Okay, strange thread.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> Artificial things are, by definition, unnatural in some sense.
> 
> But artifical things clearly exist in the world, and are produced by beings that exist in the world. Hence there is some sense in which things can exist in and as part of the world, yet not be natural.
> 
> What's the relevant sense, and where are the boundaries to be found? The most pithy treatment I know of in the D&D context is found in Gygax's AD&D books, particularly the discussin of True Neutral alignment:
> 
> The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be. (PHB p 33)
> 
> Absolute, or true, neutral creatures view everything which exists as an integral, necessary port or function of the entire cosmos. Each thing exists as a part of the whole, one as a check or balance to the other, with life necessary for death, happiness for suffering, good for evil, order far chaos, and vice versa. Nothing must ever become predominant or out of balance. Within this noturalistic ethos, humankind serves a role also, just as all other creatures do. They may be more or less important, but the neutral does not concern himself or herself with these considerations except where it is positively determined that the balance is threatened. (DMG p 33)​
> Nature is "the cosmos" that is in a state of balance as a result of the interaction of its constituent elements and processes. Intelligent beings are a risk to that balance, as they bring their own goals and purposes which are not necessarily integrated into the balance of natural elements and processes. It's easy to see how this idea relates to certain real world religious and philosophical positions (eg Stoicism; some forms of Taoism and Taoist-influenced Buddhism; some strands of contemporary environmentalism). And it helps us see the difference between natural and unnatural human activity - the latter consists in purposive activity undertaken with indifference to its impact upon the balance of natural elements and processes. Building a small homestead or even village probably doesn't count; raising an army and mining the ore and then forging the arms and armour to equip them almost certainly does!
> 
> How exactly this fits into our understanding of "cold" iron and faeries I'll leave for others to work out.



Thank you for the random musings on the existence of a supernatural cause of nature that mankind is not a part of.  If man's actions can act against the natural order of things, then you're assuming some supernatural shaper of such an order.  It can't otherwise exist without such a will.  I covered this earlier, along with the ramifications to the topic.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> So, then, you're not advocating a reason for how the myth started at all, but rather for something else?  Okay, strange thread.




I walked into that guy claiming everything that exists is natural no matter what and took the other side, because, well, it's simply not true.  His stance is a lot like those who think you can't ever know anything, or that only what you can see exists, and the other fun, but useless philosophical arguments.  It's a nice theory to talk about and have fun with, but it's just not reality.  He was arguing that it was reality and I'm arguing against that position.  In our reality, natural exists, and unnatural exists.

For thread purposes, cold forged iron is iron worked at low/room temperature and since it's worked iron, it's not natural.  Hot forged iron is also not natural, but that does't work on the fey, because mythology.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> I walked into that guy claiming everything that exists is natural no matter what and took the other side, because, well, it's simply not true.  His stance is a lot like those who think you can't ever know anything, or that only what you can see exists, and the other fun, but useless philosophical arguments.  It's a nice theory to talk about and have fun with, but it's just not reality.  He was arguing that it was reality and I'm arguing against that position.  In our reality, natural exists, and unnatural exists.
> 
> For thread purposes, cold forged iron is iron worked at low/room temperature and since it's worked iron, it's not natural.  Hot forged iron is also not natural, but that does't work on the fey, because mythology.



Um, that last bit is entirely without basis.  I mean, good luck being able to ever work unforged iron straight from raw ore.

The first bit is also a bit presumptuous on your part.  Your preferred view of nature has no inherent superiority to the one you're dismissing as arbitrary and useless.


----------



## SkidAce

This thread is unnatural....


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> If man's actions can act against the natural order of things, then you're assuming some supernatural shaper of such an order.  It can't otherwise exist without such a will.



Many versions of the philosophies I mentioned in my post - Stoicism, Taoism, Taoist-influenced Buddhism, environmentalism - don't agree with this. They have a conception of nature that is immanent, and identifies the threat to nature as arising from human will/deliberate action as a violation of that natural order.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, that last bit is entirely without basis.  I mean, good luck being able to ever work unforged iron straight from raw ore.




It occurs very rarely in nature, but metallic ion does occur naturally.  Usually, but not always, in the form of meteoric iron.



> The first bit is also a bit presumptuous on your part.  Your preferred view of nature has no inherent superiority to the one you're dismissing as arbitrary and useless.



My preferred view is the one backed up by both reality and the definitions of natural and unnatural.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> It occurs very rarely in nature, but metallic ion does occur naturally.  Usually, but not always, in the form of meteoric iron.



Totally sure that people hanging horseshoes over their door to ward away evil spirits and the fairies didn't wait for meteors to get the iron for their horseshoes.  Nor did the blacksmith beat them out without heat.



> My preferred view is the one backed up by both reality and the definitions of natural and unnatural.



And you're welcome to your preference, but your preference doesn't make your beliefs reality, nor does one entry in a complexly defined word render that one definition exclusive to defining reality.


----------



## Jhaelen

Umbran said:


> "Cold iron" is not about physical temperature, nor about forging.



In D&D it's definitely about forging.


----------



## Umbran

Jhaelen said:


> In D&D it's definitely about forging.




1) It is edition dependent.
2) In 3.5e, it is not just about the forging, but also the source.
3) Missing the point - You're saying a person has an itch because a mosquito bit them, I'm talking about why mosquito bites itch.


----------



## Jhaelen

Umbran said:


> 1) It is edition dependent.
> 2) In 3.5e, it is not just about the forging, but also the source.
> 3) Missing the point - You're saying a person has an itch because a mosquito bit them, I'm talking about why mosquito bites itch.



Well, I'm not sure what edition the OP was referring to, but it's clearly a question about D&D. The question was asked in 2005, i.e. when 3.5 was the current edition.
Here's the quote from the SRD:


> This iron, mined deep underground, known for its effectiveness against fey creatures, is forged at a lower temperature to preserve its delicate properties.



So, you're right, it's about the source _and_ the forging.

I'm not sure why you think the OP was asking about mosquito bites. I wonder who's missing the point here?


----------



## Weiley31

In my 5E games, Silver bypassed demon's mundane weapon immunity.

Cold Iron does that PLUS granting advantage to attack/damage rolls against Demons/Devils and Fey.


----------



## PsyzhranV2

Why has there been so much thread necromancy in the past few days???


----------



## Panda-s1

I guess while we're here, anyone else know about that whole fey being afraid of modern tech thing? like cold iron is not what they're afraid of anymore, apparently some fantasy thing does this.


----------



## Weiley31

PsyzhranV2 said:


> Why has there been so much thread necromancy in the past few days???



Well when you roll up a necromancer.....


----------



## Bohandas

Frostmarrow said:


> It's folklore. Britons used to believe fairies had a weakness against cold iron.



They had a weakness to iron in general. 

For the game, they had to change it to iron that was forged a certain way because otherwise they'd just be vulnerable to all the default weapons except clubs and quarterstaffs


----------



## Umbran

Bohandas said:


> They had a weakness to iron in general.
> 
> For the game, they had to change it to iron that was forged a certain way because otherwise they'd just be vulnerable to all the default weapons except clubs and quarterstaffs




The term "cold iron" is far, far older than D&D.  The term appears in Francis Grose's _1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue_.  It appears in Kipling's poem "Cold Iron", which is in his 1910 collection _Rewards and Fairies.  _ So, it isn't like "cold iron" is a change for the game, specifically. There's nothing in their texts that indicate Grose or Kipling meant anything other than poetry by it, though.

There is another line of discussion (I don't reacall if it was mentioned upthread) in which "cold iron" refers to the iron used by Romans to crucify people - the spikes so used for death being imbued with import...


----------



## Zhaleskra

As Changeling has been mentioned: Either Fey never made a contract with Iron, or they broke they one they made.


----------



## Len

Umbran said:


> The term "cold iron" is far, far older than D&D. The term appears in Francis Grose's _1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue_. It appears in Kipling's poem "Cold Iron", which is in his 1910 collection _Rewards and Fairies._



But those usages have nothing to do with fey or a special form of iron.

Grose's definition of "cold iron" is "A sword, or any other weapon for cutting or
  stabbing." An ordinary steel blade, in other words.

Kipling uses variations on the phrase "But Iron — Cold Iron — is master of them all" to mean military weapons and power. Again, nothing about fey or any material different from regular iron or steel.

I'm no philologist, but as far as I can tell, the use of "cold iron" to mean a special material with properties different from regular iron is a D&D thing.


----------



## Umbran

Len said:


> I'm no philologist, but as far as I can tell, the use of "cold iron" to mean a special material with properties different from regular iron is a D&D thing.




The idea that magically powerufl iron is someting specifically different form other iron goes back at least to L. Sprague de Camp, in The Tritonian Ring, in 1968.


