Are D&D dragons inherently good or evil

[FabulousFizban]

If say, a silver dragon was hatched to and raised by a white dragon for whatever reason; or if a gold dragon found a red dragon wyrmling and tried to train it to be just and noble, what would happen?

Are these dragons free willed creatures that can change alignment, or are they trapped by their heritage?

EDIT: I also have a question regarding motivations. What possible reasons would an evil chromatic dragon have for raising a metallic dragon? Do dragons even raise their young?

EDIT 2: Are there any published examples of dragons going against their "official" alignments?

[KillianHawkeye]

They are just as free willed as any other mortal creature. Heck, even Outsiders can change their alignment, although it happens even more rarely than with dragons.

[Pan151]

There are inherent tendencies towards good-evil, but they are not absolute. One of the examples presented in DnD lore is Crystal Dragons stealing eggs off of White Dragon nests and raising the wyrmlings to be neutral.

[eastmabl]

If say, a silver dragon was hatched to and raised by a white dragon for whatever reason; or if a gold dragon found a red dragon wyrmling and tried to train it to be just and noble, what would happen?

Are these dragons free willed creatures that can change alignment, or are they trapped by their heritage?

With minor exceptions (undead, devils, demons), no creature needs to be locked into a given alignment. Generally, they should follow their alignment as dictated by the Monster's Manual, but there are exceptions to almost every rule. Sufficiently justify it, and I think you're good to go.

However, you want to avoid having the exception to rule from becoming its own rule; see Chaotic Good Drow in Faerun.

[hamishspence]

With minor exceptions (undead, devils, demons) no creature needs to be locked into a given alignment.

Some undead are more justifiable as "not locked" than others - ghosts, for example.

[Crake]

There are inherent tendencies towards good-evil, but they are not absolute. One of the examples presented in DnD lore is Crystal Dragons stealing eggs off of White Dragon nests and raising the wyrmlings to be neutral.

This. Metallic dragons have an inherent tendency toward good, while chromatic have toward evil.

Creatures with the alignment subtypes though, like demons, devils and angels, are pretty much unable to change their alignment barring extreme circumstances, not even upbringing would matter, if there was such a thing for them.

[CoffeeIncluded]

This is one of the biggest points of contention in the game. Some people go by the monster manual and say "always evil equals always evil." Some people rule that racial tendencies towards good and evil exist, but there's no absolute. Some people just chuck racial alignment out the window and make every single creature an individual regardless of what the alignment descriptor on the monster manual says.

[Eldonauran]

Always "alignment" isn't a straight-jacket. Sure, of a given population, almost all of the creatures are going to be that alignment. There are always exceptions to every rule. Where do those exceptions come in? Why, at the DM's discretion.

Anything with an intelligence score has the ability to change its alignment. Alignment subtypes can be trickier as it takes some good magic to get rid of or change those, but alignment is fluid. It can change.

[Komatik]

This. Metallic dragons have an inherent tendency toward good, while chromatic have toward evil.

Creatures with the alignment subtypes though, like demons, devils and angels, are pretty much unable to change their alignment barring extreme circumstances, not even upbringing would matter, if there was such a thing for them.

It very much helps that said creatures are literally made of physical, solid Evil or Good (and Law and Chaos).

[Phelix-Mu]

Default alignment maybe is indicated by the MM. But, in practice, alignment is specific to an individual and is shaped by their behaviors and activities, and is thus pretty much DM fiat territory. If the DM says all dragons are evil, or that they all follow the MM entries, or that Texas is the King of Antarctica, it is so. Such is the power of DM.

However, I don't think the RAW really ever says that alignments can't be changed ever (and things like the atonement spell seem to seriously suggest the contrary).

The main way to think about this is that chromatic dragons are more prone to evil behavior, metallic dragons to good behavior.

For example, imagine, for instance, that a rather clueless halfling burglar blunders into a great wyrm's lair.

