I for one welcome our new dragon overlords!

[Dusk Raven]

All right, so, the basic premise of this is: What would a fantasy setting ruled by dragons be like? Hardly original, but it's a kind of world I rather like the idea of.

So, basically, I consider dragons the paragons of existence in my own D&D/Pathfinder setting. In the backstory of the world, all life and arcane magic was created by dragons, and they watch over their progeny with varying amounts of benevolence, curiosity, malice, and amusement. It makes sense, therefore, that civilization would have began and continued under the watchful eyes of the dragons. So, I ask the playground this: in a world where dragons are the most powerful beings around, know it, and take an active role (or at least some of them do) in the affairs of mortals, what would life be like? What might politics, society, even adventuring turn out as? Imagine all manner of dragon behaviors - from the solitary, greedy creatures of yore to more modern (or oriental) views of wise beings.

[AuthorGirl]

All right, so, the basic premise of this is: What would a fantasy setting ruled by dragons be like? Hardly original, but it's a kind of world I rather like the idea of.

So, basically, I consider dragons the paragons of existence in my own D&D/Pathfinder setting. In the backstory of the world, all life and arcane magic was created by dragons, and they watch over their progeny with varying amounts of benevolence, curiosity, malice, and amusement. It makes sense, therefore, that civilization would have began and continued under the watchful eyes of the dragons. So, I ask the playground this: in a world where dragons are the most powerful beings around, know it, and take an active role (or at least some of them do) in the affairs of mortals, what would life be like? What might politics, society, even adventuring turn out as? Imagine all manner of dragon behaviors - from the solitary, greedy creatures of yore to more modern (or oriental) views of wise beings.
Well, if you're using the basic alignments that I know about, Good dragons (Good is situational, relative, and prey to convenient rationalizations - keep that in mind) would either manipulate adventurers into fighting Evil or assist adventurers in self-initiated crusades. Evil would do the same thing as far as dominating the world and bringing misery and stuff.
One thing to watch out for would be using powerful Good-aligned dragons to save your party from tough situations. Avoid at all costs the use of dragon overlords to serve your party's ends for no legitimate campaign reason (that fits with the overall motivations of that particular dragon).
Personally, I am very excited to see what dragon politics you come up with! I have a lot of fun with elven nobles, myself, but dragons live even longer and could get even more complicated . . .

[avr]

We know mid-high level D&D characters can win fights with dragons. So, what keeps the dragons in power - do they have the mandate of heaven which the common folk follow, do they band together to eliminate any threat from humans, do they bribe other adventurers to assassinate the upstarts?

Dragons probably need an awful lot of meat, especially when awake and socialising with each other. Their larger gatherings will be limited to places with access to large amounts of surplus animals.

Half-dragons exist (unless you change that) so it's possible to get a blood connection to the dragon aristocracy. Probably even harder than to get one to the RL aristocracy though. This might warp humanoid fashion in ways like making metallic or glittering clothing permanently fashionable, dragon masks and headdresses resembling their horns and frills desirable, gloves which appear scaled or clawed a gentleman's standard gear.

[Everyl]

Whenever I hear talk of a setting like this, I recommend taking a look at the published 2e setting Council of Wyrms, which is about a setting in which dragons are not only the dominant race, but also the intended player-character race. A fair amount of energy was put into considering what a dragon society might look like, though some of the base assumptions sound different from those of your setting.

How populous are dragons in your setting? The more common they are, the more direct influence they'll have on the daily lives of people. If dragons are rare, then a single dragon might rule as a god-king, or as the legitimizing power behind the throne of a dynasty of humanoid puppet-kings. With a tax base the size of an empire, the cost of feeding a giant lizard monster isn't particularly significant. If they're more populous, then there may be places where the land has been divided up into parcels just large enough to support a dragon, with the issue of how much meat humanoids can produce as tax/tribute being critical to the season-to-season survival of individual dragons.

[MrZJunior]

Are dragons likely to coperate with each other?

[Verstaka]

I imagine that it would break down very much like fiefdoms in the middle ages. There is perhaps a lone dragon (or council depending on your world) that oversee everything. Ofcourse they can micromanage everything so they divide tracts of land among other dragons for each dragon to govern as they see fit. Now how each dragon rules his own fief could differ greatly. CG dragons may delegate humans to govern the day to day and only appear at times of great need or to offer their input on a divisive issue whereas evil dragons may use their fief as playgrounds and revel in their riches.