----------



## Tony Vargas

My favorite post of the thread, from the first page, 15 years ago:


dravot said:


> My favorite fact about iron, as learned in astronomy class in college, back in the day: the atomic fusion process starts with 2 hydrogen atoms fusing into helium, and continues upward through the elemental table until you get to iron.  The atomic fission process starts with uranium and move downward, splitting off atoms...until you get to iron.
> 
> And iron is anathema to fey.  Freaky.




I had the exact same experience, myself, sitting in a junior college planetarium, listening to a lecture about the processes in stars.  It's an amusing coincidence that a mystically significant metal (variously anti-magical, or useful in working magic) is also a chemical element with a unique place in those processes.

Of course, gold, silver, and even tin, have been mystically significant metals, along with lost alloys and probably-imaginary metals.


----------



## Bohandas

mythusmage said:


> Allotropic (pure) iron is soft and weak, compared to most alloys. It is the hardest and strongest of the pure metals.




What about Uranium? And Iridium?


----------



## Zhaleskra

Re: Iridium. I think that's what people mean when they're saying "meteoric iron". Either they forgot the word or never knew it in the first place. I think.


----------



## Bohandas

No, iridium is a seperate element. Meteoric iron is just iron mined from meteors


----------



## Beleriphon

Well, since the thread is undead...

On uranium being hard and dense. It is denser than led, but less so than gold or tungsten. I don't recommend making a uranium weapons, they'd be both dangerous to the user and not very good weapons.


----------



## Bohandas

Beleriphon said:


> Well, since the thread is undead...
> 
> On uranium being hard and dense. It is denser than led, but less so than gold or tungsten. I don't recommend making a uranium weapons, they'd be both dangerous to the user and not very good weapons.




But there ARE depleted uranium wepaons


----------



## aramis erak

TheCosmicKid said:


> As you note, though, iron is already described as anti-magical by pagan writers. And if iron's status were tied to the Judeo-Christian worldview, I'd expect to see it appear as part of official Church doctrine in some way. Instead, it's folk superstition that stands outside the Church and which the Church kind of frowns upon. In short, it looks very pre-Christian to me.



If by Church, you mean the Catholic Church, there are lots of folk traditions arising from local faith that are not archaic, not approved, and still widely believed despite official dismissals. Medjugorje, for example. The SSPX claims of invalidity of the Mass. The Charismatic movement. Liturgical dance outside Africa and Alaska (where the forms are narrowly limited and used only for specific cultures). Belief in Consubstantiation instead of Transubstantiation.

The Catholic Church has always focused on suppression of theological issues over local supernatural beliefs; so long as those didn't interfere with the interpretation of theology, they were seldom addressed. Hence, no active suppression of the shamrock, horseshoe, or other luck talismans, instead gently suggesting approved modes: Scapulars, Medals, crosses, ritual private prayer... Some, like the communion wafer on the tongue of the dead are actually part of medieval praxis in general, not a "prevention of rising from the dead," but literal to its name: _viaticum _(food for the journey).

Many folk interpretations of church practices are suspect, and often misattribute practices. 

So, the medieval church not condemning the beliefs is not proof that they're archaic. Nor is it proof that they're more modern. It's just proof that they weren't considered a theological issue. Just like belief in the Færie.


----------



## aramis erak

Umbran said:


> The idea that magically powerufl iron is someting specifically different form other iron goes back at least to L. Sprague de Camp, in The Tritonian Ring, in 1968.



Back to Viking days, more like. Look up Ulfberht swords. Many thought them magically potent. Similar for certain other blades.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

aramis erak said:


> If by Church, you mean the Catholic Church, there are lots of folk traditions arising from local faith that are not archaic, not approved, and still widely believed despite official dismissals. Medjugorje, for example. The SSPX claims of invalidity of the Mass. The Charismatic movement. Liturgical dance outside Africa and Alaska (where the forms are narrowly limited and used only for specific cultures). Belief in Consubstantiation instead of Transubstantiation.
> 
> The Catholic Church has always focused on suppression of theological issues over local supernatural beliefs; so long as those didn't interfere with the interpretation of theology, they were seldom addressed. Hence, no active suppression of the shamrock, horseshoe, or other luck talismans, instead gently suggesting approved modes: Scapulars, Medals, crosses, ritual private prayer... Some, like the communion wafer on the tongue of the dead are actually part of medieval praxis in general, not a "prevention of rising from the dead," but literal to its name: _viaticum _(food for the journey).
> 
> Many folk interpretations of church practices are suspect, and often misattribute practices.
> 
> So, the medieval church not condemning the beliefs is not proof that they're archaic. Nor is it proof that they're more modern. It's just proof that they weren't considered a theological issue. Just like belief in the Færie.



This is an impressive display of religious erudition, but if you think I was claiming (a year and a half ago...) that the attitude of the Catholic Church is the only reason to infer the belief is pre-Christian, then I'm afraid you need to read the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted again.


----------



## aramis erak

TheCosmicKid said:


> This is an impressive display of religious erudition, but if you think I was claiming (a year and a half ago...) that the attitude of the Catholic Church is the only reason to infer the belief is pre-Christian, then I'm afraid you need to read the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted again.



No, but you listed it as a support. It's not a valid one. Which weakens the whole argument.


----------



## jasper

I love cold iron, I keep my swords in the freeze just in case.


----------



## TheCosmicKid

aramis erak said:


> No, but you listed it as a support. It's not a valid one. Which weakens the whole argument.



Okay. I have a few questions.

Are you confident that you have a fair reading of "the whole argument" within its twenty-months-dead conversational context?

Do you actually disagree with it?

Are you going anywhere else with this?

And is it important enough for you to keep @ing me about so long after the fact?

(_N.b.:_ *All these questions are rhetorical.*)


----------



## TarionzCousin

jasper said:


> I love cold iron, I keep my swords in the freezer just in case.



Do you have short swords or a long freezer?


----------



## CapnZapp

TheCosmicKid said:


> Okay. I have a few questions.
> 
> Are you confident that you have a fair reading of "the whole argument" within its twenty-months-dead conversational context?
> 
> Do you actually disagree with it?
> 
> Are you going anywhere else with this?
> 
> And is it important enough for you to keep @ing me about so long after the fact?
> 
> (_N.b.:_ *All these questions are rhetorical.*)



I note the irony in you complaining about being quoted... in a post where you yourself quote...

End of note


----------



## Ovinomancer

CapnZapp said:


> I note the irony in you complaining about being quoted... in a post where you yourself quote...
> 
> End of note



That would be ironic, if it was actually the complaint made.


----------



## CapnZapp

Ovinomancer said:


> That would be ironic, if it was actually the complaint made.



My interpretation of writing "And is it important enough for you to keep @ing me about so long after the fact?" is that you are complaining.

_shrug_


----------



## jasper

TarionzCousin said:


> Do you have short swords or a long freezer?



Walk in so I can hang the bodies.


----------



## gator001

Maxperson said:


> 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.



List them.


----------



## gator001

CapnZapp said:


> Stop feeding the troll.
> 
> It's a philosophical troll, but a troll nevertheless.
> 
> If he can't see that D&D cold iron is a pop-culture appropriation of an ancient mythical concept, he's either arguing in bad faith or genuinely new to role-playing.
> 
> Given his eloquent argumentation, I'm inclined to guess the former - hence the troll label. (It is at this stage a good-natured conversationalist removes his fake troll costume and says "You got me; yep, I was only trying to trigger y'all with philosophy. Ha ha. No harm, no foul."
> 
> If it is the latter, my apologies. Then my answer becomes: "Because. Next question?"



"It is at this stage anyone who disagrees with me says they weren't being honest, because that's easier for me than actually trying to refute any arguments presented."


----------



## Maxperson

gator001 said:


> List them.



List what?


----------



## monsmord

Troll-like typing detected.


----------



## gator001

Maxperson said:


> I'm going to have to have a serious conversation with my mother about storks.
> 
> Seriously, though, reproduction is a natural act.  It's not as if we have to go smelt a bunch of metal to forge us some babies.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes more than an act to make something unnatural, though.  See my comment on the difference between an ant hill and a beehive.  Yes reproduction and cars both require human acts, but one is an act of nature and the other involves unnatural acts.



Which acts are unnatural, and why?


----------



## gator001

Maxperson said:


> 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.



Which ones?


----------



## gator001

Maxperson said:


> 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.



What does rarity have to do with naturality? What is unnatural about building a house or hive?


----------



## gator001

Maxperson said:


> 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.



Every process involved in making a car is natural.


----------



## gator001

Maxperson said:


> 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.



Why did you mention beehives being less common than dirt? What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## gator001

Maxperson said:


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



The universe is natural, and everything that exists is the universe.