The red great wyrm opens its eyes, sees the halfling, and thinks "Not a threat, could be tasty...but first, maybe an appetizer of torture."

The gold great wyrm opens its eyes, sees the halfling, and thinks "Not a threat, could be tasty...but first, maybe I should ask why he's here."

The evil dragon doesn't have to be evil, but that is its first thought. Likewise, the good dragon can just eat the stupid halfling (especially if the halfling answers "I'm here to steal from you").

Alignment generally describes established trends in behavior, not some compulsion from beyond the stars. That said, some habits are hard to break.:smallwink:

[OldTrees1]

If say, a silver dragon was hatched to and raised by a white dragon for whatever reason; or if a gold dragon found a red dragon wyrmling and tried to train it to be just and noble, what would happen?

Are these dragons free willed creatures that can change alignment, or are they trapped by their heritage?

Considering even Angels, Devils and Demons can change alignment, what do you think?
Yes Dragons can change alignment despite their heritage.

[Forrestfire]

The monster manual says that even with "Always [alignment]" alignments, it's not 100% of them.

Personally, I've always read "Usually" as "their culture tends towards this alignment" and "Always" as "they have a genetic predisposition towards this alignment."

[Urpriest]

Draconomicon has a somewhat extensive discussion of this. It basically boils down to saying that Dragons do have natural tendencies towards particular alignments, but not nearly to the same extent as Outsiders.

[Zweisteine]

Dragons can be alignments other than that listed, as can any creature. Dragons are less likely to change alignment, because their temperaments are generally matched to their alignment, but the right upbringing, or a rare exception, can change a creature's alignment away from the default. This is more common in race that are "usually" of a particular alignment,* but it happens to "always X" creatures as well, albeit extremely rarely (though your setting could remove this type of thing entirely, as Eberron did with dragons).

The main exceptions are unintelligent creatures. Animals, for example, are always neutral, simply because they lack the reasoning capacity to have morals and ethics. The same goes for most constructs.
Mindless undead are always evil, as they are powered by negative energy, which is inherently evil. If there were mindless deathless, they woul dbe inherently good.

Thinking undead are almost alway evil as well, but it also relies on the type of undead. Ghosts can be any alignment, but Liches, and other self/willingly-created intelligent undead, are evil because only those who are already evil usually will become one. Vampires are a different case, but my personal take is that the thirst for blood is initially so overwhelming it subsumes the vampire's original personality, and they almost never fully recover (go find threads about Durkula if you want more arguments about vampires being evil).

Aligned outsiders are a special case in many cases, they are literal embodiments of their alignments (for example, Demons are spawned by the Abyss for the explicit purpose of spreading chaos and evil). They are always born with their inherent alignment and almost never change. The exceptions are extremely rare (less than one in a literal million), and often become well known. There is also always some underlying cause to the change, such as corruption by the opposing side (probably most common), or a forced change in personality (as created by the spells Mindrape and Programmed Amnesia).

*Like a certain scimitar-wielding Drow renegade...

[Hurnn]

*Like a certain scimitar-wielding Drow renegade...

you mean that one who should not have survived childhood?

[OldTrees1]

you mean that one who should not have survived childhood?

The Lolth Touched template probably helped a lot.

[Flickerdart]

Dragons are basically giant lizardy cats. They all share a common set of traits (greed, territoriality, sleeping all day) that can overpower their default alignment to a variable degree. I would say that a dragon that's changed his alignment would be likelier to drift towards NN rather than towards any extreme alignment.

[Sith_Happens]

Personally, I've always read "Usually" as "their culture tends towards this alignment" and "Always" as "they have a genetic predisposition towards this alignment."

Which is good, because that's almost exactly what the Monster Manual glossary says.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Dragons are not inherently aligned but they are -heavily- predisposed toward their listed alignments. They -are- born with it though. True dragons, according to the draconomicon, are fully capable of fluent speech in draconic and common and most of them are more intelligent than the average adult human within a period of less than a day after hatching.