For this system to work the "world dragon" would need some sort of tribute from each fief. Perhaps it's a simple tax, maybe the blood of arcane casters to fuel a ritual eons I'm the works, who knows. But it would be something that as long as the world dragon received the required amount would not interfere even if two dragon fiefs are warring with eachother.


This would allow for a variety of cultures and nations to arise while still keeping dragons as the ruling class. Perhaps you could make every nations ruler atleast an Old dragon and people have stayed with the status quo so far because stories speak of the horrible events that unfolded last time the mortal races tried to throw off the dragons yoke. Heck many of the good and some neutral dragon nations may not even mind.

[Dusk Raven]

So many worthy replies! While I don't like to be the only one replying to the various comments, I'll give it a shot...


Well, if you're using the basic alignments that I know about, Good dragons (Good is situational, relative, and prey to convenient rationalizations - keep that in mind) would either manipulate adventurers into fighting Evil or assist adventurers in self-initiated crusades. Evil would do the same thing as far as dominating the world and bringing misery and stuff.
One thing to watch out for would be using powerful Good-aligned dragons to save your party from tough situations. Avoid at all costs the use of dragon overlords to serve your party's ends for no legitimate campaign reason (that fits with the overall motivations of that particular dragon).
Personally, I am very excited to see what dragon politics you come up with! I have a lot of fun with elven nobles, myself, but dragons live even longer and could get even more complicated . . .

Ah yes, though using dragons to bail the party out is no different than using other, more powerful adventurers to do the same thing. Which is to say, they're both things to be avoided unless neccessary as a DM Saving Throw of sorts to avoid an accidental TPK. I have, once, used a dragon to excuse outright cheating - I was actually playing a RTS fantasy game, King Arthur the Roleplay Wargame, and the broken abominations that were ghost armies were wreaking havoc on my forces in single-player. Finally, I got fed up, opened up console commands, triggered an auto-win, and said, "You all saw that. A dragon got 'em." One problem I think would get in the way, though - as I mentioned, dragons are the paragons of life in my setting, and they see themselves as such. While this may mean they delegate lesser tasks to adventurers, major events will draw their attention, and they may well think they are the only ones that can handle the matter, so dragon interference at that level is inevitable.

Dragon politics! A fun thing to ponder, to be sure. I'll have to post that later, though, more things to reply to!


We know mid-high level D&D characters can win fights with dragons. So, what keeps the dragons in power - do they have the mandate of heaven which the common folk follow, do they band together to eliminate any threat from humans, do they bribe other adventurers to assassinate the upstarts?

Dragons probably need an awful lot of meat, especially when awake and socialising with each other. Their larger gatherings will be limited to places with access to large amounts of surplus animals.

Half-dragons exist (unless you change that) so it's possible to get a blood connection to the dragon aristocracy. Probably even harder than to get one to the RL aristocracy though. This might warp humanoid fashion in ways like making metallic or glittering clothing permanently fashionable, dragon masks and headdresses resembling their horns and frills desirable, gloves which appear scaled or clawed a gentleman's standard gear.

Key word with adventurers beating dragons is that they can beat dragons, not will. Even the lowest-CR Mature Adult Dragon (which I figure is a reasonable age to gain power over humanoids) are upwards of 11 CR in Pathfinder, and adventurers of that caliber aren't common. It would of course behoove any dragon to maintain a circle of humanoid adventurers as allies and to prepare for such an option, but anyone who makes a habit of dragonslaying is going to find themselves targeted by dragons who have allied for their mutual safety.

Meat? Yeah, you're right, hadn't thought about that. Although... it occurs to me, in my setting, if dragons created life, then they were around before there was organic food... so they probably don't need food. Either that, or they're like MLP: FiM dragons in that they can (and prefer to) eat gemstones or the like. Maybe that's why they hoard loot - emergency food supplies!

I like the idea of humans emulating dragon "fashion," though not all dragons may find it flattering. But as for marrying into the nobility, so to speak, I think becoming part of a dragon's family would be easier than marrying into the nobility. Depending on the dragon's, uh, liberal-ness with taking mates or consorts, they may not care for social status of the humanoid. Evil dragons might indeed prefer wealth a la the princess-kidnapping dragons of old, while good dragons might prefer heroism, and any dragon might simply take a fancy to whoever they please - I like to imagine that dragon society is more of a meritocracy, so their full-dragon offspring aren't guaranteed positions, in which case a few humanoids on the side wouldn't be frowned upon. Heck, they might not have problems with bastard children on the grounds of bastardry not even being a concept for them.