----------



## gator001

pemerton said:


> Artificial things are, by definition, unnatural in some sense.
> 
> But artifical things clearly exist in the world, and are produced by beings that exist in the world. Hence there is some sense in which things can exist in and as part of the world, yet not be natural.
> 
> What's the relevant sense, and where are the boundaries to be found? The most pithy treatment I know of in the D&D context is found in Gygax's AD&D books, particularly the discussin of True Neutral alignment:
> 
> The "true" neutral looks upon all other alignments as facets of the system of things. Thus, each aspect - evil and good, chaos and law - of things must be retained in balance to maintain the status quo; for things as they are cannot be improved upon except temporarily, and even then but superficially. Nature will prevail and keep things as they were meant to be, provided the "wheel" surrounding the hub of nature does not become unbalanced due to the work of unnatural forces - such as human and other intelligent creatures interfering with what is meant to be. (PHB p 33)​​Absolute, or true, neutral creatures view everything which exists as an integral, necessary port or function of the entire cosmos. Each thing exists as a part of the whole, one as a check or balance to the other, with life necessary for death, happiness for suffering, good for evil, order far chaos, and vice versa. Nothing must ever become predominant or out of balance. Within this noturalistic ethos, humankind serves a role also, just as all other creatures do. They may be more or less important, but the neutral does not concern himself or herself with these considerations except where it is positively determined that the balance is threatened. (DMG p 33)​
> Nature is "the cosmos" that is in a state of balance as a result of the interaction of its constituent elements and processes. Intelligent beings are a risk to that balance, as they bring their own goals and purposes which are not necessarily integrated into the balance of natural elements and processes. It's easy to see how this idea relates to certain real world religious and philosophical positions (eg Stoicism; some forms of Taoism and Taoist-influenced Buddhism; some strands of contemporary environmentalism). And it helps us see the difference between natural and unnatural human activity - the latter consists in purposive activity undertaken with indifference to its impact upon the balance of natural elements and processes. Building a small homestead or even village probably doesn't count; raising an army and mining the ore and then forging the arms and armour to equip them almost certainly does!
> 
> How exactly this fits into our understanding of "cold" iron and faeries I'll leave for others to work out.



The idea that there exists such a thing as artificial objects is entirely the result of sloppy thinking.


----------



## gator001

Maxperson said:


> I walked into that guy claiming everything that exists is natural no matter what and took the other side, because, well, it's simply not true.



Prove it.


----------



## Maxperson

gator001 said:


> Which acts are unnatural, and why?



No.  There's no need to list the obvious.  I'm sure you can figure it out.


----------



## gator001

Maxperson said:


> List what?



List all unnatural acts and explain why each is unnatural.


----------



## gator001

Maxperson said:


> No.  There's no need to list the obvious.  I'm sure you can figure it out.



I accept your concession.


----------



## Argyle King

Opinion: steel would not count as "cold iron."

Steel is an alloy.


----------



## Maxperson

gator001 said:


> I accept your concession.



No concession. When you can find me a Ferrari growing naturally in the wild, we can talk.


----------



## pemerton

gator001 said:


> The idea that there exists such a thing as artificial objects is entirely the result of sloppy thinking.



When a food manufacturer tells me that their product does contain artificial sweeteners, they are conveying information.

When someone contrasts the _natural shelter_ of a cave with the _artificial_ shelter of a tent, they are drawing a meaningful contrast.

_Artificial_ seems cognate with _artefact_ (and a quick Google just confirmed that). Some things are the result of artifice. Some are not.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> When a food manufacturer tells me that their product does contain artificial sweeteners, they are conveying information.
> 
> When someone contrasts the _natural shelter_ of a cave with the _artificial_ shelter of a tent, they are drawing a meaningful contrast.
> 
> _Artificial_ seems cognate with _artefact_ (and a quick Google just confirmed that). Some things are the result of artifice. Some are not.



The guy created his account today, instigated in this thread a bunch, and then ended his account.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> When a food manufacturer tells me that their product does contain artificial sweeteners, they are conveying information.
> 
> When someone contrasts the _natural shelter_ of a cave with the _artificial_ shelter of a tent, they are drawing a meaningful contrast.
> 
> _Artificial_ seems cognate with _artefact_ (and a quick Google just confirmed that). Some things are the result of artifice. Some are not.



That poster has been banned for repeated misbehavior in at least three threads.  FYI.


----------



## Fenris-77

Me: _That iron should have brought its mittens!_

DM: _Get out._

And .... scene. I'll show myself out.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> The guy created his account today, instigated in this thread a bunch, and then ended his account.





Ovinomancer said:


> That poster has been banned for repeated misbehavior in at least three threads.  FYI.



OK. I wanna ask, what does someone have to do to get banned within a day? But maybe there are some things that humanity was simply not meant to know.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> OK. I wanna ask, what does someone have to do to get banned within a day? But maybe there are some things that humanity was simply not meant to know.



I'm assuming, but I don't think he was banned.  I think he made the account to stir things up and then closed it.  The tone of his posts here made it seem like he was just about instigating.


----------



## J.Quondam

Maxperson said:


> I'm assuming, but I don't think he was banned.  I think he made the account to stir things up and then closed it.  The tone of his posts here made it seem like he was just about instigating.



Yeah, I got the impression it was a sock puppet by another poster who wanted to stir stuff up without getting their main banned.


----------



## Fenris-77

Just my two cents, but anyone who needs a sock puppet account is probably a sad little person. Anyway, back to cold iron and it's many uses! Can anyone tell me if it makes julienne fries?


----------



## J.Quondam

Fenris-77 said:


> Just my two cents, but anyone who needs a sock puppet account is probably a sad little person. Anyway, back to cold iron and it's many uses! Can anyone tell me if it makes julienne fries?



Hmmm... that depends. Is "julienne" a condition, or a weapon special property?


----------



## Fenris-77

J.Quondam said:


> Hmmm... that depends. Is "julienne" a condition, or a weapon special property?



I suppose it's a condition that applies to root vegetables. Possibly also Gnomes.


----------



## CapnZapp

J.Quondam said:


> Yeah, I got the impression it was a sock puppet by another poster who wanted to stir stuff up without getting their main banned.



I guess in theory you COULD travel to a new city, visit an internet café, set up a new email address, create a new ENworld account, troll your selected posts, and then just walk away, with little risk to your main.

As to why you would go through all that trouble, however, I cannot guess.


----------



## J.Quondam

CapnZapp said:


> I guess in theory you COULD travel to a new city, visit an internet café, set up a new email address, create a new ENworld account, troll your selected posts, and then just walk away, with little risk to your main.
> 
> As to why you would go through all that trouble, however, I cannot guess.



I suppose one _could_ do it that way? But just using a VPN or something is a lot easier, like how socks operate on any other social media.
Admittedly, though, the scenery is less exciting that way than travelling to exotic locales.


----------



## Mannahnin

Argyle King said:


> Opinion: steel would not count as "cold iron."
> 
> Steel is an alloy.



"Cold iron", historically and in folklore means any iron or steel.  Folk traditions documented from the Scottish highlands, for example, include using a nail or a pair of scissors to help ward off fairies or witches, in addition to the aforementioned use of horseshoes above doorways.  Not some special unworked lump of iron, but standard worked metal.



			
				Morgan Daimler said:
			
		

> Lady Wilde suggested protecting infants from being taken as changelings by sewing a bit of iron into the hem of the child's clothes (Wilde, 1888). I was taught a modern version of this, where it was recommended that a steel safety pin be attached to a child's clothing, particularly sleepwear. Another commonly recommended protection for children and babies was to hang a pair of scissors, opened into the shape of a cross, above the cradle (Briggs, 1976). A horseshoe can be hung up over the door way, points up, which not only acts to ward off fairies but is also said to draw good luck. An iron knife or cross is also an excellent protection, either carried or hung up above the door or bed (Briggs, 1976). Robert Kirk in his 1691 treatise on the Good Neighbours mentions the practice of putting "bread, the Bible, or a piece of iron" in the bed of a woman giving birth to protect the infant from being stolen. In Welsh belief a knife, particularly of iron, was so effective a protection that should friendly fairies visit a home all knives were hidden from sight lest they be offended and if a traveling person was attacked by the Othercrowd he had only to pull his blade for them to disappear (Sikes, 1880). Another method found in Germanic and Norse traditions is to hammer an iron nail into a post near the doorway or alternately part of the door frame. Additionally it is said to be as effective to draw a circle using an iron nail or knife around what you want to protect (Gundarsson, 2007).




Cold iron as meaning some special material other than simply iron or steel is, as far as I've ever been able to make out, a modern misconception which was then codified in 3.5 D&D as being special iron from below ground worked at lower temperatures, to justify its rarity and so that D&D could make monsters (like fairies) which are vulnerable to "Cold Iron" without that being functionally meaningless because all ordinary swords are cold iron in the real-world meaning of the phrase.  I have heard indications that the concept has since crept out from D&D to some adult fantasy fiction as well.