To the greater point; only creatures with the alignment subtypes are inherently of that alignment and -all- creatures of int 3 or higher are capable of choosing to be of whatever alignment they wish. Though their ability to -reach- certain alignments is more or less difficult, depending on their natural inclinations.

[Phelix-Mu]

And thus we find the real problem about having alignment regarded as an immediately observable statistic that can be generalized. It's definitely a tendency backed up by a combination of established habits, cultural upbringing, and whatever passes for inherent/natural predilections. Thus, it does tend to be a statistic unique to any individual, and based on a bunch of stuff that really only the DM or player could determine.

[Cikomyr]

Good or evil, they are all greedy

[Grayson01]

That is why you play in Eberron, Except Paladins, Outsiders, and undead Alignment is out the window!

[Forrestfire]

Which is good, because that's almost exactly what the Monster Manual glossary says.

Is it? It's been years since I've actually read it :smallredface:

[bekeleven]

See also: Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), on Wizards, by Robert Wiese.


Redemption sometimes comes in a flash, but more often it takes years and years of painful work -- and so it was in this case. Born to evil, Eludecia found it hard even to understand goodness, let alone embrace it. However, she persevered until she finally achieved a shaky redemption. She then dedicated herself fully to the cause of good and took on the mantle of paladin, although no deity was willing to be her special patron.

Eludecia knows that she can never purge herself completely of her evil nature without magical aid, but for now, she shuns such help because she is determined to "make it on her own." Thus, she must fight each and every day to avoid slipping back into her evil ways. Thus far, she has succeeded admirably.

As a good and [Evil] Creature, she responds to spells as though she were both alignments.

[Grayson01]

See also: Eludecia, the Succubus Paladin (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), on Wizards, by Robert Wiese.



As a good and [Evil] Creature, she responds to spells as though she were both alignments.

Really not even Saint Cuthbert will take her under his wing the man has Evil Clerics and is all about the brining of the Pain?

[atomicwaffle]

(personal opinion)

alignment can slide on certain entities, but on others i think it should remain unchanged.

Also, why on earth would you want an evil metallic dragon? You can use an evil chromatic dragon just as easily, without trying to be 3edgy6me.

I'm not against houseruling, but i fail to see how the chromatic/metallic alignments DEMAND change because reasons

[Cikomyr]

(personal opinion)

alignment can slide on certain entities, but on others i think it should remain unchanged.

Also, why on earth would you want an evil metallic dragon? You can use an evil chromatic dragon just as easily, without trying to be 3edgy6me.

I'm not against houseruling, but i fail to see how the chromatic/metallic alignments DEMAND change because reasons

Color Coded For Your Convenience is simplistic?

[Fable Wright]

(personal opinion)

alignment can slide on certain entities, but on others i think it should remain unchanged.

Also, why on earth would you want an evil metallic dragon? You can use an evil chromatic dragon just as easily, without trying to be 3edgy6me.

I'm not against houseruling, but i fail to see how the chromatic/metallic alignments DEMAND change because reasons

Because stereotypes of Gold Dragons are Good exist, and it could make for a plot twist? Or perhaps the fact that you think that the Silver dragon's two different breath weapons would make for a more interesting encounter than just using a Frost Dragon's. Maybe you wanted your Evil dragon to be able to cast Miracle, which only the Gold dragon has the ability to cast inherently. Why hack up their spellcasting or special abilities when there already exists a monster that has all the abilities you want for your fight and is just an alignment chance away?

[Gemini476]

Do also note that if Outsiders cannot change alignment, that really messes up the origin of Devils.

Didn't they start as Celestials fighting the Blood War who fell due to using excessively Evil tactics and things?

[Cikomyr]

Do also note that if Outsiders cannot change alignment, that really messes up the origin of Devils.

Didn't they start as Celestials fighting the Blood War who fell due to using excessively Evil tactics and things?