Whenever I hear talk of a setting like this, I recommend taking a look at the published 2e setting Council of Wyrms, which is about a setting in which dragons are not only the dominant race, but also the intended player-character race. A fair amount of energy was put into considering what a dragon society might look like, though some of the base assumptions sound different from those of your setting.

How populous are dragons in your setting? The more common they are, the more direct influence they'll have on the daily lives of people. If dragons are rare, then a single dragon might rule as a god-king, or as the legitimizing power behind the throne of a dynasty of humanoid puppet-kings. With a tax base the size of an empire, the cost of feeding a giant lizard monster isn't particularly significant. If they're more populous, then there may be places where the land has been divided up into parcels just large enough to support a dragon, with the issue of how much meat humanoids can produce as tax/tribute being critical to the season-to-season survival of individual dragons.

Interseting... I'll have to look into that. As for how populous, it's a bit difficult to estimate the carrying capacity an ecosystem has for dragons - especially if, as mentioned above, they can use alternate sources of sustenance. I suspect the primary cause of dragon deaths is combat - and the population might as a result be less than the carrying capacity. I'd also have to figure out the age demographic, which is tied to rates of morality per age. I suspect a plurality if not a majority of deaths happen before adulthood, which seems to be the case for most long-lived creatures on Earth, modern humans aside. Thus, early life is rather cutthroat, but as they get older and get more into the swing of things the survival rate gets higher.

As for the population of dragons in power, I suspect various levels of titles can be filled by dragons. Kings, counts, and dukes are likely dragons. Once we get down to the "knight" level, things change a bit - here is where a number of humans can have some measure of power, as someone needs to hold that level of fine management amongst humans, and most of the dragons at this level are younger adults getting a start in the hierarchy of power. Partly this is because, since dragons take a while to die, inheritance of power doesn't happen often, so humans can usually reach knight level in their lifetime, while dragons are in it for the very long haul.


Are dragons likely to coperate with each other?

Inasmuch as they see it for their benefit. Dragons seem to be quite individualistic, but having threats on hand, like more powerful dragons, has a way of making anyone cooperate. Alliances between dragons may be only that, though - alliances, rather than more rigid or formal arrangements. This does, however, make me think of something - I wonder if dragon "nations" are composed of dragons of a single color. That way, they need "only" tell their anti-dragon troops the weaknesses of other dragon types. Dragons are a bit individualistic, so there's probably exceptions here and there, especially with half-dragons, unless, as I think is the case in D&D, dragon types don't like other types very much. Heh, now I've got an image of ten dragon nations, one for each true dragon color, and a number of outer nations of other types. Each dragon even has preferred terrain types, so we know what the geography of each is like.


I imagine that it would break down very much like fiefdoms in the middle ages. There is perhaps a lone dragon (or council depending on your world) that oversee everything. Ofcourse they can micromanage everything so they divide tracts of land among other dragons for each dragon to govern as they see fit. Now how each dragon rules his own fief could differ greatly. CG dragons may delegate humans to govern the day to day and only appear at times of great need or to offer their input on a divisive issue whereas evil dragons may use their fief as playgrounds and revel in their riches.

For this system to work the "world dragon" would need some sort of tribute from each fief. Perhaps it's a simple tax, maybe the blood of arcane casters to fuel a ritual eons I'm the works, who knows. But it would be something that as long as the world dragon received the required amount would not interfere even if two dragon fiefs are warring with eachother.


This would allow for a variety of cultures and nations to arise while still keeping dragons as the ruling class. Perhaps you could make every nations ruler atleast an Old dragon and people have stayed with the status quo so far because stories speak of the horrible events that unfolded last time the mortal races tried to throw off the dragons yoke. Heck many of the good and some neutral dragon nations may not even mind.

The fief system probably does work best, though each arch-ruler probably has some territory - likely a capital city or fortress - that they manage on their own, giving them individual power on par with other dragons. How each king manages or doesn't manage their dragons probably depends on the type. Some may intervene in conflicts to bring peace or to favor the more just or worthy side, while others may simply let the two fiefs battle to see who wins.