----------



## MattW

Perhaps "cold iron" is bog iron?  There's something almost magical in the way it seems to grow in peat bogs (rather than being hacked out of rocks).  And this article on Viking iron sounds like a spooky way of making semi-magical weapons out of bog iron.








						Vikings unwittingly made their swords stronger by trying to imbue them with spirits
					

They didn't know it, but the rituals of Iron Age Scandinavians turned their iron into steel.




					bigthink.com


----------



## Bacon Bits

This thread is so weird. It's 15 years old and almost nobody mentions that "cold iron" is supposed to mean the same thing that we mean when we say "cold steel". It just means a weapon made from iron (or steel).

Obviously, yes, in 2005 3.5e treated cold iron as a special material and then didn't describe what is was at all, but it's still a pretty common idiom.


----------



## Tantavalist

That's pretty much it. Cold Iron is just Iron. And the origins of it being the bane of fairy beings comes from Irish myth. It's not hard to guess what ancient historical events the Celts driving the original rulers of Ireland away because they had iron might be a legendary retelling of.

As has been pointed out the issue thus becomes that there's nothing special about fairy beings because in most settings this means any iron weapon (or steel, because attempts to define them as different aren't based on metallurgy) can kill them and if iron is the default metal for making weapons as it is in most RPG settings, no more immunity for fairies.

I'd suggest taking the route of making this a feature and not a bug. Any mundane knife can kill the otherwise immortal elf-folk? Well, that would explain why humans are suddenly running everything and the Fae are retreating into hidden strongholds where they're seldom seen. The fact that iron is a poor metal for making bullets out of could also give a reason for monster hunters to use swords in settings where guns would otherwise be the default.


----------



## Casimir Liber

Well - I always liked the idea of Cold Iron - so in my campaign it comes from veins of iron ore that are touched by the shadowfell (energy sucking plane rather than energy-suffused plane like the feywild) - the iron is naturally cold to the touch but otherwise similar to normal iron/steel. However, Fey creatures are Vulnerable to it.


----------



## Raduin711

After discovering that "cold iron" was just a poetic way of saying "iron" I got kind of annoyed that D&D treated it like a special material. It feels like misinformation, to me. 

It wouldn't be the first time a mythical being was repelled by something commonplace. What is it vampires are repelled by again? Sunlight? Running water? Garlic?


----------



## MGibster

Raduin711 said:


> After discovering that "cold iron" was just a poetic way of saying "iron" I got kind of annoyed that D&D treated it like a special material. It feels like misinformation, to me.



Yeah, D&D really isn't a reliable source.  Just look at the Druid who scarcely resembles the Celtic version aside from having a scared plot of land.  Though at one point, AD&D was my #1 source for names of polearms.


----------



## Weiley31

Raduin711 said:


> After discovering that "cold iron" was just a poetic way of saying "iron" I got kind of annoyed that D&D treated it like a special material. It feels like misinformation, to me.
> 
> It wouldn't be the first time a mythical being was repelled by something commonplace. What is it vampires are repelled by again? Sunlight? Running water? Garlic?



Pretty much. Heck even regular water will do in some stories. In Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver, you could kill almost all vampires by tossing them in water. _Except for the Rahab Clan vampires, they were immune to the acidic effect that water had on vampires and their clan gimmick was that of swimming vampires._


----------



## Weiley31

Didn't Demons/Devils in 3.0/3.5 edition also have like a thing where their damage reduction could be overcome by Cold Iron as well? The Fey I could understand why with Cold Iron but I could never figure out why Devils/Demons were allergic to it as well.


----------



## billd91

Weiley31 said:


> Didn't Demons/Devils in 3.0/3.5 edition also have like a thing where their damage reduction could be overcome by Cold Iron as well? The Fey I could understand why with Cold Iron but I could never figure out why Devils/Demons were allergic to it as well.



It was demons. I suspect it was a bit of the same with faeries, really. Plus, it served as a distinction from devils who could be harmed with silver.


----------



## billd91

Raduin711 said:


> After discovering that "cold iron" was just a poetic way of saying "iron" I got kind of annoyed that D&D treated it like a special material. It feels like misinformation, to me.



In Irish legends, iron was supposed to be a powerful protection against magic - which may seem kind of weird to us today - but it may also be because, in Irish society, the blacksmith wasn't just a guy who made utilitarian stuff. He was magical. It's probably a descendent of the broader smith god tradition in Celtic cultures. And, ultimately, it may have derived from the idea that working iron was a difficult or magical process compared to dominant predecessor metals like bronze since the forge needed to be a lot hotter.

So exactly why "cold iron" was proof against magic or faeries? It may have had less to do with its intrinsic properties and more to do with the fact that the blacksmith worked magic.


----------



## Casimir Liber

Raduin711 said:


> After discovering that "cold iron" was just a poetic way of saying "iron" I got kind of annoyed that D&D treated it like a special material. It feels like misinformation, to me.
> 
> It wouldn't be the first time a mythical being was repelled by something commonplace. What is it vampires are repelled by again? Sunlight? Running water? Garlic?



Yeah...it is poetic....."cold iron" just sounds so cool I had to revive it and it be a Thing in my campaign. Plus I love the odd Vulnerability or two...


----------



## gatorized

Maxperson said:


> I walked into that guy claiming everything that exists is natural no matter what and took the other side, because, well, it's simply not true.  His stance is a lot like those who think you can't ever know anything, or that only what you can see exists, and the other fun, but useless philosophical arguments.  It's a nice theory to talk about and have fun with, but it's just not reality.  He was arguing that it was reality and I'm arguing against that position.  In our reality, natural exists, and unnatural exists.
> 
> For thread purposes, cold forged iron is iron worked at low/room temperature and since it's worked iron, it's not natural.  Hot forged iron is also not natural, but that does't work on the fey, because mythology.



Why do you think that humans aren't natural, or that things they do aren't natural?


----------



## Maxperson

gatorized said:


> Why do you think that humans aren't natural, or that things they do aren't natural?



You can't find skyscrapers in nature.  You can't find cars in nature. You can't find steel knives in nature.  Most of what we make and do isn't a part of nature. 

Is the human race itself natural?  Little else we do is natural, though.


----------



## gatorized

Maxperson said:


> You can't find skyscrapers in nature.  You can't find cars in nature. You can't find steel knives in nature.  Most of what we make and do isn't a part of nature.
> 
> Is the human race itself natural?  Little else we do is natural, though.



You can find all of those things in nature. They are made by humans, a species of animal that lives on Earth, in nature.


----------



## Maxperson

gatorized said:


> You can find all of those things in nature. They are made by humans, a species of animal that lives on Earth, in nature.



Ahh, you're one of those everything is natural and there's no such thing unnatural, despite unnatural things being a fact.  That's about as useful as philosophers who think we can't know anything or can't know that we exist.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

What foul necromancy is this I see! The arguments of gatorized seem a lot like those gator001 was arguing last year on the previous page of this very thread.

Is this thread to be cursed with some sort of "gator" based character emerging every year to pitch this "everything is natural" line of argument for all time? Is @Maxperson to forever be our gator wrestling champion?


----------



## Maxperson

Benjamin Olson said:


> What foul necromancy is this I see! The arguments of gatorized seem a lot like those gator001 was arguing last year on the previous page of this very thread.
> 
> Is this thread to be cursed with some sort of "gator" based character emerging every year to pitch this "everything is natural" line of argument for all time? Is @Maxperson to forever be our gator wrestling champion?



I need a new pair of boots!


----------



## gatorized

Maxperson said:


> Ahh, you're one of those everything is natural and there's no such thing unnatural, despite unnatural things being a fact.  That's about as useful as philosophers who think we can't know anything or can't know that we exist.



How do you know that unnatural things are a fact? What experiment would you perform to determine if a thing is natural or not?


----------



## Maxperson

gatorized said:


> How do you know that unnatural things are a fact? What experiment would you perform to determine if a thing is natural or not?



The word exists for a reason. Go look it up.


----------



## gatorized

Maxperson said:


> The word exists for a reason. Go look it up.



Answer my question.


----------



## Maxperson

gatorized said:


> Answer my question.



I did.  Go look up the word. It will explain it to you.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> You can't find skyscrapers in nature.  You can't find cars in nature. You can't find steel knives in nature.  Most of what we make and do isn't a part of nature.




So, with respect, the statement as presented _assumes its own conclusion_.  You have implicitly defined nature as "not the work of humans", and then use that to show that the work of humans is not in nature - self referential logic, with no rhetorical value.

You need to define "nature" without referencing mankind, and then show that our actions are outside it for this to stick.

This is difficult.  There are other animals that build things.  Beavers build dams.  Termites build mounds that, compared to their body size, are bigger than our skyscrapers are compared to us.  There are animals that use tools, and teach their young to use them, and so on.  We are just _better_ at it than other animals on the planet.



Maxperson said:


> Is the human race itself natural?  Little else we do is natural, though.