Not the Blood War, since they weren't Devils at first

[Scow2]

If say, a silver dragon was hatched to and raised by a white dragon for whatever reason; or if a gold dragon found a red dragon wyrmling and tried to train it to be just and noble, what would happen?

Are these dragons free willed creatures that can change alignment, or are they trapped by their heritage?... I'm going to disagree with The Giant and most of the posters here.

Just because they are free willed doesn't mean they don't have overriding desires to tend to their 'inherent' alignment.

A silver dragon that was hatched and raised by a White dragon will still develop a strong Lawful Good conscience, and have serious mommy/daddy issues because he'd fundamentally disagree with the Chaotic Evil parent - A dragon's moral outlook takes all of one hour to develop into one compatible with its alignment. No matter WHAT the white dragon says or HOW (s)he tries to raise the young Silver, the Silver Dragon will develop a strong sense of morality and right+wrong. That said, (s)he'd probably still love and respect his/her parent, even if their alignment differences are irreconcilable (Just as any teenager can still love his/her parents despite having radically different moral and political outlooks).I'm sort of reminded of the Redwall book Taggerung - those books are notoriously Fantastically Racist, and in this case, the titular otter grew up to be a decent hero and righteous, moral person despite being raised to be an assassin by cruel bandits


Same with the Red dragon raised by Gold dragons - The red dragon will see the parent's moral posturing as useless and "wrong". Unlike the Lawful Good silver dragon raised by a Chaotic Evil white dragon, though, the Red dragon likely won't develop the respect for his parent and guardian, and likely try to kill him for being Stupid and Not Worth Saving. I'm again reminded of one of the Redwall books - in this case, it was a fox that was raised by caring parents at the Abbey - and he murdered one, and hated the other, while reveling in crime and wickedness despite attempts to raise him to be good, because, again, species determines behavior in those books.

Unlike Real World Racism, which lacks any scientific or moral or empirical grounds, Fantastic Racism is as justified as the setting creator/storyteller/author wants.


All this said, it's possible for there to be an "Against-Type" dragon or other alignment-inclined species... but the reason for being Against Type would likely be an internal 'defect' (Such a a certain Troll in Central Park), not an external pressure such as how it was raised.

[hamishspence]

Just because they are free willed doesn't mean they don't have overriding desires to tend to their 'inherent' alignment.

A silver dragon that was hatched and raised by a White dragon will still develop a strong Lawful Good conscience, and have serious mommy/daddy issues because he'd fundamentally disagree with the Chaotic Evil parent - A dragon's moral outlook takes all of one hour to develop into one compatible with its alignment. No matter WHAT the white dragon says or HOW (s)he tries to raise the young Silver, the Silver Dragon will develop a strong sense of morality and right+wrong.

All this said, it's possible for there to be an "Against-Type" dragon or other alignment-inclined species... but the reason for being Against Type would likely be an internal 'defect' (Such a a certain Troll in Central Park), not an external pressure such as how it was raised.

The MM does say that, even for Always Evil beings, alignment can change.

And the Crystal Dragon entry does say that white dragons raised by crystal dragons are sometimes nonevil.

Then there's that hybrid chromatic dragon (red/blue) in Forgotten Realms- raised by an elven hero, grew into a hero himself.

While "being raised by good beings" is not always effective at "changing starting alignment" for a chromatic dragon - there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it can, sometimes, work. And that there's no reason to believe that "internal defect" is the only reason why it worked in the first place.

And apart from anything else, there's the Redemption Through Diplomacy rules from BoED. Which, as written, can be used by nongood beings as well as good ones.

So- CN crystal dragon, after white wyrmling has hatched - could use Redemption Through Diplomacy to change its alignment 1 step (white dragon gets +4 on saves against it - but those saves can still fail) - and then, probably, stops there - result - CN white dragon.

[veti]

I had the idea, in a thread about draconic alignments a few years back, that maybe we're looking at this the wrong way round. Maybe it's not "cold-breathing white dragons are evil", maybe it's "cold-breathing evil dragons are white".