Okay, some thoughts on dragon rule: one thing that comes to mind, repeatedly, is their individuality. There's a few consequences of that. For one thing, they may not have as much a sense of race or class unity as human nobles might. Young dragons aren't an uncommon sight in populated areas, but these aren't nobility, these are dragons trying to survive and get a leg up in the world. They may act haughty or a tad superior, but they're all too keenly aware that they don't presently have great power - or at least, the smart ones are. And any young dragon who acts out of line and incurs the wrath of an elder dragon gets reprimanded at best and stamped out at worst. Even if they come into peril from humans, other dragons are unlikely to be sympathetic. Whether it's a simple case of thinking that any true dragon should be able to avoid or outfight mere humans, or seeing the dragon has having deserved it for harassing humans, the unfortunate troublemaker can't expect much help. As an extension of this, it takes a bit for dragons to be insulted through insulting their race, or to recognize hate crimes as what they are. Anyone who targets dragons indiscriminately will of course become targeted by self-interested dragons, but isolated attacks aren't seen as a threat to all dragonkind. As another extension of this, I wonder if dragons are very good at not generalizing species. They know very much that the actions of a dragon don't represent the actions of all dragonkind or even their own type, so if humans do something bad, they'll focus on the individuals and won't likely assign blame to all humanoids.

I wonder if this all stems from a deep psychological isolation. They don't divide the world into dragons and non-dragons, they divide the world into themselves and everything else. Subdivisions occur in the latter category, of course (and possibly the former if we have a multiple-personality-disorder dragon on our claws), but they lack a sense of solidarity with other dragons, or equivalence for that matter. On some level, they see themselves as one day becoming the greatest dragon in the world, and everyone else gets categorized not by inherent value, but by their individual usefulness or friendliness to the dragon. In the case of the good dragons this doesn't make them incapable of empathy, or even of serving a greater cause, but this ego-centrism is a subtle but pervasive thing. Thankfully, they don't demand worship at all times - they're in it for the long haul, as mentioned, and they know they have a long way to go, and fitting into a pecking order is a part of that. But they expect some measure of respect, and remember disrespect quite well.

One last thing - fear of death. If there's anything I learned from Isaac Asimov that doesn't involve robots, it's that the longer you expect to live naturally, the more afraid you are of dying unnaturally. A dragon has over a thousand years of life if they're careful, so naturally most of them are going to be careful. This may make them overly cautious and wary of risking their lives, thanks to this fact and their ego-centrism. Little wonder they court the service of adventurers and the alliances of other dragons - all the more people on their side who aren't them, and the more people they can delegate dangerous tasks to.

[Nobot]

It's always an interesting premise!

If dragons are CR 11 and up, I wonder if they would even care about humans in any other way than humans care about, I don't know, chickens? Sure, humanoid races that can get class levels may one day grow strong enough to be a threat to dragons or dragon infants, just like a cat can harm a baby, but in general no one's going to achieve that level of power quickly. I think the dragons would, each according to his own nature, pay very little heed to humanoids, considering them: a) prey, b) a potential threat that needs to be culled every now and then, c) pets, d) motes of dust, e) something innocent that needs to be protected.

Like most solitary predators, dragons will likely have territories. They may have gained them by brute force, custom, or even an organized political system. I find the latter to be very unlikely as there is not much in dragon nature that makes them draw to others of their kind (except the occasional mating). Once their spawn have grown, they usually cast them out of the nest. When creatures do not gather to live together because they're not social, I wonder how much actual 'politics' there will actually be, other than the odd century-old grudge or alliance.

So, when I envision a world ruled by dragons, I see them perched atop lonely mountain peaks, overseeing their domains, and chasing their personal goals, be they to learn arcane secrets, to feed, to hoard treasure, or to watch the world burn. Creatures in their domain will be prey at worst and subjects of a benevolent but absent master at best, although the rare individual dragon may take on a more active role.

The feeling of such a campaign world would be a dark one. The societies of sentient beings will not be allowed to grow too large, simply because there are way too many dragons out there that would intervene whenever men gather strength. Sentient beings should live in small communities, be primitive, and live in fear of an overlord who can end them on a whim. The only exception should be the occasional protectorate where a dragon has bound himself to defend a family, village, city, or even nation, due perhaps to blood ties, amusement, a desire to do 'good', or as payment for services rendered once by a sentient creature (or its forebears). You could even consider to have men take to areas where the large dragons cannot reach them easily, such as in small caves or tunnels or in forests (though these should not be glorious Moria or Lonely Mountain affairs, for obvious reasons).

Adventuring could be the same as simply leading a nomadic existence in such a world. Perhaps (some) dragons commonly limit the maximum number of sentient beings they'll tolerate in any one community, forcing such communities to cast out the excess, who take to wandering, banditry, adventuring, etcetera, until they meet their end through the many dangers of the world. Of course, the dream of living under a benevolent master (or perhaps even under no master) would be important among sentient creatures, and some might even take to wandering in search of such a place. It could be the subject of religions and myth among sentient beings as well, who might revere a benevolent dragon of legend, or a more human-like god that promises independence.