So, again, this is a logic trap for you, because he _knows_ you don't have a solid working definition of "natural" except, "that which exists without human intervention".


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> I did.  Go look up the word. It will explain it to you.




The dictionary, alas, has the same rhetorical issue you do.  It doesn't define on base principle, but by reference.  Using it in your argument becomes self-referential.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> So, with respect, the statement as presented _assumes its own conclusion_.  You have implicitly defined nature as "not the work of humans", and then use that to show that the work of humans is not in nature - self referential logic, with no rhetorical value.
> 
> You need to define "nature" without referencing mankind, and then show that our actions are outside it for this to stick.
> 
> This is difficult.  There are other animals that build things.  Beavers build dams.  Termites build mounds that, compared to their body size, are bigger than our skyscrapers are compared to us.  There are animals that use tools, and teach their young to use them, and so on.  We are just _better_ at it than other animals on the planet.
> 
> 
> 
> So, again, this is a logic trap for you, because he _knows_ you don't have a solid working definition of "natural" except, "that which exists without human intervention".



When he was discussing this with me in his last incarnation a few pages ago, at some point I defined it for him.  It was something to the effect of, "Occurring in nature without outside help."  So termite mounds and beaver damns do not occur in nature as you won't find one that wasn't built by termites or beavers.  Bees are natural.  Beehives are not. Humans are natural. Clothing is not.  And so on.


----------



## Irlo

Umbran said:


> The dictionary, alas, has the same rhetorical issue you do.  It doesn't define on base principle, but by reference.  Using it in your argument becomes self-referential.



Dictionaries don't define terms on principle. They document how words are used. A frequent usage of _natural _is indeed _that which exists without human intervention. _It's seems strange to suggest that we must come up with another definition that doesn't align with actual usage.


----------



## Mannahnin

Maxperson said:


> When he was discussing this with me in his last incarnation a few pages ago, at some point I defined it for him.  It was something to the effect of, "Occurring in nature without outside help."  So termite mounds and beaver damns do not occur in nature as you won't find one that wasn't built by termites or beavers.  Bees are natural.  Beehives are not. Humans are natural. Clothing is not.  And so on.



This definition is nonsensical.  "outside" of what? How is a beaver or a human building a thing less natural than wind and water building it without intent?  Are bird's nests unnatural?  Really?  And ant tunnels?

Beaver dams and the Hoover Dam are both natural. The ideology you're espousing is predicated on a harmful dualistic conception of the world, one step removed from the Sacred/Profane division that calls the physical world sinful and evil and conceives that only the immaterial can be good.  And equally well supported.  :/


----------



## Mannahnin

Irlo said:


> Dictionaries don't define terms on principle. They document how words are used. A frequent usage of _natural _is indeed _that which exists without human intervention. _It's seems strange to suggest that we must come up with another definition that doesn't align with actual usage.



Does whether a thing is frequently described in a particular way make that definition accurate? If, during the height of the Satanic Panic, the most common understanding of D&D was "an imaginative game which is harmful to people's mental health and likely their souls" would that make that the truth?


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Obviously all things, material or immaterial, real or imaginary, are natural for all things have some sort of natures. Clearly a very useful word.

But if only we also had some sort of term for when something exists without the interventions of human technology...


----------



## Mannahnin

Benjamin Olson said:


> Obviously all things, material or immaterial, real or imaginary, are natural for all things have some sort of natures. Clearly a very useful word.
> 
> But if only we also had some sort of term for when something exists without the interventions of human technology...



There are certainly a number of other more useful definitions.  Wiktionary has that one as the fourth of fifteen.






						natural - Wiktionary
					






					en.wiktionary.org


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Benjamin Olson said:


> What foul necromancy is this I see! The arguments of gatorized seem a lot like those gator001 was arguing last year on the previous page of this very thread.
> 
> Is this thread to be cursed with some sort of "gator" based character emerging every year to pitch this "everything is natural" line of argument for all time? Is @Maxperson to forever be our gator wrestling champion?




Who knew Tim Tebow spent his spare time on EnWorld?


----------



## Irlo

Mannahnin said:


> Does whether a thing is frequently described in a particular way make that definition accurate? If, during the height of the Satanic Panic, the most common understanding of D&D was "an imaginative game which is harmful to people's mental health and likely their souls" would that make that the truth?



Definitions don't exist in some objective state outside of usage. It's not about truth. It's about what we convey and what we intend to convey with words.


----------



## Umbran

Irlo said:


> Dictionaries don't define terms on principle. They document how words are used.




Yep.  That is exactly why the dictionary is _unhelpful_ in this context.


----------



## Umbran

Irlo said:


> Definitions don't exist in some objective state outside of usage.




Definitions of (and I recognize the irony here) natural language words are as you say.

However, formal logic has a different view of definitions that really should carry some weight here.  Alas, most folks haven't seen formal logic since junior high school or thereabouts.


----------



## Maxperson

Mannahnin said:


> This definition is nonsensical.  "outside" of what? How is a beaver or a human building a thing less natural than wind and water building it without intent?  Are bird's nests unnatural?  Really?  And ant tunnels?



I thought it was clear from context.  Outside of nature itself.  And both of those questions are a yes.  Ant tunnels do not occur by themselves.  They are constructed.  Same with bird nests.


Mannahnin said:


> Beaver dams and the Hoover Dam are both natural.



No they aren't.  Or if they are, both the word and concept of unnatural don't exist. Nuclear bombs are natural!


Mannahnin said:


> The ideology you're espousing is predicated on a harmful dualistic conception of the world, one step removed from the Sacred/Profane division that calls the physical world sinful and evil and conceives that only the immaterial can be good.  And equally well supported.  :/



Holy hell you just went way out into left field, decided that left field wasn't far enough and tripled it, then decided to go even further into something that just plain wasn't said or implied.  Don't assign crap like that to me again.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> No they aren't.  Or if they are, both the word and concept of unnatural don't exist. Nuclear bombs are natural!




The reaction that happens in nuclear bombs is perfectly natural.  Indeed, there have been identified "natural nuclear reactors" in which sufficient amounts of fissionable materials existed in the presence of water sources as coolant and moderator to support sustained nuclear fission chain reactions over time - in like a several hour cycle for hundreds of thousands of years.  And, of course, fusion reactions in the sun make your life possible.

A problem you face here is that the idea that what mankind does is not natural is grounded in pre-Darwin philosophy, when folks thought of human beings as something strictly separate from the rest of the natural world.  The theory of evolution and further research has placed humankind firmly within the natural order, putting a big hole in that idea.

Now, given that the whole idea of "cold iron" being relevant is _also_ pre-Darwin, you now should now see your way out of the conflict.

This whole argument about whether human action _is_ natural is irrelevant.  You need to discuss the _historical_ attitude, not present understanding.


----------



## Weiley31

gatorized said:


> Why do you think that humans aren't natural, or that things they do aren't natural?



_Technically,_ humans do a lot of things that aren't natural in the eyes of Nature. The whole notion of Marriage/Love/staying with a single partner throughout your whole life? Nature is straight up going "No, no *THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS" in regard to reproduction and all that.


----------



## Weiley31

Maxperson said:


> No they aren't. Or if they are, both the word and concept of unnatural don't exist. Nuclear bombs are natural!



But if a Beaver, named Hoover, makes a dam, which beavers are known for doing, then said dam is technically natural.


Mannahnin said:


> Beaver dams and the Hoover Dam are both natural.


----------



## Umbran

Weiley31 said:


> _Technically,_ humans do a lot of things that aren't natural in the eyes of Nature. The whole notion of Marriage/Love/staying with a single partner throughout your whole life? Nature is straight up going "No, no *THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS" in regard to reproduction and all that.




Factually incorrect.

There's all sorts of animals that mate for life, or at least for long periods.  Seahorses, coyotes, bald eagles, swans, Canada geese, beavers, grey wolves, gibbons... the list goes on.


----------



## Mannahnin

Weiley31 said:


> _Technically,_ humans do a lot of things that aren't natural in the eyes of Nature. The whole notion of Marriage/Love/staying with a single partner throughout your whole life? Nature is straight up going "No, no *THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS" in regard to reproduction and all that.



Some animals mate monogamously.  Or in serial monogamy, which seems to be the most common pattern for humans.  



Weiley31 said:


> But if a Beaver, named Hoover, makes a dam, which beavers are known for doing, then said dam is technically natural.



Where is this "technical" "in the eyes of Nature" definition coming from?  It springs from a pre-scientific view of humanity and human activity as separate from and somehow above nature.  Which we're definitely not.

Maxperson thinks ant tunnels and beaver dams aren't natural, because creatures construct them.