So dragons are as free-willed as anyone else, and have no more "inherent" tendencies towards anything than humans do. But when a dragon changes alignment, it changes colour.

Think about it. Just for fun.

[Isamu Dyson]

I generally view racial alignments like this:

Orcs/Goblins/Hobgoblins, and so forth, are evil because of the society that shapes them.

Dragons have a genetic predisposition towards an alignment: it is extremely difficult to change.

Outsiders literally ARE an alignment. Any Outsider possessing an alignment outside their stated alignment is an astronomical oddity.

---

By the way, a Good dragon does not randomly eat an intruder without at least interrogating or even talking to them first. Good folk do end lives on a whim. I'm pretty sure self defense is a-okay, though.

[Psyren]

Really not even Saint Cuthbert will take her under his wing the man has Evil Clerics and is all about the brining of the Pain?

He's probably more pissed that she is made of chaos than that she is made of evil.

[Rubik]

Mindless undead are always evil, as they are powered by negative energy, which is inherently evil.This is inherently and demonstrably wrong, since negative energy is Neutral, not Evil. Lots of negative energy spells have no descriptor, not all undead (which are all negative energy-aligned) are Evil, and the Negative Energy Plane itself is Neutral.

The fact that all mindless undead are Evil (especially purely automatonous undead, such as zombies and skeletons) is stupid, because they literally just stand there doing nothing if nobody commands them to act, just like an iron golem, or a table.

[Psyren]

The theory in LM is that necromancy is evil because it "thins the veil" and thus increases the chances of uncontrolled mindless dead being able to cross over to our world unbidden and start harming innocents. In other words, animating the dead is at best irresponsible and creates an effect similar to irradiating the wilderness. The more undead that exist in the material, the stronger the drain on the material's life force and the thinner the veil becomes.

Thus, even if you animate a skeleton and have it stand around doing nothing, just by being there it is causing problems down the line by making it more likely for, say, a shadow to pop up in a remote village and start feeding.

[Rubik]

The theory in LM is that necromancy is evil because it "thins the veil" and thus increases the chances of uncontrolled mindless dead being able to cross over to our world unbidden and start harming innocents. In other words, animating the dead is at best irresponsible and creates an effect similar to irradiating the wilderness. The more undead that exist in the material, the stronger the drain on the material's life force and the thinner the veil becomes.

Thus, even if you animate a skeleton and have it stand around doing nothing, just by being there it is causing problems down the line by making it more likely for, say, a shadow to pop up in a remote village and start feeding.And yet this is nowhere else in the books, nor are there any mechanics to support it. Not to mention that it's only one of several possibilities mentioned in the book, meaning it's supposition and nothing more.

Oh, and most negative energy spells are Neutral, which kinda kills the idea.

[Psyren]

And yet this is nowhere else in the books, nor are there any mechanics to support it.

Should there be? The notion of good and evil is a worldbuilding point, not a game mechanics one. Tying it to game mechanics (i.e. if you cast Animate Dead today you have a 5% chance of creating a random uncontrolled shadow 5d100 miles away next week) is both silly and restrictive. This is the kind of thing that does belong solely in fluff, and doesn't need to be in any other book besides the book that deals with undead.



Not to mention that it's only one of several possibilities mentioned in the book, meaning it's supposition and nothing more.

Precisely - nobody knows for sure where uncontrolled non-spawn mindless undead come from. You could say clerics of Nerull are responsible for every last one of them too, as unrealistic as that is, but the fact still remains that they are out there.



Oh, and most negative energy spells are Neutral, which kinda kills the idea.

But all undead creation spells are evil, which supports it. Even non-spell undead creation effects tend to be evil. It's the most logical explanation.

[TripleD]

Never forget though, that dragons always take the "long view" of things. So when they act according to their natures it may not always appear "good" or "evil" to the common races.

A Blue Dragon guards a remote settlement in the desert. For generations she has kept monsters and roving bands of raiders at bay. Dragging irritations ditches, keeping away the worst of the weather, and even summoning water and healing in times of need. Some have come to worship her as a benevolent deity.