Keen to read what else people come up with!

[Mascara]

Are they D&D dragons? Generic dragons? Or a new type of dragon exclusive for this setting?
The latter is more interesting.

[avr]

Gem-eating (is that lapiphagous?) objectivist dragons, OK. And I think you're saying that adventurers seeking to take and hold a territory would face attacks not just from the dragons originally ruling the place, but also from those dragons' allies until the adventurers lose or give up? I'm just wondering if there might be any non dragon-ruled lands. The egocentric model of dragons seems to suggest that there'd be some place where the dragon alliances ran out before the adventurers did.

A land with rulers living centuries who like meat (even if they don't need it) is likely to notice some trends and stop them, especially given their easy access to aerial observation. Expect strong anti-erosion laws & limits on unwise irrigation, that sort of thing.

Also given the long lifespans they could commission wonders which dwarf the Pyramids and the Sphinx if they cared. Strong egocentrism suggests they'd care.

Paranoia and a pattern of gathering adventurer hangers-on also suggests to me that dangerous-to-dragon monsters are likely to die fast. Unless there's something which creates them (chaos mutations, divine intervention, etc.), the larger giants and other CR 11+ monsters may not even exist.

[Dusk Raven]

Gem-eating (is that lapiphagous?) objectivist dragons, OK. And I think you're saying that adventurers seeking to take and hold a territory would face attacks not just from the dragons originally ruling the place, but also from those dragons' allies until the adventurers lose or give up? I'm just wondering if there might be any non dragon-ruled lands. The egocentric model of dragons seems to suggest that there'd be some place where the dragon alliances ran out before the adventurers did.

objectivist

...

Well, thanks for making me want to completely abandon that facet of theirs. Fortunately, I think there's a number of things they could do that fall outside the bounds of objectivism, and only the evil dragons would match Ayn Rand's level of sociopathy.

Anyway, non-dragon-ruled lands... I'm sure there's a few, but these would mostly be minor states. Harsh terrain and climate is no obstacle for dragons, so they'll likely set up wherever they can survive. As for alliances running out, yeah, they do... right where the chromatic dragon alliances begin. Much like humans, they are divided into power blocs. And whether or not they resist an adventuring group attempting to carve out territory depends on whether or not they perceive the actions of the adventurers as a reaction to a particular dragon, or a threat to all dragonkind. Or at least their color. If that. I suspect, being largely solitary creatures, dragons don't have much sense of racial unity. They're not at all prevented from forming personal bonds with anyone they please, but they're not going to help another dragon just because they're another dragon. They have to have some stake in it. The more "lawful" dragons may have setups such that anyone in a particular alliance that gets attacked can expect help from others because they will help them in turn, but others might not care.



A land with rulers living centuries who like meat (even if they don't need it) is likely to notice some trends and stop them, especially given their easy access to aerial observation. Expect strong anti-erosion laws & limits on unwise irrigation, that sort of thing.

Also given the long lifespans they could commission wonders which dwarf the Pyramids and the Sphinx if they cared. Strong egocentrism suggests they'd care.

A very definite possibility. Humans at least tend to not react much to slow changes, but when you have an event that goes across a generation or two, that need not even be a different age category for a dragon, and they may be better at noticing long-term trends.

The monuments thing is also a fun thought - at least the dragons wouldn't mind very long-term projects, which may frustrate architects who wish to see their projects completed within their lifetime. But it also means they don't need to have a huge labor force working on it so much to get it done, so the peasants can go at a leisurely pace.


Paranoia and a pattern of gathering adventurer hangers-on also suggests to me that dangerous-to-dragon monsters are likely to die fast. Unless there's something which creates them (chaos mutations, divine intervention, etc.), the larger giants and other CR 11+ monsters may not even exist.

An interesting thought. Since dragons are equally capable of thriving in the wilderness or in cities, the things they might perceive as threats could number quite a few. The surviving exceptions would probably either be underground creatures, outsiders, or anything the dragons can control (like giants). Since dragon/human politics would be a big part of this setting that's not a bad thing, I think.

[vasharanpaladin]

So, when I envision a world ruled by dragons, I see them perched atop lonely mountain peaks, overseeing their domains, and chasing their personal goals, be they to learn arcane secrets, to feed, to hoard treasure, or to watch the world burn. Creatures in their domain will be prey at worst and subjects of a benevolent but absent master at best, although the rare individual dragon may take on a more active role.