----------



## Weiley31

Mannahnin said:


> Some animals mate monogamously.  Or in serial monogamy, which seems to be the most common pattern for humans.
> 
> 
> Where is this "technical" "in the eyes of Nature" definition coming from?  It springs from a pre-scientific view of humanity and human activity as separate from and somehow above nature.  Which we're definitely not.
> 
> Maxperson thinks ant tunnels and beaver dams aren't natural, because creatures construct them.



But technically, if Beavers are known for making dams, then the Beaver Dam is natural because it is made from a natural animal.


----------



## Mannahnin

Maxperson said:


> I thought it was clear from context.  Outside of nature itself.  And both of those questions are a yes.  Ant tunnels do not occur by themselves.  They are constructed.  Same with bird nests.



There is no "outside of nature", until we start talking about the supernatural and the divine.  Your arbitrary choice of "constructed" as the line to differentiate natural from unnatural has no particular epistemic merit, and I think any rubric which defines bird or bear nests, ant tunnels and beaver dams as unnatural is inherently absurd. If a process of reasoning I'm using puts out absurd results, I try to reconsider the process I'm using.



Maxperson said:


> Holy hell you just went way out into left field, decided that left field wasn't far enough and tripled it, then decided to go even further into something that just plain wasn't said or implied.  Don't assign crap like that to me again.



The two reasoning errors are closely related.  Sorry to have made you uncomfortable.


----------



## Weiley31

Umbran said:


> Seahorses,



Well, did you also know the dad Seahorse gives birth to live young as well?


----------



## Mannahnin

Weiley31 said:


> Well, did you also know the dad Seahorse gives birth to live young as well?



Sounds like something a lot of (poorly educated in biology) people would call unnatural!  I have heard from many people that ONLY BIOLOGICAL FEMALES CAN BEAR YOUNG.  

They're very insistent about it.


----------



## Weiley31

Isn't outside of Nature also considered like, non naturery stuff too like cities and what not?


----------



## Weiley31

Mannahnin said:


> Sounds like something a lot of (poorly educated in biology) people would call unnatural!  I have heard from many people that ONLY BIOLOGICAL FEMALES CAN BEAR YOUNG.  They're very insistent about it.



Those poor, poor fools.


----------



## Weiley31

Dungeon Crawl Classics gives Elves the whole "allergy to Iron" thing which is something that is referencing the whole "Cold Iron" weakness that the Fey have.

However, in there, it is straight up just Iron. Like no Cold Iron. Just _ANYTHING_ made of metal or what not seems to trigger it. Elf on a space ship? Oh crap.


----------



## Umbran

Weiley31 said:


> Well, did you also know the dad Seahorse gives birth to live young as well?




Seahorses are wonderfully complicated.


----------



## Mannahnin

Weiley31 said:


> Dungeon Crawl Classics gives Elves the whole "allergy to Iron" thing which is something that is referencing the whole "Cold Iron" weakness that the Fey have.
> 
> However, in there, it is straight up just Iron. Like no Cold Iron. Just _ANYTHING_ made of metal or what not seems to trigger it. Elf on a space ship? Oh crap.



Yes.  As the earlier parts of this thread detail, that's what "cold iron" actually meant in real world history, poetry and folklore.  Any iron or steel at all.

The idea that "Cold Iron" is some special unique material other than just iron is a D&Dism.  Purely an invention of modern fiction.









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

Just my two cents, but anyone who needs a sock puppet account is probably a sad little person. Anyway, back to cold iron and it's many uses! Can anyone tell me if it makes julienne fries?  Hmmm... that depends. Is "julienne" a condition, or a weapon special property?




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Mannahnin

Weiley31 said:


> Isn't outside of Nature also considered like, non naturery stuff too like cities and what not?



Only according to a pre-scientific, irrational view which held humans and human activity to be somehow categorically separate and apart from the natural world.  Which we're not.

As the wiktionary entry shows, this usage of the word "natural" still has some usage, but it's only the fourth of fifteen definitions. 

Here are the first six:

*natural* (_comparative_ *more natural*, _superlative_ *most natural*)


_Existing in nature._
Existing in the nature of a person or thing; innate, not acquired or learned. [from 14th c.] quotations ▼
Normally associated with a particular person or thing; inherently related to the nature of a thing or creature. [from 14th c.]
_The species will be under threat if its *natural* habitat is destroyed._
As expected; reasonable, normal; naturally arising from the given circumstances. [from 14th c.] quotations ▼
_It's *natural* for business to be slow on Tuesdays.
His prison sentence was the *natural* consequence of a life of crime._
Formed by nature; not manufactured or created by artificial processes. [from 15th c.] quotations ▼
Pertaining to death brought about by disease or old age, rather than by violence, accident etc. [from 16th c.] quotations ▼
_She died of *natural* causes._
Having an innate ability to fill a given role or profession, or display a specified character. [from 16th c.]







						natural - Wiktionary
					






					en.wiktionary.org


----------



## CleverNickName

Starglim said:


> It's iron that was found in a pure state (either meteoric iron or an especially rich ore) and hammered into shape without being smelted.



This is the best answer I've seen to the OP's question, and I'm using it in my campaign.  Thanks Starglim!


----------



## Mannahnin

CleverNickName said:


> This is the best answer I've seen to the OP's question, and I'm using it in my campaign.  Thanks Starglim!



Hey, it's a perfectly cromulent rule to invent for D&D.


----------



## CleverNickName

Mannahnin said:


> Hey, it's a perfectly cromulent rule to invent for D&D.



Exactly!  It's a _fantasy roleplaying game, _not a scientific journal.  It makes just as much sense as magic, anyway.

I've been looking for a pseudo-scientific explanation for Cold Iron, and now I finally have one.


----------



## glass

Bacon Bits said:


> This thread is so weird. It's 15 years old and almost nobody mentions that "cold iron" is supposed to mean the same thing that we mean when we say "cold steel". It just means a weapon made from iron (or steel).



Other than my saying it in post #4?



Umbran said:


> However, formal logic has a different view of definitions that really should carry some weight here. Alas, most folks haven't seen formal logic since junior high school or thereabouts.



What does formal logic have to do with whether limiting the word "natural" to its broadest possible (and least useful) definition is required? _EDIT: In a context of a discussion thread on an elfgame forum, which is decidedly informal and not always all that logical...._


----------



## Mannahnin

CleverNickName said:


> Exactly!  It's a _fantasy roleplaying game, _not a scientific journal.  It makes just as much sense as magic, anyway.
> 
> I've been looking for a pseudo-scientific explanation for Cold Iron, and now I finally have one.



Right.  Totally useful for that. 

I follow (and subscribe to the Patreon of) the folklorist I quoted before, Morgan Daimler.  They have a recurring frustration with people on social media sharing concepts from D&D and modern fantasy fiction _as if_ they were ancient folklore, and it's a bit of an ongoing Sisyphean effort to try to debunk false etymologies and keep the lines between folk beliefs going back centuries or millennia at least mildly distinct from stuff Jim Butcher or Monte Cook wrote in the last couple of decades.

Forgive me if I get a bit nerdy about it.


----------



## Mannahnin

Weiley31 said:


> Dungeon Crawl Classics gives Elves the whole "allergy to Iron" thing which is something that is referencing the whole "Cold Iron" weakness that the Fey have.
> 
> However, in there, it is straight up just Iron. Like no Cold Iron. Just _ANYTHING_ made of metal or what not seems to trigger it. Elf on a space ship? Oh crap.



This strikes me as another really cool example of DCC going back to the original pre-D&D wellspring sources and trying to be more true to them than D&D has chosen to be.  Mostly they do this with the pulp fiction sources, but in this case it's with folk lore going back at least to medieval Scotland.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> The reaction that happens in nuclear bombs is perfectly natural.  Indeed, there have been identified "natural nuclear reactors" in which sufficient amounts of fissionable materials existed in the presence of water sources as coolant and moderator to support sustained nuclear fission chain reactions over time - in like a several hour cycle for hundreds of thousands of years.  And, of course, fusion reactions in the sun make your life possible.



Okay.  There are natural nuclear reactors.  How many of those involved poured cement, water piped in through metal piping to provide the cooling, power supplied through wires, plastics, rubber, various worked metals, etc.?  I'm going to guess none, since the man made versions don't occur naturally.  The same with nuclear bombs.


Umbran said:


> A problem you face here is that the idea that what mankind does is not natural is grounded in pre-Darwin philosophy, when folks thought of human beings as something strictly separate from the rest of the natural world.  The theory of evolution and further research has placed humankind firmly within the natural order, putting a big hole in that idea.



I'm not using pre-darwin philosophy.  What I'm using are my personal reasons for the existence of those two categories.  I view humans as natural, but I don't view what they do that doesn't occur naturally as natural. If a human bites someone or something, well biting is natural.  If that same human smelts metal and forges a sword and then stabs something with it, well that sword is not natural.  Forged swords don't occur naturally. You aren't going to just find one deep in a mountain.