What they don't know is that the dragon has arranged a deal with a Devil general. In 200 years a portal will open on this exact spot. If the Dragon has prepared a "welcoming feast" for his troops, he will reward her with a mountain of gold.

In another case, a Silver Dragon has divined the future and realized that the infant son of the king will grow up to become a terrible tyrant. To spare the pain of thousands, she is willing to slip into the castle and murder the newborn. The next day the townspeople curse the murder of an "innocent babe by the evil serpent".

"Good" and "Evil" don't have to be obvious to still be there. If you get creative you can bend it any which way you want.

[Andezzar]

Really not even Saint Cuthbert will take her under his wing the man has Evil Clerics and is all about the brining of the Pain?No, he does not:
Exceptions are the clerics of St. Cuthbert (a lawful neutral deity), who may choose only between lawful good and lawful neutral for their alignment.

Because evil creatures more commonly and flagrantly violate laws than good creatures do, St. Cuthbert favors good over evil, though he is not good himself. (His clerics cannot be evil.)

[Scow2]

Oh, and most negative energy spells are Neutral, which kinda kills the idea.It's the difference between leaving radioactive waste all over the place (ANimating dead), and shooting someone with a Graser.

According to the fluff, undead constantly weaken "the veil" for as long as they exist, while spells that channel negative energy without creating undead are controlled with a limited flow. Another analogy could be turning on a faucet then turning it off (Casting a Negative Energy spell), and punching a hole in the water tank (Creating Undead).

And while Negative Energy may not be evil in itself, when it awakens into consciousness, it is inevitably at odds with life, and thus Evil. Whether it's evil or not, Negative Energy IS the antithesis of life.

[Urpriest]

Also, my understanding was that free-willed (as opposed to controlled, but uncommanded) mindless undead (well, skeletons and zombies anyway) don't just stand there, they actively seek out mortals to kill.

While this doesn't seem supported by the MM and Libris Mortis entries, I remember it being given as justification for why zombies and skeletons were given NE alignment during the 3.5 transition (they used to be true neutral, like animals and golems). I'd have to dig up my old Dragons from that period to check, though.

[hamishspence]

While this doesn't seem supported by the MM and Libris Mortis entries, I remember it being given as justification for why zombies and skeletons were given NE alignment during the 3.5 transition (they used to be true neutral, like animals and golems). I'd have to dig up my old Dragons from that period to check, though.

Interestingly, Draconomicon - an early 3.5 book - had Zombie Dragons and Skeletal Dragons as TN - maybe they didn't get the memo?

[Cikomyr]

Also, my understanding was that free-willed (as opposed to controlled, but uncommanded) mindless undead (well, skeletons and zombies anyway) don't just stand there, they actively seek out mortals to kill.

While this doesn't seem supported by the MM and Libris Mortis entries, I remember it being given as justification for why zombies and skeletons were given NE alignment during the 3.5 transition (they used to be true neutral, like animals and golems). I'd have to dig up my old Dragons from that period to check, though.

So undeads are some sort of predators?

[Psyren]

So undeads are some sort of predators?

They're described as predators multiple times in LM.

[Cikomyr]

They're described as predators multiple times in LM.

How does that make them evil?

a Tiger isn't evil, yet still hunts and kills

[Psyren]

How does that make them evil?

a Tiger isn't evil, yet still hunts and kills

But Tigers hunt to feed themselves, or their children. Undead simply do it compulsively, whether they need to or not. Worse, some create spawn from their victims, who then go on to do the same thing, exponentially. Left alone long enough, a single Shadow or Wight would erase all mortal life on the plane - no tiger would do that.

[Squark]

How does that make them evil?

a Tiger isn't evil, yet still hunts and kills

I think it has to do with how they hunt. Tigers hunt other animals so they can feed themselves and their young. Shadows, on the other hand, hunt humanoids so they can enslave them to their bidding. Plus, there's an element of sadism to their consciously chosen hunting pattern that animals don't have (Cats play with their food to ensure its too tired to attack. Shadows play with their food because they think its hilarious).

