Talk:Dragons/@comment-7445410-20140104053432/@comment-4536066-20140106023530

If I understand correctly, this conversation is about:


 * Many players confuse "taming" dragons with "domesticating" dragons.


 * A tame beast will recognize a tamer as his alpha, will obey boundaries and tolerate normally offensive behavior from his superior, and may even be taught to submit to commands. However, a tame beast has no affection for its tamer and will easily attack the tamer if it suspects for any reason that the authority of its tamer has lessened. It is possible (albeit overwhelmingly difficult) to take a feral dragon from the wild and to tame it to a degree.
 * A domesticated beast is friendly or even affectionate with its master, can recognize its master as a non-threatening companion, and can be trusted to behave without the constant presence of boundaries or social hierarchies. Domestication is achieved only through tens or even hundreds of generations of selectively breeding only beasts of a species to have docile, non-humanoid-aggressive, and often juvenile traits. It is not possible to take a feral dragon from the wild and to domesticate it.

If that's the case, then allow me to explain. The point of those was less to say "dragons can be tamed" and more to explain the difference between a domestic animal and a tamed wild animal, like a lion. Pretty much any time I've seen a character playing (or NPC'ing) a non-violent dragon and calling it "tame," that person has actually been playing a dragon with domesticated traits, which is the common mistake.

So, the point of those bullets was to help explain to viewers what traits a "tamed" dragon would have if it were, hypothetically, to happen. (This is one of those, "People are going to do it whether we like it or not, so lets at least help them do it well," things.)

If the only line in question is, " It is possible (albeit overwhelmingly difficult) to take a feral dragon from the wild and to tame it to a degree," I think a better solution than removing it is to propose an alternative statement. I think that how it was does suggest that the act is nigh impossible to achieve and, even when achieved, is not completely reliable, but again, I think editing the word choice is better than removing the whole thing.