Umbran said:


> Now, given that the whole idea of "cold iron" being relevant is _also_ pre-Darwin, you now should now see your way out of the conflict.
> 
> This whole argument about whether human action _is_ natural is irrelevant.  You need to discuss the _historical_ attitude, not present understanding.



Yeah, I get that.  The discussion sort of moved away from cold iron and into what was natural, though.


----------



## Umbran

glass said:


> What does formal logic have to do with whether limiting the word "natural" to its broadest possible (and least useful) definition is required?




Ah, formal logic isn't about the particular definition.  It is about how you proceed with presenting a proposition.

Taking a more formal look at it requires one to actually lay out the assumptions, and the steps from those assumptions to the conclusion.  



glass said:


> EDIT: In a context of a discussion thread on an elfgame forum, which is decidedly informal and not always all that logical....




Yes, well, accepting the status quo never improves things.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Okay.  There are natural nuclear reactors.  How many of those involved poured cement, water piped in through metal piping to provide the cooling, power supplied through wires, plastics, rubber, various worked metals, etc.?  I'm going to guess none, since the man made versions don't occur naturally.  The same with nuclear bombs.




I'm sorry, but you're still leaning on the definition that I've previously rejected as circular - assuming the conclusion.  



Maxperson said:


> I'm not using pre-darwin philosophy.  What I'm using are my personal reasons for the existence of those two categories.




Do you assert, and you can establish that your "personal reasons" should 1) apply to anyone other than yourself, and 2) are not significantly influenced by the pre-Darwin position that still pervades the culture in which you reside?

If you want to just say, "This is my personal position, and I have no intention of yielding," that's fine.  You have every right to do that.  But it leaves you with no real ground to discuss it further.


----------



## Irlo

I get it. It's important to acknowledge that people and our artifacts are in the world and of the world and, in that sense, natural. Placing people and our creations outside of (and above) nature can lead to devastating effects. Also, some people also tend to categorize sexual behaviors and actions that they don't approve of as unnatural -- another way of putting ourselves above others, with similarly devastating effects.

Even as we acknowledge the people are in the world and of the world, we can use the terms _natural_ and _artificial_ in meaningful ways, to separate the actions and creations of people from the actions and creations not attributable to people. It's a common usage of the term natural that seems particularly apt when talking about cold iron and fey. 

When your new doctor asks about your health history and you disclose that you have an artificial heart, the doctor will NOT lecture you that your heart is just as natural as the one you were born with, because we are all natural creatures and nothing we do is outside of nature, and doctors will NOT treat you as they would if you had your own biological heart. It's a useful and meaningful distinction with real-world consequences.

The distinction in language between _natural_ and _artificial _conveys useful, actionable information. It's what allows an archaeologist to sift through debris to determine that some are natural rocks and others are artificial tools, which tells us about the people who lived among those rocks. River otters use rocks to open shellfish. We'd have a drastically different perspective on otters if they ran a shellfish processing plant on the beach. There's a difference between Hoover Dam and a natural dam of fallen trees and boulders. There's value in acknowledging that human activity has effects on climate patterns.


----------



## Mannahnin

Irlo said:


> Even as we acknowledge the people are in the world and of the world, we can use the terms _natural_ and _artificial_ in meaningful ways, to separate the actions and creations of people from the actions and creations not attributable to people. It's a common usage of the term natural that seems particularly apt when talking about cold iron and fey.



I have a great of sympathy for your post and position.  Well and thoughtfully expressed, thank you.

In terms of the cold iron and fey interaction, I'm still not convinced that the relevant magical significance rests in the natural/artificial dichotomy.  I think it may, conceptually, have more to do with the Good Folk being creatures of air and darkness and insubstantiality, visiting from the Otherworld, and of only partial connection to the solid human daylight world.  Where iron is in essence a solid, grounding, hard, pragmatic element.

The 3e-era invented definition of Cold Iron as a special form of iron mined deep below ground and worked at lower temperatures, or Starglim's definition of "_iron that was found in a pure state (either meteoric iron or an especially rich ore) and hammered into shape without being smelted_" both seem to instead rely on conceptualizing this special metal as _less "_artificial" than regular iron, which would seem contradictory to the idea that iron or steel being "artificial" or "unnatural" is what makes them particularly baleful to the fae.


----------



## CleverNickName

For me, it's not that Cold Iron is "less artificial," but more like it's "less changed."  In my mind, the melting and refining of materials is a very intensive process that strips out a lot of trace metals and other ingredients.  And in my D&D head-cannon, it's those trace metals and other ingredients that make Cold Iron special.

It's sort of like white sugar vs. brown sugar: the former is very good for industrial processes that need reliable, repeatable results (like a candy factory) and the latter is very good for specific, small-batch applications (like a local artisanal bakery).  Both are sugar, and both are natural--organic, even--but those impurities (molasses, in this case) make a big difference.


----------



## Zubatcarteira

Adventurer: "Would Cold Iron to the heart kill you?"

Fey: "Yeah, well, who wouldn't that kill?"


----------



## Haiku Elvis

I don't think this has been gone into in detail in this thread but a bit of history of iron.
 Iron ore is more common and in almost all places easier to mine than copper also unlike bronze you don't need to sail to the mist enshrouded ends of the world and talk to Cornish people to get your tin to make it so really should have been invented before the bronze age.

The issue was, iron was complicated to work (ironically the main issue was it's melting point was too high so screw you "cold" iron) so for centuries the only iron that could be worked properly was meteoric iron as it was already a kind of insta-steel mix from burning through the atmosphere.
 It was of course stupidly rare and valuable. The Pharos had like one dagger of it that was one of the most valuable things they possessed and has been traced down through generations.

The goal of cracking the code of temperature, oxidation prevention and carbon content was like the fusion energy of the bronze age and was finally cracked by the Hittites (also separately in Nigeria at around the same time apparently) in Turkey and let them be the Mediterranean badasses for a while and roughed up one of the Rameses a bit (Rameses II I think so one of the main ones). When they collapsed the secret slowly proliferated but was still difficult and very specialised, secretive and hard to recreate.
The technological advantage that iron weapons and tools gave redrew the cultural and political map.
In Africa it led to Bantu tribes conquering huge swaths of land. in Europe the secret of iron possessing Celtic tribes moved west from their Swiss homelands spreading iron weapons and tools through the medium of interpretive dance stabbing.
Interestingly the Celts when they colonised Britain and Ireland and brought iron to these fabled isles for the first time they in part probably nobbled the bronze age fairy mound  round barrow building existing cultures. And it has been theorised (only an idea, completely unproven alas) that legends of iron being anathama to fae and magical properties was just a cultural memory of the Celts negotiating alternative land possession stabbing the non iron welding previous inhabitants of the British isles.
Cold iron though is just a made up poetic phrase. like someone said earlier the same way we say cold steel but it just means steel. Even wrought iron needed temperatures as hot as molten bronze to work due to the higher melting point


----------



## Ixal

Haiku Elvis said:


> I don't think this has been gone into in detail in this thread but a bit of history of iron.
> Iron ore is more common and in almost all places easier to mine than copper also unlike bronze you don't need to sail to the mist enshrouded ends of the world and talk to Cornish people to get your tin to make it so really should have been invented before the bronze age.
> 
> The issue was, iron was complicated to work (ironically the main issue was it's melting point was too high so screw you "cold" iron) so for centuries the only iron that could be worked properly was meteoric iron as it was already a kind of insta-steel mix from burning through the atmosphere.
> It was of course stupidly rare and valuable. The Pharos had like one dagger of it that was one of the most valuable things they possessed and has been traced down through generations.
> 
> The goal of cracking the code of temperature, oxidation prevention and carbon content was like the fusion energy of the bronze age and was finally cracked by the Hittites (also separately in Nigeria at around the same time apparently) in Turkey and let them be the Mediterranean badasses for a while and roughed up one of the Rameses a bit (Rameses II I think so one of the main ones). When they collapsed the secret slowly proliferated but was still difficult and very specialised, secretive and hard to recreate.
> The technological advantage that iron weapons and tools gave redrew the cultural and political map.
> In Africa it led to Bantu tribes conquering huge swaths of land. in Europe the secret of iron possessing Celtic tribes moved west from their Swiss homelands spreading iron weapons and tools through the medium of interpretive dance stabbing.
> Interestingly the Celts when they colonised Britain and Ireland and brought iron to these fabled isles for the first time they in part probably nobbled the bronze age fairy mound  round barrow building existing cultures. And it has been theorised (only an idea, completely unproven alas) that legends of iron being anathama to fae and magical properties was just a cultural memory of the Celts negotiating alternative land possession stabbing the non iron welding previous inhabitants of the British isles.
> Cold iron though is just a made up poetic phrase. like someone said earlier the same way we say cold steel but it just means steel. Even wrought iron needed temperatures as hot as molten bronze to work due to the higher melting point



Thats a bit reductive. Iron is not automatically better than bronze. In fact for a long time iron and bronze working coexisted with iron being used for cheap, mass produced items while everything that needed to be of high quality like weapons were made out of bronze when possible, simply because bronze working was better understood.
Only when steel making became more advanced did iron surpass bronze also in quality.