With an uncontrolled zombie on the other hand, well, it doesn't need anything. It could stand there, doing nothing, for all time. Instead, it attacks anything that gets too close, without provocation. That's why it's evil.


At least, that's my interpretation of the lore, at least.

[shylocke]

Gold or silver dragon is good enough to be exalted. It could just use sanctify creature.

[Fable Wright]

I think it has to do with how they hunt. Tigers hunt other animals so they can feed themselves and their young. Shadows, on the other hand, hunt humanoids so they can enslave them to their bidding. Plus, there's an element of sadism to their consciously chosen hunting pattern that animals don't have (Cats play with their food to ensure its too tired to attack. Shadows play with their food because they think its hilarious).

So what about the common housecat, that simply kills smaller animals for fun because of their instincts, even when they have no intention of feeding themselves or others, and yet retain a TN alignment? The MM entry for Shadows explicitly says that they don't hunt humanoids to enslave them, BTW, they just view the spawn as an annoying after-effect of their hunting. Also, despite the intent of playing for food, the fact remains that both of them play with their food, essentially torturing their victims. So why is the Housecat still TN when the Shadow is Evil?

[Andezzar]

I always found assigning alignments to non-sentient creatures or creatures that do not have a choice but to act in a certain way weird.

[Eldonauran]

So what about the common housecat, that simply kills smaller animals for fun because of their instincts, even when they have no intention of feeding themselves or others, and yet retain a TN alignment? The MM entry for Shadows explicitly says that they don't hunt humanoids to enslave them, BTW, they just view the spawn as an annoying after-effect of their hunting. Also, despite the intent of playing for food, the fact remains that both of them play with their food, essentially torturing their victims. So why is the Housecat still TN when the Shadow is Evil?

I think it has something to do with the level of intelligence the creature possesses. A house cat has 1 - 2 Int. A shadow has 3+ Int. A housecat lacks the intelligence to make moral decisions (as described in the rules) while a shadow has more than enough intelligence to make those choices and revel in the pain and suffering it causes.

In short: Animals don't know better. Intelligent undead do. Mindless undead are simply creations that run on instinct. They were created by an evil action (evil spell or the work of another evil creature) and exist only to prey to the living.

[KillianHawkeye]

Really not even Saint Cuthbert will take her under his wing the man has Evil Clerics and is all about the brining of the Pain?

I think you got your facts wrong. Saint Cuthbert, despite being Lawful Neutral, still does NOT accept Evil clerics. And he is not "all about bringing the pain." His portfolio is lawful punishment and retribution, not the spreading of pain and misery, etc.

[Psyren]

So what about the common housecat, that simply kills smaller animals for fun because of their instincts, even when they have no intention of feeding themselves or others, and yet retain a TN alignment?

Yet another WotC editing error. Everyone knows that the housecat entry belongs in BoVD after all. :smalltongue:

Joking aside - the situations are hardly comparable. For one thing, I don't know of any housecats that target sapient life. I also don't know of any housecats that propagate through killing.

That latter aspect of spawn-creating undead is similar to a virus. And using the "thinning the veil" theory, creating any undead is like creating a lethal virus in an random village with no safety precautions. Even if no malice is intended on the necromancer's part, it's still extremely irresponsible to do.

[FabulousFizban]

Dragons are basically giant lizardy cats. They all share a common set of traits (greed, territoriality, sleeping all day) that can overpower their default alignment to a variable degree. I would say that a dragon that's changed his alignment would be likelier to drift towards NN rather than towards any extreme alignment.

I am absolutely adding a giant near-immortal cat to my campaign. He will have a hoard of string, keyboards, and shinys. YOU ARE ALL COMMONERS TO CAT-GOD! KNEEL BEFORE CAT-GOD! RUB HIS BELLY!