For some reason, I think of the Abh from Crest of the Stars? An individual dragon might lord over multiple mortal states, and care not one wit for how any of them are run individually, so long as they don't interfere with its own designs. Hell, the dragon might even be polite about announcing its intent to annex one! And then, just so that the dragon doesn't have to sully its claws with the day-to-day crap, it only has to meet with the rulers of the nations in its thrall, as the representatives of those nations. If it bothers to hold audience at all.

[kraftcheese]

Depends on how you want to handle your dragons; I guess each could have extended draconic families that they delegate smaller tasks to, ranging from True, Full-on Dragons up the top of the heirachy down to bastard offspring of polymorphed dragon/humanoid affairs (half dragons) as landed knights and maybe Dragonborn as a dedicated warrior race/public servants.

Maybe some of the kinder/more pragmatic dragons believe humanoids deserve higher places in society/public service or that they can learn from humanoids different perspectives on issues (whether its purely for draconic benefit or just because theyre just Nice Scaly Guys)?

Maybe all dragons are hermaphroditic "queens" with a huge clan all descended from them, hereditarily subservient to their glorious progenitor?

[Dusk Raven]

All right, so this idea has grown and grown, and it refuses to be left alone. Thus, I am now earnestly plotting a campaign set in a world of dragon rulers. I've decided to use the ten True Dragons of the monster manual as rulers of the starting area, though I will include other dragon types. I haven't decided whether to use Pathfinder or 3.5, although even with Pathfinder it will incorporate heavy elements of the Draconomicon and other books. And I also know of a dragon character generator for 3.5, so that's cool. Oh yeah, I may have all the PCs be Juvenile dragons. Hehe.

Despite me using True Dragons, I'm loosening alignments a little. A good part of this game will be political, and clear-cut good and evil races are not good for that sort of setting. I think instead of good and evil, it's more like, Metallic Dragons believe in giving power to humanoids while the Chromatic Dragons are... less so. There will still be propaganda about both sides, but it's up to the players to discover the veracity of it all.

In accordance with this, I may be re-writing the dragon types a bit to make the Metallic ones slightly less noble and the Chromatic dragons less evil. Case in point are the Black Dragons, where I started coming up with my own take on them out of sheer boredom and disgust with Pathfinder's description of them being insanely evil (seriously, I don't understand how they'd even survive...). In a word, my version of Black Dragons has them simply be rather bitter about being looked down on by other dragons, though this does have good as well as bad effects on their psyche. I'll be writing up alternate versions of the others and posting them in due time.

Also, I'm renaming the Brass and Bronze Dragons - largely because both those metals are alloys of copper. I'm thinking, for new names and colors, either iron, lead, tin, or cobalt - making sure to leave one for the new Metallic type I'm adding. That's right - I'm adding two new true dragon types - one Chromatic type that's allied with the Metallics, and one Metallic that's allied with the Chromatics. Why? I don't really know. Because I can!

Anyway. Thoughts?

[avr]

Sounds cool. I guess the negative side of giving power to humanoids is that the metallic dragons will want to promptly use them as pawns?

Anyway, Bronze and Brass dragons, renamed.

Brass dragons, unless you change this, live in deserts, breathe fire or sleep gas, are weak as dragons go and enjoy conversation. Tin takes a nice polish, is not especially strong, and crumbles in cold conditions. Cobalt compounds tend to be blue, which matches the colour of another dragon noted for living in deserts. Either might work for brass.

Bronze dragons live on the coast, breathe electricity or a repulsion effect, and are much more physically dangerous and physically inclined. Frankly taking repulsion -> magnetism and the physical aspect this has to be iron.

If you want one odd metal out in the metal/chromatic split I'd take mercury. Being liquid at room temperature makes it weird for a metal, and it's generally more interesting than lead. Dunno what stats you'd want to use.

Pathfinder has stats for a sea dragon. If you take sea-green as the odd colour out you could use those stats and say that they have a history which includes occasional friendship or more with humans. There's any number of selkie tales or similar you could draw upon.

[MrZJunior]

Why not make brass and bronze dragons hybrids that managed to acrue enough power and influence to graduate to the status of true dragons? Other longer established lines can refer to them sniffily as "alloys."

A bit late for this, but I would expect to find some independent humanoid states on isolated islands or other areas unsuitable for dragons. I figure that because these lands would be incapable of supporting a dragon they would be uninterested in administering them. The humanoids would probably owe at least token fealty to some dragon lord but would probably be left alone to manage their own affairs.