Also meteors was not the only source of "ready made" iron. Much more common and already used in pre roman times was bog iron which naturally accumulated in swamps when the condition was right.


----------



## Mannahnin

Ixal said:


> Thats a bit reductive. Iron is not automatically better than bronze. In fact for a long time iron and bronze working coexisted with iron being used for cheap, mass produced items while everything that needed to be of high quality like weapons were made out of bronze when possible, simply because bronze working was better understood.
> Only when steel making became more advanced did iron surpass bronze also in quality.



It's a fair point that the advantage of iron wasn't primarily that, say, an iron helmet or sword is better on a 1 to 1 basis compared with a bronze one.  IIRC iron might even be inferior, and as you say you need actual steel to have significantly better material properties.

The advantage is more one of production, scale, and availability, as I understand it.  Once a people had the technology to work iron, they could mass produce such items much easier and more cheaply than they could bronze ones, because of the greater availability of the element compared to the ones that go into bronze.  And thus arm and equip a much greater number of fighting men quicker and more cheaply.


----------



## Haiku Elvis

Ixal said:


> Thats a bit reductive. Iron is not automatically better than bronze. In fact for a long time iron and bronze working coexisted with iron being used for cheap, mass produced items while everything that needed to be of high quality like weapons were made out of bronze when possible, simply because bronze working was better understood.
> Only when steel making became more advanced did iron surpass bronze also in quality.
> 
> Also meteors was not the only source of "ready made" iron. Much more common and already used in pre roman times was bog iron which naturally accumulated in swamps when the condition was right.



No you got me on some good points. it's not automatically better and they did coexist for a good time and I did gloss over the how and why iron helped people go a conquering a bit.
 In terms of its really steel that's better. I was in part using Iron in a  broad poetic sense (like Iron age itself as it was in large part the steel age).  Although by the time you figure out how to make wrought iron properly you are already using charcoal or coal in the mix so your already taking your first steps to steel city, the purely iron age was pretty short.

But having said all that, there are reasons the Pharos were hitting up the Hittites for iron and that we had an Iron age at all and not just Another Bronze Age with Iron Added on Age.

One of the main issues with Bronze is it's made of copper and tin which stubbornly refuse to hang out anywhere near each other in their ore forms.
Again theory time, it's been suggested the need to source copper and tin pushed the bronze age civilisations into becoming broad trading peoples which underpinned the rise of the Mediterranean empires.

But back to late Bronze Age collapse, when Iron technology is spreading across the post apocalypse wastelands of the Mideast and Europe and those cosmopolitan trade empires have all collapsed or retreated into themselves, Unless you have a reliable international supply of tin, you don't have bronze weapons you have some copper and a desperate hope those guys riding over the hill are friendly.
With Iron/steel work the rarest ingredient is the knowledge how to make it, as @Mannahnin said above the materials are abundant so when iron working was only known by some it was a huge advantage in the age they were in regardless of like for like quality.
Finally I think it got lost but one point I wanted to make was that iron was mythologised and held as special from the start which may well have contributed to its supposed mystical properties that worked its way into folklore.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Observation 1: It seems to me that in a few of the recent posts there's been some casual swapping between the words "iron" (pure Fe) and "steel" (iron with a tiny bit...but just the right amount...of carbon).  Unintentionally, I assume, because otherwise people seem to know what they're talking about.  Steel with enough carbon can be heat treated, iron can not.  But even 0% carbon iron would, I think, be a wonder material to early people.

Observation 2: Although we now understand the "why" of hardened carbon steel...why the carbon matters, why quenching and tempering do what they do, etc...the processes are still the same as they have been for thousands of years.  I think it's cool that the ancient smiths figured it out by trial and error, and passed the knowledge down, without having any idea why it works, and that when we do it today, especially if we're judging heat by color rather than using a computer controlled heat treat oven, we're doing it almost exactly the same way.

Observation 3: Although I'm pretty into this topic, from a game standpoint it doesn't matter to me that "cold iron" is a meaningless poetic phrase in the real world.  In a world of dragons and elves and magic, why can't there be a difficult (secret?) technique of smelting and forging iron without heating it?


----------



## Ixal

There are actually quite some differences in how steel is made because old furnances weren't hot enought (which is something the fantasy aspect of the game can help with. Which could mean that cold iron would be steel made in the traditional way without magical help and normal steel would be the one from magical, hot, furnances).
A very good series about iron and steel production. Its multi part, see links in the first sentence of the article








						Collections: Iron, How Did They Make It?  Part I, Mining
					

This week we are starting a four-part look (I, II, III, IVa, IVb, addendum) at pre-modern iron and steel production. As with our series on farming, we are going to follow the train of iron producti…




					acoup.blog


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ixal said:


> There are actually quite some differences in how steel is made because old furnances weren't hot enought (which is something the fantasy aspect of the game can help with. Which could mean that cold iron would be steel made in the traditional way without magical help and normal steel would be the one from magical, hot, furnances).
> A very good series about iron and steel production. Its multi part, see links in the first sentence of the article
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Collections: Iron, How Did They Make It?  Part I, Mining
> 
> 
> This week we are starting a four-part look (I, II, III, IVa, IVb, addendum) at pre-modern iron and steel production. As with our series on farming, we are going to follow the train of iron producti…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> acoup.blog




That's an excellent point.  When I said that we still do things the same way I was thinking of working the steel into a blade.  But how we get the steel has changed dramatically.  I buy mine from a guy in New Jersey, for example.  

(No, it didn't "fall off the truck".)


----------



## glass

Bill Zebub said:


> Observation 1: It seems to me that in a few of the recent posts there's been some casual swapping between the words "iron" (pure Fe) and "steel" (iron with a tiny bit...but just the right amount...of carbon). Unintentionally, I assume, because otherwise people seem to know what they're talking about. Steel with enough carbon can be heat treated, iron can not. But even 0% carbon iron would, I think, be a wonder material to early people.



I believe that is because the difference between "iron" and "steel" in this context is not how much carbon there is, but how closely the amount of carbon is controlled. "Iron" as made in the iron age was certainly not 100% pure Fe (I am pretty sure they could not have made such a thing even if they'd wanted to), and neither are "cast iron" or "wrought iron" as the terms are used today.


----------



## Irlo

I've enjoyed following the metallurgical discussion. My thanks to those contributing.


----------



## Edgar Ironpelt

Frostmarrow said:


> It's folklore. Britons used to believe fairies had a weakness against cold iron.



Yes, it's folklore. But by the time it reached gaming, "cold iron" had developed a number of different origin-stories. 

My preferred origin-story is that gold, silver, copper, and lead can be hammered into shapes while "cold" (room temperature) but iron was a "new metal" that had to heated up to hammer into shape (and then, often, for more arcane points, the iron was quenched). It couldn't be shaped when cold, unlike the other metals. That made iron a special, magical - or rather anti-magical - metal, a new metal that hurt the old spirits. 

Most GMs have "cold iron" be a special form of iron in one way or another, usually as a sacrifice to the Gods of Game Balance. Others have any ordinary mundane iron or steel count as "cold iron." So they house-rule in (e.g.) d&d 3.5e that any ordinary 15gp sword is "cold iron" and therefore effective against monsters with vulnerability to cold iron or DR X/cold iron, rather than having cold iron be something on the special materials list.


----------



## Bill Zebub

glass said:


> I believe that is because the difference between "iron" and "steel" in this context is not how much carbon there is, but how closely the amount of carbon is controlled. "Iron" as made in the iron age was certainly not 100% pure Fe (I am pretty sure they could not have made such a thing even if they'd wanted to), and neither are "cast iron" or "wrought iron" as the terms are used today.




Yeah, that's all true.  I'm sure iron age iron was full of all kinds of impurities, including the wrong amount of carbon.

Maybe 'cold iron' could just be 'not steel'.  Can't be heat treated, doesn't hold an edge, prone to break.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Bill Zebub said:


> Yeah, that's all true.  I'm sure iron age iron was full of all kinds of impurities, including the wrong amount of carbon.
> 
> Maybe 'cold iron' could just be 'not steel'.  Can't be heat treated, doesn't hold an edge, prone to break.



And sometimes the impurities were useful, such as the iron pillar of Delhi.

That can be part of the fun, where you can have steel from the local foundry, which is adequate for your needs. Then there's steel from Foreignburg which you wouldn't use for pots or tools, but is great for weapons, armor and other things that need to take a beating. And, then, if your are lucky, you can buy some bars of steel from Exoticstan _which doesn't even rust_! Any quality thing you can make will last forever!


----------