[Rubik]

I am absolutely adding a giant near-immortal cat to my campaign. He will have a hoard of string, keyboards, and shinys. YOU ARE ALL COMMONERS TO CAT-GOD! KNEEL BEFORE CAT-GOD! RUB HIS BELLY!And then lose body parts when it mauls you for doing so.

[FabulousFizban]

I had the idea, in a thread about draconic alignments a few years back, that maybe we're looking at this the wrong way round. Maybe it's not "cold-breathing white dragons are evil", maybe it's "cold-breathing evil dragons are white".

So dragons are as free-willed as anyone else, and have no more "inherent" tendencies towards anything than humans do. But when a dragon changes alignment, it changes colour.

Think about it. Just for fun.

This idea intrigues me. In much the same way that elves change over time to reflect their surroundings (i always wondered about this in regards to the genesis of the drow), a dragon could change it's appearance to reflect it's alignment. If this was the case, we would expect to see "transitional" dragons would we not?

Also, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? CAT-GOD DEMANDS TO LIE ON TOP OF IT AND STARE AT YOU JUDGMENTALLY!

[Tragak]

Nature-only argument: "If you are born a (Red, Gold, Green, Silver…) Dragon, then you will behave exactly the same as all of the others."

Nuture-only argument: "If you are raised by a particular Dragon, then you will behave exactly the way that s/he did."

Choice-only argument: "You either have (completely logical, completely at the conscious level) free will or you do not. If a lamb and a lion were both made sentient, then each would make their decisions in exactly the same way as the other; sentience would've replaced their instincts, not supplemented them. Only non-sentient brains can be distinguished from one another; sentience is sentience."

My argument: "Don't all of those play a role?"

[Thanatosia]

My interpretation is that all dragons are 'born' with their given alignment, 100% of the time. But as sentient Free-willed creatures, as they learn and gain experiences, some may drift to other alignments as a result of those experiences. But much like humans of any given nature, dragons don't change their core nature easily... it usually takes something profound.

[Grayson01]

I think you got your facts wrong. Saint Cuthbert, despite being Lawful Neutral, still does NOT accept Evil clerics. And he is not "all about bringing the pain." His portfolio is lawful punishment and retribution, not the spreading of pain and misery, etc.

I will concead the point that Despite RAW he dose not have evil Clerics. How ever I never said anything about Spreading of Pain and Misery. i said about bringing the Pain, as in all of his fluff says he is about Punishment and Vegence and doing so pretty aburptly and with out remoruse. Saint Curthburt is dipcited as hardline advacate of Smash the wicked.

[Cikomyr]

Meh. You can always wave away the Alignment restriction on St-Cuthbert Clerics. You are the bloody GM, and if your player can pull off a LE character who really follow St-Cuthbert's doctrine, then so be it.

[KoboldMasteRace]

First off, Fizban, your name is a :smallcool: fabulous :smallcool: reference.

Second, dragons are inherently NPCs, meaning they can be whatever alignment they're needed as for story purposes.

Dragons are, however, born into their alignment. So that makes variation a LOT harder. Just something to keep in mind.

[KillianHawkeye]

I will concead the point that Despite RAW he dose not have evil Clerics. How ever I never said anything about Spreading of Pain and Misery. i said about bringing the Pain, as in all of his fluff says he is about Punishment and Vegence and doing so pretty aburptly and with out remoruse. Saint Curthburt is dipcited as hardline advacate of Smash the wicked.

I understand that "bringing the Pain" is an idiom for kicking ass and taking names, but retribution does not require the target to feel pain. That was my point. Cuthbert is all about punishing the wicked, whether that punishment is painful or not.

Also, it's not "despite the RAW." It IS the RAW.

Alignment: A cleric's alignment must be within one step of his deity's (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both). Exceptions are the clerics of St. Cuthbert (a lawful neutral deity), who may choose only between lawful good and lawful neutral for their alignment. A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity's alignment is also neutral.